The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[Futilitist]

comically-hilarious--according to whom though?

The laws of physics.

besides this being completely untrue, how would you even know?

Yes, I would have no way of knowing since you haven't actually said anything except the vague suggestion that "explorers have the opposite in their reports". Which explorers? What reports? Since you haven't actually offered anything to support your vague statement, it still sounds like you are just making shit up.

again--up-date your research.

Again---with what, exactly?



---Futilitist

 

[origin]

What will happen to the frackers? (hint: bankruptcy)

You seriously think exxonmobile is going to go bankrupt? Hey wait, is this one of your jokes?

 

[Futilitist]

You seriously think exxonmobile is going to go bankrupt? Hey wait, is this one of your jokes?

According to the Etp model, oil prices are going to drop to around 11 dollars a barrel by 2021. So yes, origin, Exxon Mobile will go bankrupt, as will all oil companies. No, this is not a joke.

Are you seriously suggesting that Exxon Mobile is impervious to bankruptcy?



---Futilitist

 

[Ophiolite]

Since you guys all work together, I figured you would except billvon's estimate for the break even oil price for most fracking. I accepted it. No one has ever contested it before now.

1. Of course we work together. We sit down the pub co-writing the posts, then play poker to see whose name we submit each on under.
2. I would indeed except billvon's estimate. I certainly wouldn't accept it. There are at least three problems with billvon's figures: the relative scale of each itemised project does not seem to have been taken into account; the progress in increasing the efficiency of the drilling and production phases is not taken into account; the impact of falling prices on the economies of exploration and production have not been taken into account. The numbers were probably accurate as a snapshot, but we are in a movie.

When do you expect the price of oil to rise to 60 dollars a barrel?

10:24 am GMT, August 27th 2017.

Please pay closer attention. I did answer your methane hydrate question in post #1468, just up the page. Here is what I said:

"I think the Japanese are running a working experiment, but methane hydrates are currently not a power source on any kind of significant industrial scale. So methane hydrates are not relevant to this discussion."

I missed that. Thank you for pointing it out.

Methane hydrates are relevant because they could become a major player as a hydrocarbon source. There are more trials and investigations in place than just the Japanese.

I don't happen to know what the average fracking lifting cost currently is, but I certainly do know what lifting cost means. What is your point?

I made it earlier. Please pay closer attention. Those fracking companies that already have producing wells can produce from many of them profitably at current and even lower oil prices. Those wells whose lifting costs are too high to justify production can be shut in until supply and demand return the prices to a suitable level. (Notice no bankrupt frackers here.) Only those companies with few, or no currently completed wells, or with wells nearing the end of their productive life have a problem. (For the small players, without a diverse portfolio of reservoir types, this is where you will see some bankruptcies.)

 

[Futilitist]

1. Of course we work together. We sit down the pub co-writing the posts, then play poker to see whose name we submit each on under.

Just as I suspected. Which one of you is iNow?

2. I would indeed except billvon's estimate. I certainly wouldn't accept it. There are at least three problems with billvon's figures: the relative scale of each itemised project does not seem to have been taken into account; the progress in increasing the efficiency of the drilling and production phases is not taken into account; the impact of falling prices on the economies of exploration and production have not been taken into account. The numbers were probably accurate as a snapshot, but we are in a movie.

"but we are in a movie"...Well spoken, excellent analogy. But still just an analogy.

I guess all that stuff you just said might raise some small, though probably still insignificant doubt about the validity of the Etp model in the minds of some. But in order to be accepted as actual evidence of anything, you would still have to show, in detail, why any of the above has any actual relevance to the topic. Once you have completed all of your exhaustive, thorough research, I look forward to your entire presentation of all of the evidence to support your wild, and as yet unsubstantiated, claim. [snore]

Methane hydrates are relevant because they could become a major player as a hydrocarbon source. There are more trials and investigations in place than just the Japanese.

Considering the very rapid timeline forecast by Etp model, they sure better hurry up with those trials and investigations.

I made it earlier. Please pay closer attention. Those fracking companies that already have producing wells can produce from many of them profitably at current and even lower oil prices. Those wells whose lifting costs are too high to justify production can be shut in until supply and demand return the prices to a suitable level. (Notice no bankrupt frackers here.) Only those companies with few, or no currently completed wells, or with wells nearing the end of their productive life have a problem. (For the small players, without a diverse portfolio of reservoir types, this is where you will see some bankruptcies.)

