The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[Russ_Watters]

That hasn't happened at all. Not even close and there is absolute no indication that any such thing is even on the horizon. Far from it. In fact, supply has outstripped demand for oil by a fairly large margin.

That's a great article you found. There hasn't been much in the media discussing Peak Oil lately because most abandoned it several years ago, but that summarizes most of the main points we've been discussing here.

 

[Futilitist]

That's a great article you found. There hasn't been much in the media discussing Peak Oil lately because most abandoned it several years ago, but that summarizes most of the main points we've been discussing here.

Peak oil theory hasn't been abandoned! That is just bullshit. Your claim is not credible. I thought this was supposed to be a serious science forum.

My new theory is that Futie has actually temporarily abandoned his religion, but doesn't want to admit it, so instead he's trolling to get his thread locked and himself banned so he can leave with Crackpot Cred. He'll leave and come back the next time there is meatier negative economic news to point to. He'said taken six month to a year vacations before.

That is a very creative little theory, Rustie. You should open a thread.

Yeah, this 'hey, look at what the DOW is doing today!' bit is just too stupid to be serious. He hasn't, that I've seen, gone that stupid before - it isn't his normal schtick.

I am deadly serious about what the DOW is doing today. The latest giant bounce (since mid February) definitely seems to be running out of steam. I have been expecting a sharp decline any day now. Of course, it is always possible that the central banks could pull a last second stick save again, and we will get another crazy bounce instead. But what goes up, must come down eventually. It's guaranteed by the laws of physics.

So, in light of all this, I have a serious proposal to solve our current deadlock:

Why not let the thread keep running for the next, say, 6 months or so, and then revisit the issue of whether or not to close the thread? I have made some pretty stark predictions. If I am wrong, it will be very obvious. Then you can really make fun of me! You could get rid of me, and the Etp model, once and for all. Of course, if I am right it will also be very obvious, and I will be entitled to make fun of all of you relentlessly. And the Etp model gets a proper thread at the top of the physics forum. That seems very fair. Unless you are afraid to put your money where your mouth is.

Well, what do you think?



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

I am deadly serious about what the DOW is doing today. The latest giant bounce (since mid February) definitely seems to be running out of steam. I have been expecting a sharp decline any day now.

My other working theory was that you blew a fuse sometime over the weekend and if you really think you are serious, that would have to be it. There really aren't any other realistic possibilities, since the DOW had a worse day on *Thursday* than it did today and has similar days about once a week. So either you aren't serious or something must have happened to you since Thursday to make you lose any remaining link to reality.

Why not let the thread keep running for the next, say, 6 months or so, and then revisit the issue of whether or not to close the thread?

Because it is evident that in the meantime you intend to continue trolling in it. The predictions will keep fine (better, even) if the thread is closed.

 

[Futilitist]

Because it is evident that in the meantime you intend to continue trolling in it. The predictions will keep fine (better, even) if the thread is closed.

So, you are afraid. I figured you would be.



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

Are you refusing to answer?

Hehe - I was just browsing your original thread for laughs and I found a post where you quoted an anonymous blogger named "Tyler Durden". You didn't get the joke then either, lol!

 

[Bells]

All of the things you say above are just your opinions. Not facts.

I see.

Are you suggesting that the bodies that monitor oil supply and demand, are all just stating opinions when they measure the supply of oil and global demand, for example?

You appear to be relying on a "peak oil" forum for your argument, while blithely ignoring reality of an actual oversupply.

I have to ask, have you not left your house in the last few months? Have you failed to notice the huge drop in the price of fuel because of said oversupply? Have you failed to even notice the general push in society itself, away from oil and on to other forms of 'cleaner' energy?

They may be supported by other true believers, but that does not make them facts. It is not fair or valid for you to declare these things to be true just because you have the power of a moderator.

