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

[Futilitist]

Hello physics guys. I recently ran across an amazing physics model of the thermodynamic life cycle of oil production.

The entropy production of the oil production system is derived through the solution of the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes. The Etp function generated is an accurate predictor of historic and future oil prices, production, and the depletion status of the world's oil reserve.

I tried to present this model on another thread, but it obviously belongs here where the smart people are.

Please look this over and let me know what you think. Thanks.

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

Depletion, the Fate of the Oil Age

Only by triggering the imagination can we begin to appreciate the statement: "we live in a civilization powered by oil". If petroleum were to disappear from our lives we would no longer recognize the world in which we live; nor would we have the slightest notion of how to exist in it. For the continuance of modern society, petroleum is an essential commodity.

To satisfy our ever expanding need for petroleum and its products, a vast interwoven worldwide work force labors arduously to extract, process, and distribute it. They work around the clock to ensure our supply. Battling against the hand maiden of resource extraction, depletion, their labors grow ever more difficult as time progresses. Each year the world's petroleum industry lifts, forces, and pumps four and one-half billion tons of water, and crude oil from almost a mile below the surface. Each year the the water portion grows larger, and the oil less. The depletion of petroleum is continuing - and it is on a relentless march toward its completion!

Depletion is the inevitable consequence of resource extraction. As petroleum depletes it reaches a point where its ability to power the economy begins to decline; as the economy declines our ability to produce petroleum, and its products declines. The objective of this study is to determine when that point will be reached, and how the decline event will evolve.
...
The world's crude reserve can be likened to a car battery. As time progresses the battery's internal irreversibilities increase due to entropy production, and we say the battery "gets weak". The internal resistance of the battery increases until the power production of the chemical processes of the battery can no longer overcome the resistance. We say the battery has "gone dead". Like the battery, the internal irreversibilities due to entropy production, of the world's crude oil production system are increasing. Higher viscosity, increasing well depth, and increasing water cut have the same effect as increasing resistance does in the battery.

All processes approach an equilibrium state with their environment. This is called the "dead state", and represents the point where no additional work can be extracted from the system's energy. It is the point where the system's internal irreversibilities overcome the system's energy. The car battery reached the "dead state" when it permanently went "dead". So also will the world's petroleum production system.

The "dead state" can be determined from the fundemental properties of petroleum, its cumulative production history, and a few First and Second Law statements. Once identified it can be used as a benchmark to assertain the world's crude oil depletion state. Answers to some very important questions then become available to us. Questions like:

1) How much of the world's remaining crude oil reserve can be extracted,

2) How long is it going to last,

3) What is it going to cost?

~The Hills Group


---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_002.htm

Depletion: A determination for the world's petroleum reserve
Study Overview

Scattered around the globe are 48,000 oil fields that supply the world's need for petroleum. Each field has its own unique set of characteristics - and there is considerable diversity between them. Arriving at an estimate for the remaining extractable reserve is usually attempted by adding together the quantity of petroleum believed to be present in each field. It is the number of fields, and their distinctive compositions that make an accurate determination for the depletion status of the world's petroleum reserve a challenge.

When a field is discovered the quantity of petroleum that might be available for extraction is usually estimated by applying a very complex set of equations (the Buckley-Leverett equation, and its extrapolations). These equations require a number of initial values that are often based on the judgment of an experienced reservoir engineer. One result of this procedure is the phenomena known as reserve growth. As time progresses it is sometimes discovered that more crude oil can be extracted from a field than was originally predicted. Of course, the reservoir did not grow, it took 5.3 to 570 million years for it to form! Reserve growth occurs because there was an error in the original estimate.

