Oil Depletion and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: THE ETP MODEL

[Futilitist]

Hi Everyone.

Prior to this recent activity, I hadn't posted anything on this fine forum for a couple of years. During my time away, I learned some important new information I wanted to share here. But I realized there would likely be some strong resistance to what I had to say. I needed an effective way to communicate some difficult information, so I came up with a plan.

My big 4 part plan:

1) Introduce the simple Futilitist Collapse Challenge on the "Apocalypse Soon?" soon thread. Check.
I was correct about the resistance to the even the basic idea, which is simply self evident from current oil price conditions! The reactions are even funnier because no one is prepared for what is coming up next. When no one even takes the Futilitist Collapse Challenge seriously, I move immediately to step 2.

2) Introduce the Etp model on the "Apocalypse Soon?" thread and simultaneously give it it's own thread in the Physics section. Check.
I figured this would stump the crowd on "Apocalypse Soon?", and it did, for about 2 days. I had hoped to put the Etp model in front of some folks with some physics knowledge to ratify the Etp model, which would slam dunk the debate on "Apocalypse Soon?". But that part of the plan doesn't seem to be going too well, either. So, I need to improvise a bit at this point and introduce an intermediate step:

2b) Invite rpenner to join us.

Hey rpenner, a lot of people here think you are the big physics wiz on this site. Please join this discussion. You are sorely needed.

3) I am in touch with the creator of the Etp model, B. W. Hill. I am now offering to relay any serious or highly technical questions concerning the Etp model to him. I will then post his answers here on this thread.

4) If step 3 seems to be producing some real progress on understanding the Etp model, and people promise to behave, I will invite B. W. Hill here to directly answer any questions that anyone might have.


Do you guys know what a tar baby is?


---Futilitist

 

[Beer w/Straw]

No thanks.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Prior to this recent activity, I hadn't posted anything on this fine forum for a couple of years. During my time away, I learned some important new information I wanted to share here.

It would have been better if you had learned some economics instead of continuing to search for ever nuttier justifications for your religion. The deeper you have to dig for someone who still believes in Peak Oil, the worse the information is.

But I realized there would likely be some strong resistance to what I had to say.

Yes, being spectacularly wrong, coupled with dishonesty tends to have that effect on others.

My big 4 part plan:

Here's a better plan: find a local community college and enroll in an Economics 101 class and learn how supply and demand work together to modulate prices of products.

...the simple Futilitist Collapse Challenge...which is simply self evident from current oil price conditions!

When I pressed you for the source of your data, you eventually admitted that the graph was based on your imagination, not actual data. So it's not true that it is based on current oil price conditions and you know it.

I had hoped to put the Etp model in front of some folks with some physics knowledge to ratify the Etp model, which would slam dunk the debate on "Apocalypse Soon?". But that part of the plan doesn't seem to be going too well, either.

Here's where things get tough for you. The yawns and giggles you got in response to this thread should prompt you to re-evaluate your beliefs. But that is difficult. So instead you've chosen to believe everyone else is stupid except for you. That's irrational. Self-awareness is difficult and painful, and unfortunately, this dillema of yours hasn't prompted a re-evaluation of yourself. c'est la vie.

After a month or two (possibly even less since your stomach for trying to explain your beliefs has waned since last time, which is encouraging), you'll disappear again. Maybe you'll be back again in two years with a new plan, maybe the increasing spectacularity of your wrong predictions will eventually cause you to re-evaluate your beliefs. Unfortunately though, serious re-evaluations only tend to happen due to self-inflicted pain and unless this religion is something you follow in every-day life, its failure may not be painful enough to prompt change.

 

[Futilitist]

Dear Russ,

Why are you so upset? Please stop making offensive comments toward me. Thanks.

We should all wait for rpenner.


---Futilitist

 

[Beer w/Straw]

If rpenner responds, I will harass rpenner.

:EDIT:

That's probably more of an endeavorment for rpenner to respond than anything you've said...