My position as moderator has no bearing on the realities of the economy or the oil market. Oil prices dropped to a 5 year low at the start of this year, because of various factors in the oil market, that resulted in an oversupply. Are you saying that the fact that the oil dropped to a 5 year low is just an opinion and not a fact? I don't know about any one else, but my position as a moderator has no bearing on the realities that exist in the oil market.

Or do you think that people are simply 'true believers' when they see the price of oil dropping so dramatically because of oversupply and the reliance of oil dropping over the last couple of years, which helped contribute to the oversupply over the last 12 months?

Do you fail to see how your position in this thread is actually going against known facts that are easily supported with actual evidence?

Oil producers have slowed down, because of the over supply, to try to balance the oil market and try to push the prices up. It's not because the oil is running out. It is because the demand for oil, even from countries like China, is dropping. A part of that decreased demand can also be placed smack bang at the feet of the popularity and decreased cost of production and purchase of batteries, which has seen a rise in demand for electric and hybrid cars. The predictions are now suggesting that the next oil crisis will not be because of lack of supply, but will be because of over supply as more and more people and Governments turn to electric vehicles to suit their transport needs.

This is supposed to be a friendly, public discussion forum. People should be free to state their opinions and support them as they see fit. The readers can then decide who is winning the debate.

People are free to state their opinions and they have to be able to support said opinions with actual proof. You haven't exactly done that.

You appear to have pulled your opinion on the now outdated 'peal oil' forum, which fails to address the general trend away from oil as more and more people and Governments look to other forms of energy to meet their needs.

Instead of relying on actual facts, you decided to go down the route of 'the world is ending' with some bizarre peak oil argument that isn't based on reality, nor are current predictions and current events supporting what you are claiming.

You lost this debate with your OP. 80+ pages now and you are kind of (absolutely) on your own. The market is not responding as you keep predicting it will or should. Instead, it is doing the exact opposite of what you keep predicting.

I mean, I get it, you might be the type of person who starts stockpiling canned goods because the DOW dropped 5 points or something, but it doesn't mean that you are correct to do so.

Your actions seem to strongly support my current theory. I wonder what the readers think?

What readers? By your account, we are all one of one.. That this is just a forum that exists solely to screw you over..

You know, your belief that the world revolves around you is charming in a 6 month old. In a grown man, it reeks of something psychological..

 

[Daecon]

Ooh... what if the only reason Big Oil (tm) has lowered its prices is to encourage more people to stick with Big Oil (tm) and not move onto more environmentally friendly resources? They're operating at a loss for now because they're playing a The Long Game, eventually when Big Oil (tm) wins the war on the environment, they'll jack their prices right back up again because they'll once again have the monopoly.

In other news, do you like my hat? Isn't it shiny!

 

[Futilitist]

I see.

Are you suggesting that the bodies that monitor oil supply and demand, are all just stating opinions when they measure the supply of oil and global demand, for example?

No. Not at all. Though sometimes, being government agencies, or being dependent on the government, they do editorialize a bit for political reasons. But as far as counting barrels, they basically do the best they can.

You appear to be relying on a "peak oil" forum for your argument, while blithely ignoring reality of an actual oversupply.

You appear to be vastly over simplifying and mischaracterizing the whole peak oil argument. And I have never ignored the reality of an actual oversupply. I have been talking about the glut since the beginning of the thread.

I have to ask, have you not left your house in the last few months?

I get out quite a bit, actually.

Have you failed to notice the huge drop in the price of fuel because of said oversupply?

Of course not. I have been talking about it non stop. Have you actually read any of this thread?

Have you failed to even notice the general push in society itself, away from oil and on to other forms of 'cleaner' energy?

Of course not. But that generalized trend is not anywhere near enough to overcome the decline in net energy resulting from the rising entropy within the oil production process. It is a certainty guaranteed by the second law of thermodynamics. That is what the Etp model is all about.

My position as moderator has no bearing on the realities of the economy or the oil market. Oil prices dropped to a 5 year low at the start of this year, because of various factors in the oil market, that resulted in an oversupply. Are you saying that the fact that the oil dropped to a 5 year low is just an opinion and not a fact?