When thousands of fields are evaluated, each with its own margin of error, the result is a range of values that can vary by 50% or more. To further complicate the issue nature rarely, if ever, makes any of her creations exactly the same. Petroleum is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons, coming from a world wide distribution of fields. Eleven million tons of it are extracted daily. Yet, each barrel is assumed to be exactly like every other barrel of the 72 million produced that day. Obviously, this is an inadequate evaluation method for a commodity that is essential for the continuation of modern society.
There are a number of methods employed by science, and engineering to help solve intractable problems. The most widely used, and dependable of these methods are those that are based on fundamental physical laws. The best method to use can often be identified by first isolating the specific characteristics of the problem. Petroleum has a very unique, and specific characteristic; it is the world's primary energy provider.

Energy is a fundamental physical property, and for more than a century its application has been investigated by science and engineering. A vast amount of literature has been dedicated to what has been discovered, and the procedures for the application of those discoveries. To determine the status of the world's petroleum reserve "Depletion: A determination for the world's petroleum reserve" analyzes the system's energy state. This method has several advantages over the quantity measurement approach.

The methodology employed by the study is termed "exergy" analysis. Exergy in the vernacular of the science of thermodynamics means: "the maximum amount of work that can be extracted from a system". The system under study is a unit of petroleum. The maximum amount of work that can be extracted from a unit of petroleum is calculated using the physical properties of the crude oil in question, and equations that have been derived from studies of the First and Second Law. These values are then used in the construction of a mathematical model that can predict the status of the world's petroleum reserve with a much smaller margin of error than can be provided by the quantity approach.

The smaller error results from a much more compact model than what is produced by the quantity approach. To be implemented, the quantity approach requires the evaluation of thousands of values; usually many of them are not precisely known. The energy approach (the ETP model,Total Production Energy) requires only three. The model is derived from the fundamental physical properties of petroleum, First and Second Law statements, and the cumulative production history of petroleum. To generate values the model requires the mass of crude removed over a period of time, the mass of water removed, and the temperature of the reservoir. Although somewhat complex from a mathematical perspective, it employs only one value of which we are not very certain; that is, petroleum's production history.
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 catagory 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. This is experienced by the consumer as increasing price. The model demonstrates why the two events are synchronized. The ETP model adds an important, and needed element toward a deeper understanding of the depletion status of our most essential extractive commodity.

~The Hills Group


---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm

The Energy Factor, Part IV
The Price of Oil

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. Chart# 161 below shows the historical, and projected economic activity in 2014 dollars that a barrel of petroleum (37.5° API crude) has, and will be able to power.



A more complete explanation of how the Maximum Consumer Price curve was formulated is show in chart# 160 below:



The two Maximum affordable price curves labeled 71% (black), and 62% (light blue) are skewed logistic curves. There is no explicit mathematical equation to describe them. They are derived numerically, and the dots represent values for specific years. The 71% curve is the maximum theoretical energy that can be extracted from a unit of 37.5° API crude. Its value is derived from the combustion equations of hydrocarbons. The 62% curve is the average energy extracted from the same hydrocarbon by the end user. It passes through the ETP derived price curve at the inflection point of the ETP curve in year 2012. 2012 was the energy half way point for petroleum production. It was the year when it required one half of the energy content of petroleum to produce the petroleum, and its products.
The individual points are generated from the equation:

$/barrel = (Energy delivered - ETP value/ BTU/$) * 42.

Energy delivered = 140,000 BTU/gal *0.62 (140,000 BTU/gal - the energy content of 37.5° API crude)
ETP value is derived from the ETP function
BTU/dollars is taken from the BTU/dollars graph - Graph# 12

The Maximum Consumer Price curve is curtailed at 2020 at $11.76/ barrel. At this point petroleum will no longer be acting as a significant energy source for the economy. Its only function will be as an energy carrier for other sources. Production will continue as long as producers can realize the lifting costs at existing fields. E&D expenditures, and field maintenance costs will have been curtailed. All production from that point forward will be from legacy fields only. The economic impact that will result from the energy lost to the general economy is beyond the scope of this report.

