Like William James Sidis was a professor I think in his late teens or early 20's.
The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed
- Thread starter Futilitist
- Start date
- Status
As is congratulations on your intellectual achievements, I will be keeping an eye on you.
it's interesting, and difficult, a lot of huge math.. but it really doesn't pertain to what the team and i work on.
reverse engineering is mainly our job, so, it can pertain at some points.
thanks. i appreciate this.
That is so interesting. Do you work in area 51?
While this side conversation concerning krash661's amazing alien abilities is super interesting, it is not really relevant to the topic of the thread.
I asked Aqueous Id a real question. He has yet to respond. In the meantime, this stupid, useless, distracting, and deceptive side conversation is making it hard for the readers to pick out the serious stuff. It is obvious that this shit is coordinated and intentional. It is as fake as tag team professional wrestling! You guys aren't fooling anyone.
Since no one can actually refute the validity of the Etp model, all you can do is cheat.
For the sake of the readers, I will now repeat my post to Aqueous Id for clarity. I would appreciate if folks could give him a chance to answer. Thanks.
You asked for a summary because you said you didn't have time to read the thread. I nicely provided a summary for you. Now you are bitching because there isn't enough detail. That is a cheap trick. All of the lame, kneejerk arguments you brought up have already been well covered in the thread. I am not starting over for you. You do not understand the Etp model, so your critique sucks.Aqueous Id said:
Your personal astonishment is not a valid argument.Aqueous Id said:
Like I said, you asked for a summary. Here are some more thermodynamic details for you to chew on:
"Crude oil is used primarily as an energy source; its other uses have only minor commercial value. To be an energy source it must therefore be capable of delivering sufficient energy to support its own production process (extraction, processing and distribution); otherwise it would become an energy sink, as opposed to a source. The Total Production Energy ($$E_{TP}$$) must therefore be equal to, or less than EG, its specific exergy. To determine values for $$E_{TP}$$ the total crude oil production system is analyzed by defining it as three nested Control Volumes within the environment. The three Control Volumes (where a control volume differs from a closed system because it allows energy and mass to pass through it's boundaries) are the reservoir, the well head, and the Petroleum Production System (PPS). The PPS is where the energy that comes from the well head is converted into the work required to extract the oil. The PPS is an area which is distributed within, and throughout the environment. It is where the goods and services needed for the production process originate. This boundary make-up allows other energy, and mass transfers to be considered as exchanges, such as natural gas used in refining, electricity used in well pumping, or water used for reservoir injection."
~BW Hill
Values for $$E_{TP}$$ are derived from the solution of the Second Law statement, the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes:
$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}
=\sum_j\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}
+\sum_i\dot{m}_{i}s_{i}
-\sum_e\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}
+\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$
"Where $$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}$$ represents the time rate of change of entropy within the control volume. The terms $$\dot{m}_{i}s_{i}$$ and $$\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}$$ account, respectively, for rates of entropy transfer into and out of the control volume accompanying mass flow. The term $$\dot{Q}_{j}$$ represents the time rate of heat transfer at the location on the boundary where the instantaneous temperature is $$T_{j}$$. The ratio $$\frac{\dot{Q}_j}{T_j}$$ accounts for the accompanying rate of entropy transfer. The term $$\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$ denotes the time rate of entropy production due to irreversibilities within the control volume."
~(Taken from Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics by Moran and Shapiro)
Because there is only one temperature boundary (at the exit point of the reservoir) and no crude oil enters the reservoir from the environment, the equation reduces to:
$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}=\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}-\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}+\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$
giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec*°R}$$
For this application, crude oil and water can be treated as incompressible substances. Their specific entropies are only affected by a temperature change.
For specific heats: $$c_{v}=c_{p}=c$$, and $$s_{2}-s_{1}=c*\ln{\frac{T_{2}}{T_{1}}}$$ The reservoir temperature is constant, therefore the entropy of the reservoir must decrease at the same rate that the entropy is transferred from the reservoir by mass flow. Thus, the heat leaving the reservoir is negative in sign and the equation becomes:
$$\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}=\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$
giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec*°R}$$
The rate of entropy production in the petroleum production system is equal to the rate of heat extracted from the reservoir divided by the reservoir temperature.
The rate of irreversibility production in the petroleum production system therefore becomes:
$$\dot{I_{cv}}=T_{O}*\dot\sigma_{cv}$$
giving: $$\frac{BTU}{sec}$$
Where $$T_{O}$$ equals the standard reference temperature of the environment, 537 °R (77° F).