Yes, oil prices dropped to a 5 year low. That part is obviously a fact. And the price drop was due to an oversupply. But the reasons for the oversupply are highly debated. They are opinion. For example, many say it is because of falling demand. You would probably disagree with them. That is why you really disagree with me. I agree it is because of falling demand, but I say that is not the whole story. The underlying reason for the falling demand is actually the second law of thermodynamics!

I don't know about any one else, but my position as a moderator has no bearing on the realities that exist in the oil market.

It sounds like you are playing word games.

Or do you think that people are simply 'true believers' when they see the price of oil dropping so dramatically because of oversupply and the reliance of oil dropping over the last couple of years, which helped contribute to the oversupply over the last 12 months?

Falling reliance is a background trend. You are trying to overemphasize it's importance. That is your opinion. 'Helped contribute to' is not the same thing as 'caused'.

Do you fail to see how your position in this thread is actually going against known facts that are easily supported with actual evidence?

There you go again, conflating facts with opinions. Yes you can support those opinions with actual evidence. But that does not change those opinions into facts.

Oil producers have slowed down, because of the over supply, to try to balance the oil market and try to push the prices up.

What a weird thing to say. There is no general trend amongst oil producers to slow down. US frackers have started to slow down because the price of oil is too low and they cannot afford to keep the wells operating. This is happening to oil from the tar sands as well. It makes sense that these high energy cost sources of oil would be shut in first. It is predicted by the Etp model. And it is exactly what is happening.

It's not because the oil is running out.

I did not say the oil was running out. But the cheap oil is definitely running out. There will always be lots of oil in the earth's crust. But after 2021, civilization (or whatever is left of it) will no longer be able to afford to produce oil on an industrial scale. That is because the energy return on energy invested will be less than 1:1. Oil will no longer be a source of energy for the economy.

It is because the demand for oil, even from countries like China, is dropping. A part of that decreased demand can also be placed smack bang at the feet of the popularity and decreased cost of production and purchase of batteries, which has seen a rise in demand for electric and hybrid cars. The predictions are now suggesting that the next oil crisis will not be because of lack of supply, but will be because of over supply as more and more people and Governments turn to electric vehicles to suit their transport needs.

Demand from China is dropping. But the rest is your opinion.

People are free to state their opinions and they have to be able to support said opinions with actual proof. You haven't exactly done that.

That is a lie. I have supported my opinions very well. There are 80 pages that show that I have gone to great effort to offer actual proof for everything I have said.

You appear to have pulled your opinion on the now outdated 'peal oil' forum, which fails to address the general trend away from oil as more and more people and Governments look to other forms of energy to meet their needs.

You are very ill informed about what goes on at peakoil.com. Most posters there are alternative energy advocates. And calling it outdated is highly prejudicial. It is also circular reasoning. You are assuming the conclusion that peak oil is a dated concept.

Instead of relying on actual facts, you decided to go down the route of 'the world is ending' with some bizarre peak oil argument that isn't based on reality, nor are current predictions and current events supporting what you are claiming.

Current events are mirroring my predictions every day now. That is what you seem to be afraid of. It undercuts the 'everything is awesome' pro business narrative you guys are pushing.

You lost this debate with your OP.

Prove it.

80+ pages now and you are kind of (absolutely) on your own.

That is not surprising considering the fraudulent nature of this forum.

The market is not responding as you keep predicting it will or should. Instead, it is doing the exact opposite of what you keep predicting.

You are wrong. I made my prediction that the stock markets were going to start to crash about a week before the August plunge. When I made the prediction, I called it my Official Futilitist Prediction, to avoid any confusion. (Unfortunately, it did not work, though. People here keep trying to take everything I say out of context, and they treat every word I say as a prediction! That is just an intentionally vexatious word game, also known as trolling.)

I mean, I get it, you might be the type of person who starts stockpiling canned goods because the DOW dropped 5 points or something, but it doesn't mean that you are correct to do so.