 

[Billy T]

... Hey rpenner, a lot of people here think you are the physics wiz on this site. Please join this discussion. You are sorely needed.

rpenner is very intelligent - not likely to waste his time here. He is extraordinarily talented in mathematics - far beyond my abilities there, but I have no reason to take a "back set" to him in classical physics; - have even corrected him (and James R too). For example here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/climate-gate.97892/page-46#post-3213688
However when it comes to non-classical physics, which now days is math dominated, yes, my place is in the back seat, if not further back in the "rumble seat."

 

[Russ_Watters]

Why are you so upset?

You were the one cursing at me, Futilitist, not the other way around. I don't think it is possible for you to upset me.

Please stop making offensive comments toward me.

If harsh criticism of your garbage offends you, you should stop posting garbage -- then you wouldn't be criticized for it.

We should all wait for rpenner.

He won't come (except perhaps to drop in for a sec and say there's nothing for him to do here*). He focuses on physics/math content and there isn't any in this thread.

*and if he does that, I wonder how you'd respond?

 

[Futilitist]

Okay, what about James R? Maybe he could take a look at it.


---Futilitist

 

[brucep]

Okay, what about James R? Maybe he could take a look at it.


---Futilitist

The best thing that could happen is we reduce our burning of fossil fuels by 80% over the next few years. The end of the fossil fuel burning era won't be because we ran out of fossil fuels.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Okay, what about James R? Maybe he could take a look at it.


---Futilitist

I'm sure James R and rpenner have seen this thread. It is antagonistic and self serving. I still haven't read your original posts. Do you expect me to waste my time with you? Why should you expect others to?

You're a peculiar entertainment.

 

[exchemist]

Okay, what about James R? Maybe he could take a look at it.


---Futilitist

I'd be most surprised. Because this is not physics.

It is an attempt at some sort of economics. It is silly to invoke the 2nd law of TD to account for an economic phenomenon such as oil price or supply/demand balance. Such things are determined by human behaviour. I'd have thought that much would be obvious. Things such as the exploitation of oil and gas shale, the rate of take-up of alternative energy sources, and geopolitical factors quite plainly are what determines the oil price, not physics. Moreover history shows that the oil price is almost impossible to predict with confidence.

It is likely that oil will, on average, become more expensive in real terms as the remaining sources become harder to extract, but there is no evidence at all that some sudden, cliff-edge effect is at hand.

You have not made your case and attempting to invoke fundamental physical laws just makes your idea look ridiculous.

 

[Futilitist]

I'd be most surprised. Because this is not physics.

Get ready to be surprised.

Yes exchemist, this is physics!

"Petroleum production is a process. The process includes the extraction, processing (refining), and distribution of crude oil and its products. Each step of the process requires an input of energy to be completed. As time progresses the needed energy input increases. This occurs because of entropy production (a Second Law mandate) in the process. When the needed energy input exceeds the exergy of the petroleum, the petroleum can no longer act as an energy source. It has lost it primary value as a commodity. This is denoted as "the dead state"; the point when no additional work can be extracted from the system (a unit of petroleum).

Entropy production results in an increase in the irreversibilities of a system. Irreversibilities are a measure of the energy cost of the processes of a system. The ETP model is a summation of the irreversibilities present in the petroleum production system over a period of time. Subtracting the irreversibilities in the system at a point in time from its exergy gives the amount of energy available to be used by the non-energy goods producing sector of the economy. The model does this on a specific (per unit) bases. The unit employed is the US gallon.

To be of value a model must be predictive. To have confidence in its ability to predict future events with an acceptable level of certainty, it must also be capable of reproducing past events with a reasonable level of accuracy. This implies, of course, that the past events being reproduced are known with reasonable accuracy. There are few past events which have occurred in the history of petroleum production that can be stated with certainty. The one category for which we are almost 100% certain is its price history.

The price of crude oil varies daily, even by the hour, but when viewed from an energy perspective its longer term value closely follows a well defined mathematical function. That mathematical function is derived from the ETP model. The price of petroleum is driven by its cost of production, and its cost of production is controlled by the energy required to produce it. This simple relationship gives a means to map the past, and future of petroleum prices. Mapped to past pricing the relationship gives an almost perfect fit. Because the model is based on First and Second Law premises future projections can be expected to perform as well as those that were applied to the past.