So if no one goes bankrupt and the oil keeps flowing, how does the glut ever end? If the glut never ends, then oil prices will never rise. The situation is a giant catch-22.



---Futilitist

 

[Ophiolite]

Just as I suspected. Which one of you is iNow?

iNow is a figment of billvon's imagination. No real person could be that nice.

I guess all that stuff you just said might raise some small, though probably still insignificant doubt about the validity of the Etp model in the minds of some. But in order to be accepted as actual evidence of anything, you would still have to show, in detail, why any of the above has any actual relevance to the topic. Once you have completed all of your exhaustive, thorough research, I look forward to your entire presentation of all of the evidence to support your wild, and as yet unsubstantiated, claim. [snore]

No, you are the one making the claim. I am just pointing out some of the weaknesses in it.

Considering the very rapid timeline forecast by Etp model, they sure better hurry up with those trials and investigations.

And given that timeline you should get to work preparing your excuses for why it failed.

So if no one goes bankrupt and the oil keeps flowing, how does the glut ever end? If the glut never ends, then oil prices will never rise. The situation is a giant catch-22.

Strawman. I clearly noted that there would be some bankruptcies. The glut is conditioned by two things supply and demand. Demand will rise as the global economy gathers pace.

And what do you see as the major major catch?

 

[Futilitist]

iNow is a figment of billvon's imagination. No real person could be that nice.

iNow is a censor and a bully.

No, you are the one making the claim. I am just pointing out some of the weaknesses in it.

Okay. Thanks for the input.

And given that timeline you should get to work preparing your excuses for why it failed.

Are you kidding? I am getting ready to make fun of all of you relentlessly as the markets collapse.

But just to kick things off while we are waiting, here is a very interesting thread for folks to read. This site feedback thread details one of Ophiolite's past offenses and his subsequent punishment for it:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...eptable-under-site-posting-guidelines.134559/

Ophiolite is obviously a deranged troll with some sort of weird vendetta against me.

Strawman. I clearly noted that there would be some bankruptcies. The glut is conditioned by two things supply and demand. Demand will rise as the global economy gathers pace.

"Demand will rise as the global economy gathers pace"?! Ha ha. That is priceless! I will save that quote. Thanks.

Demand is not going to rise because the global economy is failing, as it is being starved of energy. It is about to crash.

And what do you see as the major major catch?

Like I said, I think the economy is about to decline dramatically.



---Futilitist

 

[Ophiolite]

Demand is not going to rise because the global economy is failing, as it is being starved of energy. It is about to crash.

Please point to and document specific instances, by country, industry, or event, where the economy is starved of energy. If your argument is sound you will have nor trouble doing this.

 

[Futilitist]

Please point to and document specific instances, by country, industry, or event, where the economy is starved of energy. If your argument is sound you will have nor trouble doing this.

According to the Etp model, the energy available to the world economy stopped growing in 2012 and has been in decline ever since. That means global economic growth is slowing. The evidence for this is slowing world economic growth. If you don't understand this, it will be nor trouble to explain it to you.



---Futilitist

 

[Ophiolite]

According to the Etp model, the energy available to the world economy stopped growing in 2012 and has been in decline ever since. That means global economic growth is slowing. The evidence for this is slowing world economic growth. If you don't understand this, it will be nor trouble to explain it to you.

You made this very clear statement:

"Demand is not going to rise because the global economy is failing, as it is being starved of energy."

I asked you to provide examples of where the economy was being starved of energy. I suggested you give examples of countries, industries, or events that were being starved of energy. Your answer does not provide any examples of the economy being starved of energy. You are required by forum rules and internet etiquette to substantiate your assertion that the economy is being starved of energy with clear, specific, valid evidence. I'll give you another opportunity. Please note that claims made by your model that the economy must be starved of energy have to be supported by evidence that the economy is being starved of energy. So address any one of these:

Which manufacturing industries have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which mining or forestry industries have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which fishing or agricultural activities have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which service industries have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which transport activities have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which construction projects have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which country's economies have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Which cities' economies have been slowed because they have been starved of energy ?
Etc.

Just in case you have missed the point, I wish you to provide an example of some part of the global economy slowing because it has been starved of energy.

 

[Futilitist]

Just in case you have missed the point, I wish you to provide an example of some part of the global economy slowing because it has been starved of energy.

You are just playing word games, yet again.