I am not stockpiling anything.

What readers? By your account, we are all one of one.. That this is just a forum that exists solely to screw you over.

Straw man. I never said it existed solely to screw me over. Those are your words, not mine. But this forum is an obvious fraud. And I can prove it, too. Perhaps I will open another thread if I have the time.

You know, your belief that the world revolves around you is charming in a 6 month old. In a grown man, it reeks of something psychological..

Ad hominem attack. Nice. That is a very immoderate comment coming from a moderator of a supposed science forum.



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

I am not stockpiling anything.

Why not? If you honestly believe civilization is about to collapse, why are you not preparing for it? Shouldn't you become steeped in wilderness living skills?

I did not say the oil was running out.

This is what you said on page 1:

After 2015 we will very likely cross over into permanent depletion.

"Depletion" = running out....or, if you prefer, dropping supply due to the inability to continue supplying at demanded levels.

 

[Futilitist]

Why not? If you honestly believe civilization is about to collapse, why are you not preparing for it? Shouldn't you become steeped in wilderness living skills?

Oh, I am. That is why I am not stockpiling.

But thanks for asking the question. Recently, I have been learning primitive fishing techniques using only natural materials, found locally. I have begun building a fish trap out of a palm leaf, using a weaving technique borrowed from the primitive, but extremely elegant bamboo traps of Indonesia. I also can fashion excellent fishing cordage from yucca and many other natural fibrous material. I have been experimenting with various styles of gorge hooks, some made from thorns. They work on a completely different principle than modern fish hooks. These types of hooks were once in wide use all around the world. Examples have been dated as far back as 7,000 years ago. I am a Paleolithic techno nerd.

How goes the star gazing these days?

This is what you said on page 1:

What I said was correct.

"After 2015 we will very likely cross over into permanent depletion."

"Depletion" = running out

Only to you, Rustie. You are playing word games again. Depletion means a decline in production. Look it up. Wait...here, I did it for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion

Oil depletion is the decline in oil production of a well, oil field, or geographic area.[1] The Hubbert peak theory makes predictions of production rates based on prior discovery rates and anticipated production rates. Hubbert curves predict that the production curves of non-renewing resources approximate a bell curve. Thus, according to this theory, when the peak of production is passed, production rates enter an irreversible decline.

Do you understand what that means? Please read it a few times to make sure it sticks.

Ooh... what if the only reason Big Oil (tm) has lowered its prices is to encourage more people to stick with Big Oil (tm) and not move onto more environmentally friendly resources? They're operating at a loss for now because they're playing a The Long Game, eventually when Big Oil (tm) wins the war on the environment, they'll jack their prices right back up again because they'll once again have the monopoly.

In other news, do you like my hat? Isn't it shiny!

That is a very wacky conspiracy theory you have there. But I have never said anything like that, so I am not sure what your point is. My point is that the price of oil is determined by the laws of thermodynamics, not oil companies.



---Futilitist

 

[Daecon]

My point is, why is anyone still taking this thread seriously after 81 pages of pseudoscience, crackpottery, and doomsaying?

 

[Futilitist]

My point is, why is anyone still taking this thread seriously after 81 pages of pseudoscience, crackpottery, and doomsaying?

Good question. Why are you always here? You seem obsessed. If this thread causes you such discomfort, why not try some other thread that is more to your liking? There are certainly a great many to choose from on this fine forum.



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

What I said was correct.

"After 2015 we will very likely cross over into permanent depletion."

Oil depletion is the decline in oil production of a well, oil field, or geographic area.[1]
[separate post]
And I have never ignored the reality of an actual oversupply. I have been talking about the glut since the beginning of the thread.

So....you are saying that to you a "decline in production" is too much production (oversupply/glut)? Right, I get it now: up is down, crash is boom, decline is glut. Okie dokie!

At this point I have to wonder why you bother. I don't see any plausible way that you could believe what you are spewing and you can't possibly be unaware that none of us are falling for it either. So why bother? Habit? Pride?