The ETP model is derived from a Second Law statement, which means that it is, also, a Second Law statement. Because the model is based on First and Second Law premises, and because we have reason to have confidence in petroleum's price history, petroleum’s cumulative production history can also be determined with a level of confidence similar to that which exists for its price. The model is reliant on one variable, petroleum's cumulative production history, and this can be verified from its price history. The strength of the ETP model depends on two factors, its bases in First and Second premises, and the confidence that can be attributed to petroluem's price history.

Optimistic estimates place the world's total petroleum reserve at 4,300 billion barrels. Of that quantity the ETP model predicts that it will be possible to extract 1,760.5 billion barrels. This constitutes 40.9% of the total reserve. This is in agreement with assessments that have been made by several noted petro-gelogists. The principal difference between the use of an energy approach, and conventional methods is that the energy approach provides for the development of a reliable predictor for petroleum's future pricing. The model shows that petroleum's ability to supply the energy needed to sustain its own production process is declining.


The price of petroleum is controlled by two factors:

1) The cost of production.
2) The $ amount that the end consumer (the NEGs) can afford to pay for it.

What the end consumer pays must be sufficient to cover the cost of production. All production cost must be borne by the end consumer, who includes the end buyer, and the societal cost required to produce petroleum, and its products.

The Petroleum Price Curve, shown below, reflects the two factors that have, and will continue to control petroleum prices. The ETP derived Cost Curve is constructed from the ETP model, and has mapped the price of petroleum since 1960 with a correlation coefficient of 0.965. It is the most accurate pricing model that has ever been developed.

The Maximum Consumer Price curve was also developed from the ETP model. It represents the maximum price that the end consumer can pay for petroleum. It is based on the observation that the price of a unit of petroleum can not exceed the value of the economic activity that the energy it supplies to the end consumer can generate.

The energy content of a unit of petroleum is fixed by its molecular structure. The energy to produce a unit of petroleum, and its products increases with time as a result of the entropy production of the PPS (Petroleum Production System). The energy remaining for use by the general economy declines, and the economic activity that the petroleum can power also declines.



~The Hills Group


---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

All you did there was just cut and paste what you cut and pasted before. It has no more validity now than it did before. It's just handwaving: they don't show the equation or how it is derived. Unless they (you) show the equation and its derivation, it can't be shown to be physics.

That's a big difference between this and your tactics from two years ago: you aren't actually saying anything yourself. I suspect that's partially an issue of laziness, but mostly an issue of you not understanding the "ETP Model" yourself and thus not being able to explain it yourself (unlike Peak Oil, which is pretty straightforward).

 

[exchemist]

Get ready to be surprised.

Yes exchemist, this is physics!

"Petroleum production is a process. The process includes the extraction, processing (refining), and distribution of crude oil and its products. Each step of the process requires an input of energy to be completed. As time progresses the needed energy input increases. This occurs because of entropy production (a Second Law mandate) in the process. When the needed energy input exceeds the exergy of the petroleum, the petroleum can no longer act as an energy source. It has lost it primary value as a commodity. This is denoted as "the dead state"; the point when no additional work can be extracted from the system (a unit of petroleum).

Entropy production results in an increase in the irreversibilities of a system. Irreversibilities are a measure of the energy cost of the processes of a system. The ETP model is a summation of the irreversibilities present in the petroleum production system over a period of time. Subtracting the irreversibilities in the system at a point in time from its exergy gives the amount of energy available to be used by the non-energy goods producing sector of the economy. The model does this on a specific (per unit) bases. The unit employed is the US gallon.

To be of value a model must be predictive. To have confidence in its ability to predict future events with an acceptable level of certainty, it must also be capable of reproducing past events with a reasonable level of accuracy. This implies, of course, that the past events being reproduced are known with reasonable accuracy. There are few past events which have occurred in the history of petroleum production that can be stated with certainty. The one category for which we are almost 100% certain is its price history.

The price of crude oil varies daily, even by the hour, but when viewed from an energy perspective its longer term value closely follows a well defined mathematical function. That mathematical function is derived from the ETP model. The price of petroleum is driven by its cost of production, and its cost of production is controlled by the energy required to produce it. This simple relationship gives a means to map the past, and future of petroleum prices. Mapped to past pricing the relationship gives an almost perfect fit. Because the model is based on First and Second Law premises future projections can be expected to perform as well as those that were applied to the past.