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. Chart# 161 below shows the historical, and projected economic activity in 2014 dollars that a barrel of petroleum (37.5° API crude) has, and will be able to power.



Historically, petroleum has been a primary beneficiary to the economy. The economic activity that it powered was greater than the cost of the petroleum. Its historical effect can be seen in Graph# 25 (World GDP vs Cumulative Production). That benefit is now declining, and by the early 2020's an increased use of petroleum will no longer add to GDP. It will become more cost effective for society to begin limiting its use of petroleum as the use of petroleum transitions from a GDP enhancer to a GDP reducer.

~The Hills Group


---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

So, what do you guys think of the Etp model? It seems to be valid, and the implications are startling, to say the least.

Anyway, please do comment. I want to know what people think. Thanks.


---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

It seems poorly written, but that may just be because it is intended to be just a teaser to get you to buy the book. As a result it doesn't appear to contain any fully developed/complete thoughts.

Anyway, it does appear to be based on a few falty premises:
1. For the most part, the use of energy does not add value to the economy, it removes value from the economy. The only people who actually profit from its use are the ones selling it. It's a lot like lawyers and investment bankers in that way. That's why it is possible to reduce your energy usage by a huge fraction just for want of doing it and eliminating energy use tends to increase your financial well-being (within certain limits, of course). And once we're finished with it, it just gets radiated away into space. I wish lawyers and investment bankers were more like it in that way! That's a mistake you've made repeatedly in your babble over the past few years. Stated more simply: improvements in energy efficiency have caused the GDP to continue to rise even as oil consumption (both gross and per capita) fall. Because energy use is not a value adder to the economy.

2. It's largely based on Hubbert's work, which has been proven to be wrong in the case of oil. Or, if you prefer, it was rendered irrelevant by the introduction of a replacement product (shale oil) and a new/separate curve.

3. Related to #2, it seems to be just curve-fittings of old data, which has shown to not work due to the paradigm shift in oil extraction techniques that totally changed the equations.

4. It wrongly assumes that the price of oil is directly and strongly related to the energy required to extract it.

5. They don't control for inflation in most of their calculations/curve fits, which makes them basically just curve fits of inflation itself.

6. They don't explain what the diverging graphs are supposed to mean. Which one is the price of oil supposed to follow?

 

[Futilitist]

Russ,

You do not understand the physics. You are not qualified to comment on this thread.

1) "For the most part, the use of energy does not add value to the economy, it removes value from the economy..."

You are completely wrong about this. The physics of energy underlies everything, including the economy. And all processes in the universe are subject to the first and second law of thermodynamics. Oil currently produces a net energy gain to the economy and to civilization. That is why we use it. After 2021 or so, oil will no longer have that ability.

"Petroleum’s primary contribution to the economy is that it is an essential element in the overall energy production process. Energy is as necessary to an economy as capital and labor, and petroleum has an exclusive position in that hierarchy; it is used to power the majority of the world's transportation equipment. The value of a hydrocarbon can be determined by the quantity of energy it is capable of supplying. The energy content (exergy) of a unit (barrel, gallon, etc) of a liquid hydrocarbon can be determined from its API gravity (see Study Graph# 20, Exergy vs API). A barrel of 35.7° API crude has an energy content of 5.88 million BTU, but not all of that energy is available for use by the general economy. A substantial portion of that energy is needed to extract the crude, and produce its finished products.

The extraction phase of petroleum requires an input of work in the form of goods, and services. The energy that comes from the well head in the form of crude must be converted into the components needed in the extraction process. These include not only the actual drilling of the well, and drilling equipment, but a huge number of tools, services, and direct energy inputs. To provide these the energy that comes from the well head in the form of crude must be used in the production of these needed goods and services. This conversion of energy into goods and services takes place in the Petroleum Processing System. Other energy forms, such as electricity and natural gas used in the process are not adding energy, they are merely exchanging energy with the petroleum they are helping to extract and process. Because petroleum must act as an energy source to have value, it must be capable of supplying at least enough energy to support its own production. The total energy used in the extraction and processing of petroleum must be less than, or equal to the energy content of the petroleum. If it were greater the energy production from petroleum would stop.