The entire global economy is slowing. The Etp model explains why. It is because the global economy has been starved of energy since 2012. Believe it or not.

That was my answer before. It is still my answer. It is the only one you are getting, troll.



---Futilitist

 

[Daecon]

It is because the global economy has been starved of energy

In what way?

 

[krash661]

The laws of physics.

so you used physics to predict a range that can be predicted without all of that hassle?

Since you haven't actually offered anything to support your vague statement, it still sounds like you are just making shit up.

it appears that when i clearly said " up-date your research " that it is out of your realm?

Again---with what, exactly?

how about data that your algos do not have in consideration--- like up-dated research.

 

[krash661]

So if no one goes bankrupt and the oil keeps flowing, how does the glut ever end? If the glut never ends, then oil prices will never rise. The situation is a giant catch-22.

again--you are simply clueless of how all this operates--your etp is also clueless. look into restricting supply.

 

[Ophiolite]

You are just playing word games, yet again.

The entire global economy is slowing. The Etp model explains why. It is because the global economy has been starved of energy since 2012. Believe it or not.

That was my answer before. It is still my answer. It is the only one you are getting, troll.

There are no word games at work other than those you have been called on.

You have made a clear assertion. You refuse to provide evidence for that assertion. And yet is is very simple. If the economy is slowing because it is starved of energy, there should be documented examples of such energy shortages readily available. Where are they?

Your continued refusal to address this simple issue is merely cementing your reputation for rudeness and foolishness.

Finally, I remind you that forum rules require you to attempt to provide that information.

 

[krash661]

You are just playing word games, yet again.

The entire global economy is slowing. The Etp model explains why. It is because the global economy has been starved of energy since 2012. Believe it or not.

That was my answer before. It is still my answer. It is the only one you are getting, troll.



---Futilitist

come on now-- are you not sick of your own hypocritical diverting?

 

[Billy T]

You are just playing word games, yet again.

No Ophiolite asked a clear question, which you duck answering. In fact he even subdivided his question into 8 specific areas and you still don't tell even one which is "starved for energy."

The entire global economy is slowing. The Etp model explains why. It is because the global economy has been starved of energy since 2012.

Not true. The global economy is slowing because demand is down and debt is up. People are using any surplus cash they have to reduce their personally debt. Some are turning to gold as a store of wealth, as the dollar's value is declining and about half of the world's banks now have negative interest rates, yet their population do not borrow and spend as these central banks had hoped they would.

For example gold is now just a few dollars below 1300/oz, up from 1065/oz at start of 2016. If value of dollar is measured in how much gold it will buy, dollar's value is down 27% and even recently down against the basket of currence it is stadardly compared to. This scares people, makes them defensive, slows their buying of non-necessities. Oil is now below 40 dollars/ brl (less than 33 dollars / brl by last month's average) and in supply greater than demand = huge surpluss supply of energy.

Sorry for you that the fact don't agree with you Ept model: THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF ENERGY, THERE IS A SURPLUS, forcing the price lower. The price per BTU is at a low point (compared to the average price in the last decade).

Calling Ophiolite a "troll" is not answering his questions, but probably all you can do, as your assertion that industries are "starved for energy" is exactly wrong - there is surplus of cheap energy.

 

[krash661]

billy-- i am looking at the front month now-- it is at 45.99-- and it is still in break-out mode. the next test levels are between 50-60 dollars after the retrace from this break-out.
i am also looking at dec 17' -- it is at 49.58
edit--
what this etp does not account for are the fights between the buyers and shorts-- they also control the markets with money. right now the buyers are attempting to push it to 50 dollars and then the shorts will attempt to block them there and try to hammer down the price-- there will be a fight at that price range.

 

[krash661]

what is occurring with my post ?-- on my end it gathered the words together and then italicized them--yzarc.

 

[Billy T]

billy-- i am looking at the front month now-- it is at 45.99--and it is still in break-out mode. the next test levels are between 50-60$ after the retrace from this break-out.
i am also looking at dec 17' -- it is at 49.58
edit--
what this etp does not account for are the fights between the buyers and shorts-- they also control the markets with money. right now the buyers are attempting to push it to 50$ and then the shorts will attempt to block them there and try to hammer down the price-- there will be a fight at that price range.

Thanks for the correction. I was remembering price from an earlier month, did not know a rally was in progress.

BTW, use of the dollar sign tends to make rest of line in italics and run together. A system defect I try to avoid.