The ETP model is derived from a Second Law statement, which means that it is, also, a Second Law statement. Because the model is based on First and Second Law premises, and because we have reason to have confidence in petroleum's price history, petroleum’s cumulative production history can also be determined with a level of confidence similar to that which exists for its price. The model is reliant on one variable, petroleum's cumulative production history, and this can be verified from its price history. The strength of the ETP model depends on two factors, its bases in First and Second premises, and the confidence that can be attributed to petroluem's price history.

Optimistic estimates place the world's total petroleum reserve at 4,300 billion barrels. Of that quantity the ETP model predicts that it will be possible to extract 1,760.5 billion barrels. This constitutes 40.9% of the total reserve. This is in agreement with assessments that have been made by several noted petro-gelogists. The principal difference between the use of an energy approach, and conventional methods is that the energy approach provides for the development of a reliable predictor for petroleum's future pricing. The model shows that petroleum's ability to supply the energy needed to sustain its own production process is declining.


The price of petroleum is controlled by two factors:

1) The cost of production.
2) The $ amount that the end consumer (the NEGs) can afford to pay for it.

What the end consumer pays must be sufficient to cover the cost of production. All production cost must be borne by the end consumer, who includes the end buyer, and the societal cost required to produce petroleum, and its products.

The Petroleum Price Curve, shown below, reflects the two factors that have, and will continue to control petroleum prices. The ETP derived Cost Curve is constructed from the ETP model, and has mapped the price of petroleum since 1960 with a correlation coefficient of 0.965. It is the most accurate pricing model that has ever been developed.

The Maximum Consumer Price curve was also developed from the ETP model. It represents the maximum price that the end consumer can pay for petroleum. It is based on the observation that the price of a unit of petroleum can not exceed the value of the economic activity that the energy it supplies to the end consumer can generate.

The energy content of a unit of petroleum is fixed by its molecular structure. The energy to produce a unit of petroleum, and its products increases with time as a result of the entropy production of the PPS (Petroleum Production System). The energy remaining for use by the general economy declines, and the economic activity that the petroleum can power also declines.



~The Hills Group


---Futilitist

I wish I was surprised. I'm just faintly irritated by finding this nonsense in the physics section, to be honest. I think it belongs in Alternative at best or else Pseudo.

Why do you say that as time passes the energy needed for extracting petroleum increases? If you are referring to the obvious fact that the reserves now being discovered tend to be less accessible than those discovered earlier, then that of course is true. But it has nothing to do with the 2nd law of TD. Quite obviously, since the value of petroleum consists in its net energy, then reserves that require more energy to access than they yield in calorific value will never be economic and will not be used. They are not in fact "reserves" in any useful sense (and certainly could not be treated as such under oil company accounting rules).

But I don't think this is what you are saying. You seem, instead, to be labouring under the absurd delusion that for some reason the energy needed to extract a given unit of petroleum, from the same reservoir, goes up over time, as a result of entropy increase. This is perfectly silly. It might in principle be true if waste heat from resource extraction (not to mention other human activity) was building up on the Earth, so that the available temperature difference for any heat engine was becoming less. But it isn't. Because the Earth is not a closed system. It exports waste heat into space all the time, by radiation from its dark side. (Even if there were no radiation and waste heat did all accumulate, humanity would be dead of heatstroke long before the efficiency of heat engines was significantly impaired. The difference between T1 and T2 in a typical heat engine is of the order of 3-500C and we would all be extinct if T2 went up by a mere 30 degrees or so.)

By the way, in case it is tempting to drag global warming into the discussion, this is due to an increase in the insulation of the Earth, i.e. a reduction in the amount of heat radiated away into space. It has nothing to do with the 2nd law either.

There is no sound physics in your notion at all, so far as I can see.

 

[exchemist]

Footnote: I've now had a look at the IEA's ETP model, here: http://www.iea.org/etp/etpmodel/

and there is jack sh*t about the laws of thermodynamics in it, as far as I can see.

It is, as I thought, an economic model. Not physics.