Over the forty six year period that the process was evaluated, on average, it required 4.9 BTU taken from the extracted crude to provide 1 BTU of work in the form of goods and services, which then could to be put back into the well head. This is an efficiency of 20.05%, which is about equal to the efficiency seen in most internal combustion engines. After petroleum is extracted about 4 out of every 10 BTU of its total energy content is used in the processing, and distribution of its finished products. The production of petroleum, and its products is a very energy intensive industry.

When petroleum can no longer provide energy to the general economy it will have little, or no value. Its only possible use would then be as an energy carrier; this assumes that some other energy source could replace petroleum's immense energy supply. As the energy to extract a unit of petroleum increases by 1 BTU the energy delivered to the economy declines by almost 5."

~The Hills Group

2) "It's largely based on Hubbert's work..."

Wrong. It is not based on Hubbert's work at all. The Etp model is derived from the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes.

3) "Related to #2, it seems to be just curve-fittings of old data..."

Wrong again. The Etp price curve is not a curve fit. It is derived directly from the Etp model, and, when checked against the price data since 1960, it has a correlation coefficient of 0.965. It is just so good, it looks like a curve fit to you.

"The ETP model is an equation derived from a Second Law statement; therefore it is a Second Law statement. The input to the the equation comes from the EIA 1960 to 2009 cumulative production report. The hypothesis that the cost of petroleum is driven by the energy needed to produce it is tested in graph #9. As the price of petroleum is historically the only data set available relating to petroleum that we can be certain is almost 100% accurate, and the ETP equation is a Second Law statement a correlation coefficient of 0.956 leaves little doubt that petroleum prices are controlled by its production energy requirements."

~The Hills Group

4) "It wrongly assumes that the price of oil is directly and strongly related to the energy required to extract it."

What? Of course the price of oil is directly and strongly related to the energy required to extract it. It takes energy to produce energy, and that energy costs money. An oil producer must somehow account for this energy cost to make a profit. Oil consumers must foot the bill. That is just common sense.

"The cost of producing petroleum can be determined from the energy required to produce it. This statement has several implications that are not generally recognized. It indicates that the quantity of petroleum that remains to be extracted is not just a property of the volume of the resource that remains in the ground, but that it is effected by the quantity that has already been removed. The total quantity of extractable petroleum is a specific value determined by the properties of the fluid, and the rate of entropy production in the system. This is equivalent to stating that the price will continue to increase until the product becomes unaffordable to the end consumer. The ETP equation gives a means to determine when that point will be reached.

To extract petroleum, and to produce its products requires energy. As the extraction process progresses the energy required per unit increases. This occurs because the petroleum industry is always first removing the highest value oil available. This can also be shown from the entropy production that must accompany any process for it to go forward. The fact that the energy to produce energy increases with time is a thermodynamic certainty. It is assured by the Second Law. As energy is a necessary component of the economy (nothing can be accomplished without it) acquiring it comes at an increasing cost, and that includes the energy industry."

~The Hills Group

5) "They don't control for inflation in most of their calculations/curve fits, which makes them basically just curve fits of inflation itself."

Adjusting for inflation is not the correct way to do it.

"The Etp model is a thermodynamic equation of state. Its output is in energy units. Any determination of $ units for an energy system is done after the energy calculations have been performed. Inflation, or deflation are thus regarded as effects, not causes. They occur as a result of the system's energy change of state. Defining them further would be redundant, if they exist, they would already be included."

~B.W. Hill

6) "They don't explain what the diverging graphs are supposed to mean. Which one is the price of oil supposed to follow?"

I think it is pretty well explained. Perhaps you should look again.

After 2012 the price of oil will follow the "Maximum Consumer Price" line.


