Apocalypse Soon?

[Futilitist]

"Since his first estimates failed to come to pass, I suspect a new slew of apocalypses real soon now."
~billvon

I have only been trying to time the one inevitable apocalypse that we have been approaching since civilization began.

The human species has far overshot it's resource base and collapse is the only possible outcome. Since collapse is inevitable, the only question has been the timing. Timing collapse is a very difficult thing to do. I think my timing guesses haven't been too far off, especially as of now, because I have some very important new information for everyone:

I can now predict the date of the onset of collapse with near absolute certainty: June of 2014. In other words, I am no longer attempting to predict the future. I am now stating that the collapse of industrial civilization has already begun! And I can prove it.

I will get to the detailed physics proof of collapse, but first we need to cover some conceptual ground. To get the ball rolling, I made a simple graph. I call this graph the Futilitist Collapse Challenge:

In the oil price graph above, the black line represents the rising cost of oil production, and the green line represents the falling affordability of oil for consumers. In a reasonably functioning economy, the green line will be above the black line, and oil will trade in between the two lines. In june of 2014, the black line crossed the green line and the price of oil crashed.

The green line is now no longer on top of the black line, as it is supposed to be. We have entered a new economic paradigm, in which consumers can no longer afford high priced oil, and producers cannot make a profit on low priced oil. Catch-22.

The challenge (game?) is to come up with some sort of realistic scenario whereby the green line resumes it’s former healthy position above the black line, and oil once again trades in between them. I don’t think it can be done. If a workable solution cannot be arrived at, I submit that there is no possible way to avoid the collapse that has already begun.

C’mon, folks, take the Futilitist challenge. Try to save the world, and prove me wrong at the same time. I dare you.


---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

OMG, that's just too dumb/incoherent to bother with. This "collapse" is going great for me, so I'll continue to enjoy my prosperous "collapse".

 

[Futilitist]

Okay. Nice try, Russ.

Unfortunately, ignoring the Futilitist Collapse Challenge is not the same as winning it.

So, you loose. Thanks for playing.

Who's next?


---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

This is a joke, right? You're just trolling to see who you can get to fall for it, aren't you?

In either case, before you throw new garbage into the ring, you have to clean-up the old garbage: You have to admit and explain your previous failure, otherwise there's no way to move forward. If you don't, we can just continuously point out your atrocious track record as evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about. Without showing you learned from your mistakes, there is no reason to think your new garbage should be any better than your old garbage.

 

[Futilitist]

Russ,

Since I am actually presenting something new and quite substantive, and you are refusing to look at it, then you are the one who is clearly trolling.

I told you that I have been trying to predict the timing of a future event, which we all agree is difficult to impossible. It is not surprising that I didn't get it exactly right the first time. But this is very different. I am now looking back in history to identify the onset of the collapse that has already begun, because conditions are now such that positive feedbacks will keep lowering the price of oil, which is already below the cost of production. That is what the Futilitist Collapse Challenge is all about.

Bitch all you want about anything I said in the past. It isn't really relevant.

The point is that right now the oil industry is downsizing because they cannot make a profit at the current oil price, and consumers cannot afford a high enough price for oil companies to make a sufficient profit to maintain production. This is a real catch-22 which you cannot explain away. You are just dodging the question.

Please don't be embarrassed. No one has ever beaten the Futilitist Collapse Challenge.

Once you have admitted that the simple Futilitist Collapse Challenge has stumped you, I will introduce the detailed argument, and the physics model, that proves my theory beyond all doubt.


---Futilitist

 

[Billy T]

Yes a collapse is coming, but NOT much, if at all, related to price of oil. Excessive debt probably proceeds global warming as the trigger:

Worldwide debt has exploded in the eight years since the beginning of the fiscal crisis from an already unsustainable level of $142 trillion to a crushing $200 trillion. The reason? To help paper over gaping holes in national economies, and because our financial system makes it too easy to just "create" money from nothing.

With solar cell prices continuing to fall and when Elon Musk's "giga battery factory" is at full at output and Tesla's cheaper model "popular car" is selling, then many will realize that in the long term, oil must be priced at the marginal production cost or higher.

Thus your green curve, which really reflects falling demand, will continue down in the US, but rise in China and other nation where the average citizen is (unlike in US) gaining purchasing power. Your black curve is the marginal production cost. Where they cross or on which side the green curve is on, is not very significant. Certainly not the cause of the recent rapidly falling oil prices. That was caused by a political call by the Saudi Oil ministry.- A reversal of prior policy that modulated production to keep oil price high and some what stable.

Russ is correct: you invented fictional relation of curve crossing as the cause of the large fall in oil prices is as he said:
"... just too dumb/incoherent to bother with. This "collapse" is going great for me, so I'll continue to enjoy my prosperous "collapse". ..."
Oil prices drastically fell because global storage capacity is full and the Saudis continue to pump more oil.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Yes a collapse is coming...