Therefore:
$$E_{TP}=\int_{t1}^{t2}\dot{I_{cv}}dt$$
giving: $$BTU$$
Because the mass removed from the reservoir is limited to crude oil and water, the increase in $$E_{TP}$$ per billion barrels (Gb) of crude extracted as $$ds=c\frac{dT}{T}$$ is:
(Equation#7)
$$\frac{E_{TP/lb}}{Gb}
=\begin{bmatrix}\frac{(m_{c}*c_{c}
+m_{w}*c_{w})(T_{R}-T_{O})}{m_{c}} \end{bmatrix}/Gb$$
giving: BTU/lb/Gb
$$m_{c}$$ = mass of crude, lbs.
$$c_{c}$$ = specific heat of crude, BTU/lb °R
$$m_{w}$$ = mass of water, lbs.
$$c_{w}$$ = specific heat of water, BTU/lb °R
$$T_{R}$$ = reserve temperature, °R
$$T_{O}$$ = standard reference temperature of the environment, 537 °R
$$s_{i}$$ = specific entropy into the control volume
$$s_{e}$$ = specific entropy exiting the control volume
BTU/gal/Gb for 35.7° API crude = BTU/lb/Gb * 7.0479 lb/gal
Evaluation of $$E_{TP}$$ from Equation# 7 requires the determination of three variables: mass of the crude ($$m_{c}$$) mass of the water ($$m_{w}$$), and the temperature of the reservoir ($$T_{R}$$). These must be determined at time (t).
1) The mass of crude at time (t) is derived from the cumulative production function,
2) the mass of water is derived from the average % surface water cut (fw) of the reservoir,
3) temperature of the reserve is derived from the well depth. This assumes an earth temperature gradient of 1°F increase per 70 feet of depth.
-------------------------------
What exactly do you find wrong with the methodology, above, used to develop the Etp function?
My pseudoscience bullshit meter went off as soon as you showed up on the thread.Aqueous Id said:
---Futilitist
Last edited:
And it was BW Hill who proclaimed that the Etp model is valid because of the second law of thermodynamics? You have yet to show how it is.
Also, I can't remember ever seeing tag team wrestling, but I still know it's 110% real!
yes, yes.. this is a separate topic. from there i can only say so much.
if so, i have no part of this. i'm not one for such shenanigans. i was simple trying to understand, but i need the inputs.
from what this appears to me is, simply a collection of knowledgeable ones understanding and seeing issues that this hill guy does not even acknowledge. but this is just my assessment.
i hold a series 7.
also, except i calculated from the vague info i received and had a result of a different line.
which is why i'm now focused on the inputs.
keep in mind, aqueous is no jerk off in my book.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I remember watching it on TV occasionally, in the 70s when I was a kid. We all thought it was great fun, but a bit preposterous. As I recall, virtually all the ringside seats were taken by middle aged ladies.
That's nice.
I am glad you are back, exchemist. Perhaps you can now answer some of the many questions you have been dodging for so long. If you hang around, I can repost them for you.
In the meantime, on this very page you can find the derivation of the Etp function from the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes, as well as the design of the three nested control volumes used in the model. You vaguely mentioned having some problems with the nested control volumes. I think you called it "daft" or something like that.
Would you mind explaining specifically what you think is wrong with the three nested control volumes used in the Etp model?
The post right above yours shows how the Etp model is based on the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes, which is a second law statement. Since the Etp function (equation #7) is based on this, and it is properly derived (as shown in my previous post), the Etp function is also a second law statement.
I have provided the derivation of the Etp function from the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes several times. No one has found any problems with it, so I guess we can assume it has been accepted as valid.
Evaluation of $$E_{TP}$$ from Equation# 7 requires the determination of three variables: mass of the crude ($$m_{c}$$) mass of the water ($$m_{w}$$), and the temperature of the reservoir ($$T_{R}$$). These must be determined at time (t).
1) The mass of crude at time (t) is derived from the cumulative production function,
2) the mass of water is derived from the average % surface water cut (fw) of the reservoir,
3) temperature of the reserve is derived from the well depth. This assumes an earth temperature gradient of 1°F increase per 70 feet of depth.
The determination of the three variables above are described in great detail in the Etp book. It is very technical and covers about 12 pages! It is beyond the scope of this thread to provide all of that here.
The program employed to calculate $$E_{TP}$$ (Equation #7) is the C++ program EtpX, which was developed in house by the Hill's Group.
Here is a post from peakoil.com from someone else who tried to run equation #7 . He had the Etp book and from that information he was able to approximate the three variables used in the equation:
Re: The Etp Model, Q & A
by Baduila » Fri 28 Aug 2015, 11:24:11Hi Whatever,
this image is generated with matlab code. I wanted to check if graph #8 in the hillsgroup study "petroghv2.pdf" is correct. I used eq. 7 and information from the study to write a short matlab routine. I have a deviation of minus 20% relative to the study, which is compensated by the faktor 1.2 mentioned in the image. The 20% deviation are easy explainable because i have no statistical information about wells or water cut or irregularities.
I am convinced graph #8 in the study is correct. I can send the code if you are interested.
If you really want to honestly evaluate the Etp model, why not sign up at peakoil.com and ask Baduila for his matlab routine.
I don't believe you ever did any calculations at all. If you did, prove it by showing your work. I would be very curious to see the inputs you supposedly came up with!