---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

You do not understand the physics. You are not qualified to comment on this thread.

Though it throws around terms like "entropy", it doesn't actually use any physics. By the way, since you know nothing about me, you are not qualified to comment on my qualifications. However, FYI, I'm an energy engineer.

1) "For the most part, the use of energy does not add value to the economy, it removes value from the economy..."

You are completely wrong about this. The physics of energy underlies everything, including the economy. And all processes in the universe are subject to the first and second law of thermodynamics. Oil currently produces a net energy gain to the economy and to civilization. That is why we use it. After 2021 or so, oil will no longer have that ability.

You said I'm wrong about an economic issue (adding/removing value -- money -- from the economy), then gave an answer that didn't include the word "money" or "value". It doesn't address the point I made, but it does make a different prediction (<1 eroei), which isn't supported by existing data.

By the way - just copying and pasting large and off-point sections of the web-page doesn't explain/prove anything.

2) "It's largely based on Hubbert's work..."

Wrong. It is not based on Hubbert's work at all.

You must have missed it. It's on the front page of the link:

The following graph shows the cumulative production that has been extracted over time from the world's petroleum reserve. It was constructed from information provided by the Energy Information Agency, and the petrologists, Colin Campbell and Jean Laherérre. In mathematics it is known as a logistic curve, and it is the parent of the now famous Hubbert's curve; which is its first derivative.

The Etp model is derived from the Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes.

3) "Related to #2, it seems to be just curve-fittings of old data..."

Wrong again. The Etp price curve is not a curve fit.

Maybe you missed that too:

The two Maximum affordable price curves labeled 71% (black), and 62% (light blue) are skewed logistic curves. There is no explicit mathematical equation to describe them. They are derived numerically, and the dots represent values for specific years.

As for the ETP Model itself, they don't provide an equation for it, so it cannot be verified where that curve came from.

"The ETP model is an equation derived from a Second Law statement; therefore it is a Second Law statement.

Show me the equation and the derivation.

What? Of course the price of oil is directly and strongly related to the energy required to extract it.

When the price of oil suddenly dropped by half suddenly last year, did the expenses of the oil companies also suddenly drop by half?

5) "They don't control for inflation in most of their calculations/curve fits, which makes them basically just curve fits of inflation itself."

Adjusting for inflation is not the correct way to do it.

There is almost no time-varying value issue that shouldn't be inflation adjusted.

"The Etp model is a thermodynamic equation of state. Its output is in energy units. Any determination of $ units for an energy system is done after the energy calculations have been performed. Inflation, or deflation are thus regarded as effects, not causes. They occur as a result of the system's energy change of state. Defining them further would be redundant, if they exist, they would already be included."

1. Again, show me the equation.
2. It is apparent that neither you, nor they know what inflation is. If a bag of potatoes cost me $1 15 years ago and costs $2 today and I make twice as much money as I did then, then nothing has actually changed about the affordability or inherrent value of the bag of potatoes. That's inflation.

After 2012 the price of oil will follow the "Maximum Consumer Price" line.

1. Why?
2. Doesn't that suddenly render their other curve wrong since oil's price used to follow it and now (by their prediction) won't?
3. Since oil hasn't been following it for the past two years, doesn't that render their prediction already wrong?
4. Since you repeatedly (and correctly) claimed in your other thread that supply and demand would cause the price of oil to skyrocket as (if) supply decreased, aren't you contradicting both yourself and a basic principle of economics by saying the price of oil will drop?
5. With the price of oil dropping, won't people buy more?
6. That isn't an explanation of where the downward line comes from. Yeah, I know: it's based on a curve whose equation they won't show me.

 

[CHRIS.Q]

wooow

 

[origin]

I tried to present this model on another thread, but it obviously belongs here where the smart people are.

It certainly seems like your definition of a 'smart person' is someone that agrees with you. I fear that based on that definition you will continue to find that the majority of the people on this forum will not be what you consider 'smart'.