Certainly not the cause of rapidly falling oil prices. That was caused by a political call by the Saudi Oil ministry.- A reversal of prior policy that modulated production to keep oil price high and some what stable....

Oil prices drastically fell because global storage capacity is full and the Saudis continue to pump more oil.

Yes, the actions of the Saudis were, of course, obvious and all over the news for anyone who was paying attention to see. I have my own prediction for what comes next:

Analysis:
The Saudis (OPEC) have been manipulating oil prices for decades, mostly trying to limit production to keep oil prices artificially high. Last year, for the first time, they did the opposite: they intentionally drove prices down by refusing to adjust to the changing production climate. That "changing production climate" is, of course, due to American fracking.

American fracking has the ability to keep production rising (if that is even necessary) at stable prices under $80/barrel and perhaps even lower, for a decade or two at least (projections beyond that are always murky). But that's bad for the Saudis.

So, the Saudis took action to damage the US fracking industry. And they have; new drilling is way down.

Predictions:
Oil prices will begin to creep-up over the next 6 months or so on their own as existing wells dry up and new ones DON'T come online (individual wells don't last long). Then a new equilibrium would be reached somewhere between today's and last year's prices. That may satisfy the Saudis, but I don't think so.

I predict that the Saudis will "crack the whip" in the second half of this year, reducing production, sending supplies way down and shooting prices way up. It will just be volatility (it won't be permanent), but we are due for our next recession, and that should be enough to make it happen.

 

[billvon]

The green line is now no longer on top of the black line, as it is supposed to be. We have entered a new economic paradigm, in which consumers can no longer afford high priced oil . . . .

Not even close to reality.
=================
US gas prices not going to change any time soon
Average US Family Will Save $700 This Year On Refueling Costs
Apr 9th 2015 at 7:57AM
Autoblog

If you like what you're paying for gas right now, break out the Pina Coladas and the little-bitty Tiki umbrellas. That's because gas prices aren't likely to change anytime soon and thus the annual spike in fuel prices for summer might not happen. So says the US Energy Department.

The DOE put out its short-term energy forecast this week. In a nutshell, summer gas prices should be at their lowest since the summer of 2009, which can be seen as a good thing because the number of overall driving miles is expected to go up about two percent compared to last summer. The DOE says gas prices from April to September could average about $2.45 a gallon, down from $3.59 a gallon last summer.

Of course, this isn't going to be good news for everyone, as sellers of plug-in vehicles and hybrids have seen sales drop this year along with gas prices and potential buyers eschew fuel-sipping vehicles and instead opt for the trucks and (relative) gas-guzzlers. Still, with the lower gas prices, the typical US family will likely save about $700 in fuel expenses this year.
=================

and producers cannot make a profit on low priced oil.

==================
Feb 2, 2015 - 08:00 a.m. EST

ExxonMobil Earns $32.5 Billion in 2014; $6.6 Billion During Fourth Quarter

IRVING, Texae
Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE:XOM) today announced estimated full-year 2014 earnings of $32.5 billion compared with $32.6 billion a year earlier, reflecting the strength of its integrated business model in a lower price environment.

. . . . .
==============

The challenge (game?) is to come up with some sort of realistic scenario whereby the green line resumes it’s former healthy position above the black line, and oil once again trades in between them.

Already done. See facts above. What do I win?

 

[Futilitist]

"Yes a collapse is coming, but..."
~BillyT

Please take the Futilitist Collapse Challenge before presenting alternate theories. Thank you.


"Predictions:
Oil prices will begin to creep-up over the next 6 months or so on their own as existing wells dry up and new ones DON'T come online (individual wells don't last long). Then a new equilibrium would be reached somewhere between today's and last year's prices..."
~Russ_Watters

If that happens, it will mean that oil prices will still not be sufficient to meet the overall average cost of world oil production.

In the mid 1960's, a barrel of 37.5° API crude could produce almost $550 worth of economic activity, and it cost about $1.60. By June 2014, a barrel of oil costing over $100/barrel could produce only $87.35 of economic activity! That is why the price collapsed.

An average oil price above $75/barrel in 2015 is precluded by the laws of physics. By 2016, that physical price limit will be reduced to around $65/barrel. By 2020, the yearly average price of oil will not be able to exceed about $12.50/barrel. All of this is due to entropy proscribed by the second law of thermodynamics. None of these oil prices are sufficient to maintain oil production going forward, since the overall cost of world oil production is now over $105/barrel and climbing. That means the oil industry will rapidly shrink and so will the economy. Get it?