---Futilitist
Last edited:
The post right above yours shows how the Etp model is based on the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes, which is a second law statement. Since the Etp function (equation #7) is based on this, and it is properly derived (as shown in my previous post), the Etp function is also a second law statement.
I have provided the derivation of the Etp function from the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes several times. No one has found any problems with it, so I guess we can assume it has been accepted as valid.
If the price of oil was only based on two or three variables I'm sure someone would have figured it out in like 1956 when Hubbert's peak oil guess came out. I don't think he was so delusionally erroneous to invoke thermodynamics, however.
Was he?
Evidently this is a game you are playing, just to irritate reader. That much you do quite well. The rest of what you are doing sucks.
A collective *wow* falls over the thread.
Benny Hill? So you don't even know how to give a citation. Ok, so you are citing yourself? Sheer unmitigated crap. And yes, making this moronic attempt to conceal your inability to draw a system boundary (wellwisher?) by pretending that economics problems can be stated as "control volumes" really paints you as a fraud.
All moot, since you have NOT established the rationale for jumping from bald claims about economics to formulas from a text on thermo. You claim you have a Master's yet you show no proficiency in presenting a thesis.
Values for $$E_{TP}$$ are derived from the solution of the Second Law statement, the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes:
$$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}
=\sum_j\frac{\dot{Q}_{j}}{T_{j}}
+\sum_i\dot{m}_{i}s_{i}
-\sum_e\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}
+\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$
"Where $$\frac{dS_{CV}}{dt}$$ represents the time rate of change of entropy within the control volume. The terms $$\dot{m}_{i}s_{i}$$ and $$\dot{m}_{e}s_{e}$$ account, respectively, for rates of entropy transfer into and out of the control volume accompanying mass flow. The term $$\dot{Q}_{j}$$ represents the time rate of heat transfer at the location on the boundary where the instantaneous temperature is $$T_{j}$$. The ratio $$\frac{\dot{Q}_j}{T_j}$$ accounts for the accompanying rate of entropy transfer. The term $$\dot{\sigma}_{cv}$$ denotes the time rate of entropy production due to irreversibilities within the control volume."
~(Taken from Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics by Moran and Shapiro)
Other than the fact that it's not a methodology at all, it's just a parody of some kind? No objection at all, wellwisher.
By this no doubt you mean you turned it off, knowing I was going to nail you.
I would defer to yours since you are always good at giving the scam artists a run for their money.
That and being an outright troll. Evidently he cites his own bullshit which he is selling for $38.00.
I say ban this bum!
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Last edited:
You mean, other than MONEY doesn't have units of VOLUME?
Though directed at my esteemed colleague from over the pond, I will repeat: you are a scammer. You are trying to sell your own bogus "paper" for 38 bucks It's a pile of crap. Your proposition is moronic. No one who has actually studied economics, math or science (of, in this case, English) would buy into your scam. No one who has ever done even a little academic research would buy into it.
Short answer: you pulled this idea out of your ass, and you are pretending to defend it without the slightest desire to be honest. Either that, or you were once a mining engineer, and you did indeed pass thermo, perhaps made some kind of career out of it, but then suffered some kind of illness which left you without some basic brain function, in which case we should invoke the ADA and try to come up with a way to give you an opportunity to be heard, perhaps in a sequestered forum where psychologists can be invited to try to work this out with you.
But I am betting you are just a dirty, rotten liar. 38 bucks my foot. It wouldn't be worth that much printed in gold leaf. It's a crock, and you, sir, are a fraud.
P.S. wellwisher still needs how to learn how to draw system boundaries when he is attacking evolution via thermo.
Last edited:
Wow. You are super confused on so many levels. You should have read the thread. Speaking of Benny Hill, you don't know how to construct an argument.
I am not BWHill. I am not wellwisher. You are full of shit.
The Etp model is a thermodynamic model of the life cycle of the oil production process. It is not an economic model.
You have lost the bet!
I am not a dirty rotten liar or a fraud. You, sir, owe me an apology.
Short answer: You are a troll.
Longer answer: This is an amazing act of professional tag team wrestling desperation. No one can put forth a decent argument against the Etp model. So they send in the clown. This forum is a joke.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
You say no one can put forth an argument?
You're treating the market and the apocalypse like they can be explained like some simple, closed physical experiment, or simple math question! You don't make sense in the first place!
You're treating the market and the apocalypse like they can be explained like some simple, closed physical experiment, or simple math question! You don't make sense in the first place!
besides this has changed from the original post of this topic, this means this etp is even more incorrect.
show the inputs.... it's that simple.
The Olson twins will cause the apocalypse and the price of potato chips predicts falling-out-of-wheelchair deaths.
The Etp model doesn't make sense to you in the first place because you are in denial. You really don't want it to be true.
You don't understand the Etp model. You fear what it forecasts.
Your ignorance + Your fear = Your certainty that the Etp model must be false
+ = Science is all about understanding the world by deriving simple and elegant explanations for complex phenomena.
$$E=mc^2$$
---Futilitist
Last edited:
- Status