 

[Futilitist]

exchemist,

But I don't think this is what you are saying. You seem, instead, to be labouring under the absurd delusion that for some reason the energy needed to extract a given unit of petroleum, from the same reservoir, goes up over time, as a result of entropy increase. This is perfectly silly. It might in principle be true if waste heat from resource extraction (not to mention other human activity) was building up on the Earth, so that the available temperature difference for any heat engine was becoming less. But it isn't. Because the Earth is not a closed system. It exports waste heat into space all the time, by radiation from its dark side. (Even if there were no radiation and waste heat did all accumulate, humanity would be dead of heatstroke long before the efficiency of heat engines was significantly impaired. The difference between T1 and T2 in a typical heat engine is of the order of 3-500C and we would all be extinct if T2 went up by a mere 30 degrees or so.)

Wow. Are you serious? As an exchemist, you should be very familiar with the "Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes", which is a second law statement. And, of course, entropy is transferred out of the reservoir with the associated mass flow of water and oil. How else could entropy be transferred from a well?

A control volume permits both energy and mass to flow through its boundaries. The entropy balance for a control volume undergoing a process can be expressed as:

where i and e denote inlet and exit, respectively. The above entropy balance relation states that the entropy change of a control volume undergoing a process equals the sum of the entropy transfer by heat, the net entropy transfer by mass, and the entropy generation in the control volume.

You also need to understand fractional flow. To determine the mass flow of water, the Buckley-Leverett equation is used. This is a common practice in oil reservoir engineering, but perhaps not in chemistry(?). Since its solution always results in a 5th order polynomial, the solution of the general equation must be done numerically.

The derivation of the entropy balance for control volumes as applied to petroleum production for the Etp model is about 20 pages long! If you want to see all that, you should order the report. That is what I am going to do.


---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Footnote: I've now had a look at the IEA's ETP model, here: http://www.iea.org/etp/etpmodel/

and there is jack sh*t about the laws of thermodynamics in it, as far as I can see.

It is, as I thought, an economic model. Not physics.

Your comment is useless and distracting. Are you intentionally trying to create confusion? We are obviously not talking about the IEA's ETP model. And I am sure you know that, as well.


---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

James R and rpenner,

Please do drop in and give your opinion of the Etp model when you get a chance. Thanks.


---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

exchemist,


Wow. Are you serious? As an exchemist, you should be very familiar with the "Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes", which is a second law statement. And, of course, entropy is transferred out of the reservoir with the associated mass flow of water and oil. How else could entropy be transferred from a well?

A control volume permits both energy and mass to flow through its boundaries. The entropy balance for a control volume undergoing a process can be expressed as:

where i and e denote inlet and exit, respectively. The above entropy balance relation states that the entropy change of a control volume undergoing a process equals the sum of the entropy transfer by heat, the net entropy transfer by mass, and the entropy generation in the control volume.

You also need to understand fractional flow. To determine the mass flow of water, the Buckley-Leverett equation is used. This is a common practice in oil reservoir engineering, but perhaps not in chemistry(?). Since its solution always results in a 5th order polynomial, the solution of the general equation must be done numerically.

The derivation of the entropy balance for control volumes as applied to petroleum production for the Etp model is about 20 pages long! If you want to see all that, you should order the report. That is what I am going to do.


---Futilitist

Thanks. This confirms you are not just an idiot, but barking mad as well.

 

[Futilitist]

Thanks. This confirms you are not just an idiot, but barking mad as well.

I went ahead and asked the Etp model's creator, B.W. Hill, the same questions that you asked me earlier. Here is some of what he had to say:

"The Etp Model is derived numerically from the Second Law Statement the "Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes". The equation can be found on page 226 in Moran, and Shapiro, "Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics" ISBN 0-471-89576-8. It can also be found in almost any text on engineering thermodynamics.

Anyone who claims to be chemist, and is not familiar with the equation is a fraud, or a liar. It is one of the most widely known, and used equations in thermodynamics. Chances are you have hooked yourself a real live troll masquerading as a person of science.

This guy is obviously trolling...He is playing with boundary conditions that he doesn't understand, and ignoring the use of control volumes...he doesn't know Reservoir Engineering any more than he knows thermodynamics."

~B.W. Hill

I just thought I would share that with you.


---Futilitist