 

[Russ_Watters]

Flashback:
Billvon has been quoting this:

After 2015, we will cross over into permanent depletion. That means about a 4-8 percent shortfall every year from then on. That is up to 2X as bad as the first oil shock in the 1970's, over and over again, every year.

From January 8, 2013. But missed this:

This year we are expected to begin oil depletion. Estimates of depletion rates vary, but somewhere between 4% and 8% seems reasonable based on known depletion rates of existing wells. That is like having a 1970s style oil shock X2 every year from here on.

From January 5, 2013! So Futie changed his prediction by two years in three days, in the first week of that thread!

Anyway, if anyone doesn't have their English to Futie dictionary handy, I'll translate for you: "shortfall" = "glut". Also, if you don't have a Futie History book handy, in the 1970s oil shock, oil prices crashed to unprecedented lows because of too much supply.

 

[Futilitist]

So....you are saying that to you a "decline in production" is too much production (oversupply/glut)? Right, I get it now: up is down, crash is boom, decline is glut. Okie dokie!

The word games are getting *WAY* tiresome, Russ. I never said a decline in production is too much production. We have not crossed into permanent depletion yet. As you just learned, that means a state of declining production that is irreversible. (Irreversibility is a physics term, remember?) We will cross the all liquids peak and into permanent depletion when the frackers finally go bust. Basically right about now.

At this point I have to wonder why you bother. I don't see any plausible way that you could believe what you are spewing and you can't possibly be unaware that none of us are falling for it either. So why bother? Habit? Pride?

Studying psychological mechanisms of denial is very interesting to me.

Flashback:
Billvon has been quoting this:

From January 8, 2013. But missed this:

From January 5, 2013! So Futie changed his prediction by two years in three days, in the first week of that thread!

Anyway, if anyone doesn't have their English to Futie dictionary handy, I'll translate for you: "shortfall" = "glut". Also, if you don't have a Futie History book handy, in the 1970s oil shock, oil prices crashed to unprecedented lows because of too much supply.

Quit putting words in my mouth! I just got finished saying you keep inventing predictions that I supposedly made a long time ago. And you just keep on doing it. If I didn't start by saying "I predict...", then it isn't a prediction, and it isn't fair to keep calling it one. Get it?

Here is an example of an actual prediction: I predict you will not stop playing word games.

Also, as Bells correctly reminds us, you must include a link to the historical quote you are trying to take out of context in order to construct your straw man. Otherwise, it is too easy for you to make up intentionally vexatious bullshit like you keep doing. I can find hundreds of examples your use of this highly deceptive technique, and others, throughout the thread, including several repetitions of the ones you just brought up! For example, I explained what depletion meant many times before, but you bring it up yet again to force me to answer it yet again. Why do you do this? Why are you so dishonest?

And the meteoric rise of fracking only temporarily delayed the onset of permanent depletion. I had no way of knowing that a supposed fracking "miracle" would happen then, but now that the Ponzi scheme, debt financed fracking"miracle" is ending, as I said it would, it is a safe bet we are about to experience permanent depletion.

Hehe - I was just browsing your original thread for laughs and I found a post where you quoted an anonymous blogger named "Tyler Durden". You didn't get the joke then either, lol!

Dude, I saw the movie. Tyler Durden is a pseudonym for the people behind zerohedge.com, not just some anonymous blogger. Maybe you don't get your own joke?



---Futilitist

 

[Ophiolite]

I notice some comments in this thread from Russ and possible implicit agreement form others that Peak Oil is not valid concept. For the record, rejection of Peak Oil as a valid concept is as ignorant, unjustified and plain daft as as any of the nonsense Futilitist promotes.

There is a finite amount of oil in the crust, abiogenic petroleum having received inadequate supporting evidence. Therefore each well, each field, each basin, each country and eventually the entire planet will reach a point where petroleum production must decline. What has deferred this point for wells, field, basins, countries and the planet is continued improvements in the technology of oil exploration and development. It has not removed the reality of the concept.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I never said a decline in production is too much production. We have not crossed into permanent depletion yet.

