The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Futilitist, Aug 24, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Found another oldie but goodie. Early in your 2013 thread, we were discussing the failure of the Hubbert Curve and I requested you provide a number for US oil production above which you would acknowledge Hubbert's prediction was falisified. You responded:
    Well guess what: it did, in May and June: 9.7 million barrels a day:
    http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_m.htm

    You also bemoaned what you considered overly optimistic projections about future productions. In fact, each years' projection has proven to be overly pessimistic and they have been revised upwards every year to compensate. Today, the lowest of the projections have us topping-out at 10 million barrels a day, for the annual average. Let me say that again: even the most pessimistic estimates have us exceeding the 1970 peak.
    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf

    Another one bites the dust.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    No, it doesn't. The price of oil followed the Etp curve until it intersected the maximum price curve in 2012. Since falling below the maximum price curve during the oil price crash beginning in June of 2014, the oil price will, from here on, generally remain below the maximum price curve, since it is essentially the price limit. That is how the damn model works. You don't get to decide how it has to work.

    I didn't say inflation was BS. I said the improper application of the concept in your argument was BS.

    I am sorry, I cannot provide it for you. But it hardly seems necessary, since the most basic concepts are being disputed, not the details.

    There was plenty to talk about. Like I said, we were not arguing over the minute details, so seeing the whole engineering report was not necessary. I managed to understand it pretty well before I had my own copy. I can tell that you really don't understand it, but I'll bet you could. I don't think you are genuinely trying.

    That is correct.

    Only so far.

    That is entirely up to you. Use your best judgment.



    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    Quit wallowing in the past, man. What a waste of your time. And a total distraction from the topic of the thread. Why aren't you concentrating on the discussion at hand?

    Interesting, but I wouldn't start celebrating just yet. More than 3 million barrels of that 9.7 mbd is currently being produced at a loss. How will all that expensive oil continue to be produced in the future?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2015
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,452
    There, in a nutshell, you can see the self-contradictory idiocy of all this, and its utter scientific and economic illiteracy. The alleged inability of oil energy to support the needs of the world economy results in a price fall, apparently.

    Futilist has once more come out of the woodwork, after a long hibernation, because of the fall in the Chinese stock market over the last few days. He's hoping that this time, at last, "The End is Nigh", as he has been claiming for the last few years.
     
  8. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    I looked at your graphs on the site you linked to. You say the two curves, the 72% curve and the 63% curve, or whatever the consumer curve is, represent the energy available from a barrel of oil, a constant, against the dollar value of both, first to the market I assume, and the consumer. I assume the consumer gets less energy than 72% because of how that consumer consumes the energy, i.e. wastefully.
    But a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil, also a constant.

    So why not just plot average production costs worldwide with the world price of oil? And, can you explain the two curves in the graph in your OP? What do they represent and how are they calculated?
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,452
    This level of economic illiteracy is sub-Chavez, almost psychiatric.
     
  10. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Please provide the equation for the "maximum price curve" as well.
    Calling BS without explanation is unresponsive. Look, you've known about this problem (not using inflation) in your analysis for years -- you've heard it from a lot of different people. No examination of "affordability" of a product ever works properly if it is not inflation adjusted because without adjusting for inflation you are just tracking the today's dollars cost of an item without taking into account how many of today's dollars a typical consumer has available to spend. IE, if the price of something doubles, but you have twice as many dollars to spend, it hasn't gotten any less "affordable". Your claim that it has is flat-out wrong -- and obviously so.
    Can't or won't? Either way, without providing the model, it isn't possible for you to prove your claim of its accuracy.
    Yes, you are failing on basic concepts, but without seeing the model it is impossible to know how those basic concepts even relate to the model.
    Like the weather and our favorite sports teams? The topic of the thread was, ostensibly, the ETP model and without access to the model, there was little about it we could discuss. Just like in this thread.
    [shrug] I cannot be expected to learn something you won't show me. Wanting to see the very thing you are saying I don't understand should show my strong desire to learn how it works.

    Separate post:
    Because you won't provide the details of what the thread is supposed to be about. It is impossible to verify something we aren't allowed to see.
    You're dodging, let me rephrase: We're now almost two years past due on the social unrest this "collapse" was supposed to have caused. That's a really bad prediction failure given that when you made the "prediction" it was supposedly already underway. So I request that you update it. When can we expect the major social unrest that you predicted would start almost two years ago to start now?
    Your previous claim contained no such hedge. You are trying to weasel out of it by adding this new caveat. Still, I'm interested in hearing about it. Please provide the source of your data that says 3 million barrels produced at a loss as well as historical data that shows it is unusual (and thus a special case that makes it a legitimate exception to your previous claim).
     
  11. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    The energy in each barrel of oil is constant, but it's energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) is falling rapidly because of rising production costs. Thus the net energy of oil available to civilization is starting to decline.

    I don't understand your first question, so I don't know how to answer you. As to your second question: The curves in my OP graph are the Etp model curve (Etp derived cost curve) and the Etp maximum price curve (62% Maximum affordable price curve).



    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    In two years when the Etp model has been proven false you'll be saying the same thing about it.

    "Look, quit wallowing in the past. What a waste of time. The Etp is a total distraction from the perfect Est model I have presented. Why can't you concentrate on it instead of the meaningless Etp?"