The information in the two paragraphs above is derived from an advanced physics model of the life cycle of oil production, which I have not yet introduced. But you never even tried to solve the Futilitist Collapse Challenge. Please make some kind of attempt to understand the problem so that I can properly introduce the physics model. Thank you.


Hello billvon.

Your first news story suggests that the price of oil is not going to rise much any time soon. That is true and is exactly what I am saying. Your second news story suggests that oil companies are doing just fine with low oil prices. That is simply false. Exxon's paper profits are due to stock buybacks and shrinking investment in future exploration and production.

Since you did not show how oil consumers can pay the full cost of oil production going forward (over $105/barrel and climbing fast), you did not win the Futilitist Collapse Challenge. Thanks for playing.


---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

If that happens, it will mean that oil prices will still not be sufficient to meet the overall average world cost of oil production.

You need to learn what the word "equilibrium" means, then actually think through the implications of the subject instead of just vomiting drunken gibberish onto your keyboard.

By 2020, the yearly average price of oil will not be able to exceed about 12.50/barrel.Allofthisisduetoentropyproscribedbythesecondlawofthermodynamics.Noneoftheseoilpricesaresufficienttomaintainoilproductiongoingforward,sincetheoverallcostofworldoilproductionisnowover105/barrel and climbing. That means the oil industry will rapidly shrink and so will the economy. Get it?

So now you are contradicting yourself and saying the economy will continue to thrive for at least another five years without "rapidly shrinking", even though you said just a few posts above that it already collapsed in an apocalypse almost a year ago.

I honestly hope you are drunk, high or trolling, because what you are saying is just plain stupid.

I am curious though to see if you have a source for your data or if you just made it up.

 

[billvon]

Your first news story suggests that the price of oil is not going to rise much any time soon. That is true and is exactly what I am saying. Your second news story suggests that oil companies are doing just fine with low oil prices. That is simply false.

I didn't say they were doing "just fine." The recent oil glut has reduced their profitability. Last year they made $32.6 billion a quarter; this year they are only making $32.5 billion a quarter. They would surely prefer to make more. However, your statement "producers cannot make a profit on low priced oil" is laughably false, unless you consider making a $32.5 billion profit rather than a $32.6 billion profit "not making a profit."

Since you did not show how oil consumers can pay the full cost of oil production going forward (over $105/barrel and climbing fast), you did not win the Futilitist Collapse Challenge.

Current oil prices $51 a barrel. You are off by a factor of 2.

Looks like your new predictions will be every bit as accurate as your old ones. Thanks for trying though!

 

[Futilitist]

"Current oil prices $51 a barrel. You are off by a factor of 2."
~billvon

I am not off at all. You are. Current world oil prices ($51/barrel) are not sufficient to meet the full cost of oil production. The full cost of oil production includes the cost of current oil production, plus investment in future oil production (totaling over $105+/barrel). In order to maintain a current profit, oil companies are slashing future exploration and production budgets.

Since there is no way to lower the cost of production, you must somehow get the price of oil over $105/barrel to win the Futilitist Collapse Challenge. That would be impossible, of course. That is the catch-22 I want you to appreciate.

I am not interested in playing stupid word games with you, billvon. I have a very serious physics model to present that took a team of physicists thousands of man hours to produce. It really is a game changer in terms of understanding the timing of collapse. If you don't want to know about it, fine. But please don't disrupt. This is a serious discussion.


---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

I have a very serious physics model to present that took a team of physicists thousands of man hours to produce.

This is a serious discussion.

Then please cite the actual work of that team.

 

[Billy T]

... Please take the Futilitist Collapse Challenge. ...

NOT possible to respond to non-sense, like claim Moon's period is 28 days as that is proper time to age blue cheese.

 

[Futilitist]

Russ,

First please admit that you can't solve the Futilitist Collapse Challenge because the current price of oil is not sufficient to meet the cost of current oil production, plus investment in future production (since this is a fact). That is the point of the simple challenge. Once you fully grasp the dilemma we are in, I will show you the physics based model, derived directly from the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The natural result of entropy, in the case of oil depletion, is not intuitive and will seem quite surprising at first. It did to me, too.


Billy T,

The current price of oil is not sufficient to meet the cost of current oil production, plus investment in future production. That is just a fact. Denying the truth is useless. No one can beat the Futilitist Collapse Challenge. Period. Once you accept this, we will move on to the formal proof.



---Futilitist

PS EDIT----

For some reason this information got garbled in a post above. I repeat it here because it is important.

In the mid 1960's, a barrel of 37.5° API crude could produce almost 550 dollars worth of economic activity, and it cost about 1 dollar and 60 cents. By June 2014, a barrel of oil costing over 100 dollars/barrel could produce only 87.35 dollars worth of economic activity! That is why the price collapsed.