In January of 2013, you said this:

We have now reached peak oil....

This year we are expected to begin oil depletion.

So you are now acknowledging that you were wrong? And:

We will cross the all liquids peak and into permanent depletion when the frackers finally go bust. Basically right about now.

But in the beginning of this thread, you said:

After 2015 we will very likely cross over into permanent depletion. That is about to happen when the frackers go bust.

So first it was 2013, then it was 2015, now 2016. Basically you are always saying we are "now" going to start permanent depletion and yet the glut continues.

If I didn't start by saying "I predict...", then it isn't a prediction, and it isn't fair to keep calling it one. Get it?

Yeah, I get it: after 3 years, you still haven't managed to locate that Thesaurus! You can call it whatever you want, it won't change it from wrong to right:

And the meteoric rise of fracking only temporarily delayed the onset of permanent depletion. I had no way of knowing that a supposed fracking "miracle" would happen then, but now that the Ponzi scheme, debt financed fracking"miracle" is ending, as I said it would, it is a safe bet we are about to experience permanent depletion.

Right: whether it is a "prediction" an "expectation" or a "bet", it's been wrong every time you've said it for three years.

Dude, I saw the movie. Tyler Durden is a pseudonym for the people behind zerohedge.com....

[applause] Finally!

....not just some anonymous blogger.

Oy. Now you'll need to google "pseudonym"!

So, any "expectations" or "bets" about what the Dow is going to do today?

 

[Russ_Watters]

I notice some comments in this thread from Russ and possible implicit agreement form others that Peak Oil is not valid concept. For the record, rejection of Peak Oil as a valid concept is as ignorant, unjustified and plain daft as as any of the nonsense Futilitist promotes.

That's not exactly what I've been saying. Of course we will eventually begin to run out of oil. Some day, decades from now, we will reach a point where supply just can't keep up anymore. But Peak Oil advocates had some very specific ideas about when Peak Oil would occur and they didn't include the impact of fracking. As a result, their prediction/expectation/bet that Peak Oil happened in the mid-2000s (2006 Futie used to claim) was very, every wrong. Note that at the time, it was practically mainstream -- I didn't see fracking coming either and it was common in the late 2000s for mainstream people to believe we may have reached Peak Oil.

It isn't Peak Oil per se that was wrong, it was the specific brand of Peak Oil Apocalysm that Futie practices that has turned-out to be very, very wrong.

[edit] More on that last bit:
Back in 2013, Futie spent a lot of time and effort trying to wordsmith and hairsplit "oil" vs "conventional oil" vs "unconventional oil". He recognized what fracking meant for Hubbert's basic prediction and tried desperately to argue around it. But he eventually had to drop that, since even he recognizes that your car doesn't care where the gas came from that powers it and you can't have a Peak Oil Apocalypse if the world is awash with plentiful, cheap gas.

In terms of trying to modify Hubbert's theory to keep it viable, he wasn't far off: you can indeed consider fracked "unconventional" oil to be a new product, on a separate Hubbert curve. But since we are very clearly on the leading edge of a new Hubbert curve and decades away from a fracking peak, he was forced to find a new basis for his apocalyptic religion: enter this "ETP Model" nonsense, which basically inverts everything he predicted before. Hence his up is down, depletion is glut dance.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hi Russ, thank you for clearing that up. I broadly agree with your points. I think as recently as four years ago I was posting the view that Peak Oil may already have been reached, or might not be hit till the 2030s - too many variables to be decide which. And fracking transformed the picture as you say. Other factors could have a comparable impact, pushing the peak further out again.

 

[Futilitist]

I notice some comments in this thread from Russ and possible implicit agreement form others that Peak Oil is not valid concept. For the record, rejection of Peak Oil as a valid concept is as ignorant, unjustified and plain daft as as any of the nonsense Futilitist promotes.