    By being produced when oil prices are higher.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    And as EROEI improves for tight oil (1.0 in 1970 for tar sands; 5.23 today) that will rise.
     
  14. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    The current oil price situation is not good for tight oil producers. When do you expect that oil prices will be high enough for tight oil to be profitable?



    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I have Ph.D. in physics and don't know of any such law. As the price of oil has now fallen by about 60% from where it was when you predicted a rapid rise due to the increasing cost of marginal units of production, how does that conform to the laws of physic or confirm you model?

    It seems to me that the fact that global production of about 3 million barrels / day MORE than demand is what has made your model, based on physics you claim, so ridiculously out of contact with the reality. IE that it is the law of supply and demand operating that set this extraordinary low oil price, not some unspecified "law of physics."
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,452
    Quite. He's off his rocker.
     
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,452
    Who knows? And it doesn't matter. Until the price goes up, the tight oil will just sit there and then we can extract it if and when we need it. Thermodynamics is not going to make it somehow harder, or less worthwhile, to extract if we leave it for a bit. There's no penalty for taking the cheapest oil out first.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    As the cost of tight oil production declines further, more wells will become profitable. Current tight oil wells are profitable between $40 and $110 per barrel depending on location, depth, viscosity of oil etc. This range will continue to drop with time. So right now _some_ tight oil wells are profitable and that number is increasing.

    As demand rises (as it always does during times of low oil cost) oil costs will rise, moving more wells into the profitable range.
     
  19. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    The price of oil is determined by the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Though the price of oil seems to be directly controlled by supply and demand, both supply and demand are determined by the laws of thermodynamics. For example, the price of oil is currently too low for tight oil producers to make a profit. That is because the cost of production is based on the cost of the energy required for oil production, and that cost is rising due to entropy. For another example, if the price of oil were to rise to 150 dollars a barrel tomorrow because of a war or whatever, the oil consumers would not be able to afford it because there is not enough energy in a barrel of oil to produce enough GDP to pay for itself and the ongoing cost of production. See?

    Supply and demand is not operating the way it should if the price of oil is below the cost of oil production. Continuing this way will bankrupt the oil companies. If, instead, the price rises to a level sufficient to pay the full cost of oil production, the oil consumer will be bankrupted. Catch-22.



    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    Futilitist, you're the fraud, not this forum.

    It's pretty self-evident you have no clue what you're talking about.

    Everyone else should do what I'm gonna do and just leave Futilitist to his delusions.
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,452
    And yet somehow the oil companies - all the many hundreds of them out there, from full range multinationals to niche E&P specialists - are, all of them, oblivious to the impending thermodynamic disaster.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    That makes absolutely no sense, billvon. Production efficiency improvements are not sufficient to reduce the cost of tight oil production faster than entropy is increasing it.

    The current spot price of West Texas Intermediate Crude is $39.44 a barrel. The producers do not actually get that much for it at the well head.

    Demand is currently falling despite what it is always supposed to do during times of low oil cost. That is why the price keeps dropping.



    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Entropy does not increase costs. Advances in drilling technology, however, DO decrease costs - and have been proven to do so over the past ten years.
    Nope.

    From the EIA:
    =========
    EIA estimates global consumption of petroleum and other liquids grew by 1.1 million b/d in 2014, averaging 92.4 million b/d for the year. EIA expects global consumption of petroleum and other liquids to grow by 1.3 million b/d in 2015, unchanged from the previous month's STEO. Growth in 2016 global consumption was revised upward by 0.1 million b/d compared with last month to an average of 1.5 million b/d.
    ========

    From the WSJ:
    =========
    Oil Demand Growing at Fastest Pace in Five Years, Says IEA
    Lower Oil Prices Will Only Start to Dent Non-OPEC Production Next Year, The Energy Watchdog Says

    The price of gasoline has been falling. “Oil’s plunge below $50 barrels a day from triple digits a year ago has seen demand react more swiftly than supply,” the IEA said.

    By Benoît Faucon
    Aug. 12, 2015 4:16 a.m. ET

    Demand for oil is increasing at its fastest pace in five years, boosted by an oil-price drop below $50 a barrel, a top energy watchdog said Wednesday, as it sharply upgraded its consumption-growth forecast for the commodity.

    But in a blow to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries’ strategy to defend its market share, the International Energy Agency said lower oil prices would only start to dent rival production next year.

    In its closely watched monthly report, the IEA said global oil demand would grow by 1.6 million barrels a day this year, an upward revision of 200,000 barrels a day from its previous forecast, and would keep rising by 1.4 million barrels a day next year. The organization—which advises industrialized nations on energy—said consumers were responding to lower oil prices while macroeconomic prospects were better than expected.

    “Oil’s plunge below $50 barrels a day from triple digits a year ago has seen demand react more swiftly than supply,” the IEA said. “Against this backdrop, many participants in the oil industry have adopted a new mantra – ‘lower for longer’.”

    The news comes after OPEC also upgraded its oil consumption views for 2015 in a report Tuesday. Global oil demand is expected to grow by 1.38 million barrels a day this year, some 90,000 barrels a day more than it previously expected, the oil producers’ cartel said.
    =========
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page