An average oil price above 75 dollars/barrel in 2015 is precluded by the laws of physics. By 2016, that physical price limit will be reduced to around 65 dollars/barrel. By 2020, the yearly average price of oil will not be able to exceed about 12.50 dollars/barrel. All of this is due to entropy proscribed by the second law of thermodynamics. None of these oil prices are sufficient to maintain oil production going forward, since the overall cost of world oil production is now over 105 dollars/barrel and climbing. That means the oil industry will rapidly shrink and so will the economy.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Russ,

First please admit that you can't solve the Futilitist Collapse Challenge because the current price of oil is not sufficient to meet the cost of current oil production,

No. I think you made-up the data to support your gibberish because the data sounds like gibberish too. Given your track record, you have no hope of getting people to even believe your claims of facts without sources, much less go any further with your "analysis". Every bit of what you have said in the past 24 hours looks like gibberish and your "challenge" is unanswerable because of that. If you want this to be a serious discussion, you must start being serious (because it is your discussion to make how you want). And that starts with clear and professionally sourced factual data that from the starting premise.

The current price of oil is not sufficient to meet the cost of current oil production, plus investment in future production.

Well which is it? You want us to believe you aren't trolling or high, but you can't even keep a claim consistent long enough to say it twice in one post!

Anyway, I need to keep reminding you of your past claims, because your spectacular failure is important to remember: we didn't die last summer and neither did you because there was no apocalypse.

 

[Billy T]

Production or oil or gold or anything with high capital costs and associated debt / interest charges is often continued at a loss for years as sales, are able to cover part of the interest charges and salaries of skilled workers, you will need to stay in business when price of your product, you hope returns to a higher level. You are literally "betting the company" that is will.

Your non-sense is much too simple minded to comment on as you don't consider may realities like this or role of speculators* or effects of storage capacity. Your ignorance of the real market will not go away by adding some algebraic equations to it. - Until your get some basic things right, I have no interest in seeing your model.

If the Saudis do win, oil price will rise but not enough for most US shale companies to avoid bankruptcy in a few years while selling at a loss.

* Shell oil just made what may be the biggest speculative bet in history on higher oil prices - 47 billion dollar, if memory serves me well.

 

[Futilitist]

Russ,

What I have said looks like gibberish to you because you either don't understand what I am clearly saying, or you are pretending not to understand.

What the hell do you you mean "Well which is it?"? The two quotes are exactly the same, you just didn't include the all of the first quote. Go look at it again.

This is the first quote: First please admit that you can't solve the Futilitist Collapse Challenge because the current price of oil is not sufficient to meet the cost of current oil production, plus investment in future production (since this is a fact).

This is the second quote: The current price of oil is not sufficient to meet the cost of current oil production, plus investment in future production.

See? Identical.

So, once again: The current price of oil is not sufficient to meet the cost of current oil production, plus investment in future production. Do you disagree?


Billy T,

"Until your get some basic things right, I have no interest in seeing your model."

Fine. Until you admit the fact that the current price of oil is not sufficient to meet the cost of current oil production, plus investment in future production, I have no interest in talking to you. Please go away. Thanks.

---Futilitist

 

[billvon]

"Current oil prices $51 a barrel. You are off by a factor of 2."

I am not off at all. You are.

No, the price of oil is an easily-proven fact. The profits of existing oil companies are easily-proven facts.

Current world oil prices ($51/barrel) are not sufficient to meet the full cost of oil production. The full cost of oil production includes the cost of current oil production, plus investment in future oil production (totaling over $105+/barrel).

I will go with facts over your imagination, which has already been proven wrong at least once.

Since there is no way to lower the cost of production, you must somehow get the price of oil over $105/barrel to win the Futilitist Collapse Challenge. That would be impossible, of course.

Why? People kept buying gas when the price of oil was over $105 a barrel. That is also a fact. In fact, it hit $140 a barrel in 2008 and people kept buying gas. Also a fact.

I am not interested in playing stupid word games with you, billvon. I have a very serious physics model to present that took a team of physicists thousands of man hours to produce. It really is a game changer in terms of understanding the timing of collapse. If you don't want to know about it, fine. But please don't disrupt. This is a serious discussion.

All you have are stupid word games, wild imaginings and grossly incorrect physics models. This prediction will be just as accurate as your previous one.

 

[Russ_Watters]

What I have said looks like gibberish to you because you either don't understand what I am clearly saying, or you are pretending not to understand.

All it would take for you to prove you didn't make-up your data is to cite your source. Why haven't you done that?

[Deleted: uncertain]/not needed]

So, once again: The current price of oil is not sufficient to meet the cost of current oil production, plus investment in future production. Do you disagree?

If you cite the source of the data behind it, I will evaluate the claim.

Hey Futilitist: dead yet?