There is a finite amount of oil in the crust, abiogenic petroleum having received inadequate supporting evidence. Therefore each well, each field, each basin, each country and eventually the entire planet will reach a point where petroleum production must decline. What has deferred this point for wells, field, basins, countries and the planet is continued improvements in the technology of oil exploration and development. It has not removed the reality of the concept.

At last, a rational comment from someone. While I am a bit shocked at the source of such a rational comment, I am still grateful. Thanks, Ophiolite.

Of course peak oil is a fact. Now if we can just get Russ to admit it.

In January of 2013, you said this:

So you are now acknowledging that you were wrong? And:

But in the beginning of this thread, you said:

So first it was 2013, then it was 2015, now 2016. Basically you are always saying we are "now" going to start permanent depletion and yet the glut continues.

Yeah, I get it: after 3 years, you still haven't managed to locate that Thesaurus! You can call it whatever you want, it won't change it from wrong to right:

Right: whether it is a "prediction" an "expectation" or a "bet", it's been wrong every time you've said it for three years.

[applause] Finally!

Oy. Now you'll need to google "pseudonym"!

Wow. My latest prediction just came true.

"Here is an example of an actual prediction: I predict you will not stop playing word games."
~Futilitist, post #1615

That's not exactly what I've been saying. Of course we will eventually begin to run out of oil. Some day, decades from now, we will reach a point where supply just can't keep up anymore. But Peak Oil advocates had some very specific ideas about when Peak Oil would occur and they didn't include the impact of fracking. As a result, their prediction/expectation/bet that Peak Oil happened in the mid-2000s (2006 Futie used to claim) was very, every wrong. Note that at the time, it was practically mainstream -- I didn't see fracking coming either and it was common in the late 2000s for mainstream people to believe we may have reached Peak Oil.

You didn't see fracking coming then and now you don't ever see it going away! The first mistake is forgivable. Few serious analysts saw it coming, so I certainly wouldn't have expected someone like you to. But the second mistake is less forgivable because it is so obvious.

Also, since the advent of fracking delayed the all liquids peak, what do you think will happen when fracking disappears because the price of oil is too low to support it?

And actually I claimed that the peak of light sweet crude oil took place in 2006. It did. So you are the one who is wrong, as Ophiolite so kindly pointed out to you. You do not understand basic peak oil theory. You should stop saying stupid things about the fact of peak oil. It does not reflect well on this science forum.

Hi Russ, thank you for clearing that up. I broadly agree with your points. I think as recently as four years ago I was posting the view that Peak Oil may already have been reached, or might not be hit till the 2030s - too many variables to be decide which. And fracking transformed the picture as you say. Other factors could have a comparable impact, pushing the peak further out again.

Now that fracking is unaffordable, what other factors do you think might have a comparable impact? Because if we don't get one soon, the logical assumption would be that we will cross the all liquids peak much sooner than most folks are expecting.

Back in 2013, Futie spent a lot of time and effort trying to wordsmith and hairsplit "oil" vs "conventional oil" vs "unconventional oil". He recognized what fracking meant for Hubbert's basic prediction and tried desperately to argue around it. But he eventually had to drop that, since even he recognizes that your car doesn't care where the gas came from that powers it and you can't have a Peak Oil Apocalypse if the world is awash with plentiful, cheap gas.

It is "cheap" gas made out of expensive, debt financed oil, Russ. The oil companies can't stay in business very long if they keep selling the oil for less than it costs to produce.

...enter this "ETP Model" nonsense, which basically inverts everything he predicted before. Hence his up is down, depletion is glut dance.

It only inverts it in your mind because you are mischaracterizing what I was saying then and what I am saying now so you can argue with a straw man. I notice you didn't include any links. Misrepresentations like that are technically against the rules of the forum. You are so dishonest. If you want to argue with yourself, go ahead. It doesn't mean a thing to anyone but you. I'm going to put you back on pretend ignore.



---Futilitist