 

[Futilitist]

It certainly seems like your definition of a 'smart person' is someone that agrees with you.

It guess it must seem that way to you.

The Etp model is just applied physics, i. e. not rocket science. The basic approach is used all the time in individual oil well production profiling. It is pretty non-controversial, scientifically speaking. The novelty here was applying this approach to modelling the life cycle of world oil production. The methodology is up for serious discussion. If no one here can find a real flaw in the methodology, then the Etp model must be accepted. That is how science works.

Russ Watters' vexatious comments do not rise to the level of a serious refutation. Serious irritation, for sure, but certainly not worthy of a physics section of a real, quality science forum.

I really was hoping that someone here was capable of more than just posturing. That is why I posted this discussion in the physics section, where the discussions are supposed to be more weighty and scientifically grounded. So far, things are not looking too good for the house.

So, where are the hardcore physics gurus?

Is this a real science forum?


---Futilitist

 

[Billy T]

It guess it must seem that way to you.

The Etp model is just applied physics, i. e. not rocket science. The basic approach is used all the time in individual oil well production profiling. It is pretty non-controversial, scientifically speaking. The novelty here was applying this approach to modelling the life cycle of oil production. The methodology is up for serious discussion. If no one here can find a real flaw in the methodology, then the Etp model must be accepted. That is how science works.

Russ Watters' vexatious comments do not rise to the level of a serious refutation. Serious irritation, for sure, but certainly not worthy of a physics section of a real, quality science forum.

I really was hoping that someone here was capable of more than just posturing. That is why I posted this discussion in the physics section, where the discussions are supposed to be more weighty and scientifically grounded. So far, things are not looking too good for the house.

So, where are the hardcore physics gurus?

Is this a real science forum? ---Futilitist

Given how little you understand and yet post about plus fact you give no "click on link" to your Etp model, no sane person would waste their time searching for it. Is this just more indication of how ignorant of the facts you are?

 

[Futilitist]

Given how little you understand and yet post about plus fact you give no "click on link" to your Etp model, no sane person would waste their time searching for it. Is this just more indication of how ignorant of the facts you are?

No, it reflects badly on you because I clearly did give "click on links" to the Etp model in all three of my posts presenting it. Are you blind? Why should I have to waste 5 seconds to point out to you what you should have seen with your own eyes? You really need to read more carefully, especially given the comment of mine that you are responding to. I ask for a physics expert, and Billy T shows up! Ha ha. You are making a fool of yourself, and discrediting this forum, at the same time.


---Futilitist

 

[Billy T]

No, it reflects badly on you because I clearly did give "click on links" to the Etp model in all three of my posts presenting it. Are you blind?

No. I know the low quality of your data and reasoning from the Apocalypse thread you started - only glanced at one post here.

BTW, I have Ph.D in physics and had a 30 year career applying it for one employer - The Applied Physics Lab of JHU, rising thru the ranks to the highest level - "principle staff."

 

[Russ_Watters]

So, where are the hardcore physics gurus?

Is this a real science forum?

Not really, no. There is very little enforcement of posting quality standards, so it has a pretty high ratio of crackpots. I could recommend more serious forums to you, but you wouldn't be allowed to post in them. So trying to rally crackpots here to your cause is really your best bet(perhaps try the pseudoscience section for a more applicable audience), but almost all abandoned Peak Oil years ago. So you won't be likely to get much traction with them. Perhaps set it aside for a decade or two and then come back to it when it becomes relevant again. Eventually, oil production will become problematic and it will be a lot easier to sell a "we're crashing" scenario when production is constrained than when it isn't.

In the meantime, though, it would be a good idea to study some physics/engineering and economics so you can process these issues better next time.

 

[billvon]

The Etp model is just applied physics, i. e. not rocket science. The basic approach is used all the time in individual oil well production profiling. It is pretty non-controversial, scientifically speaking. The novelty here was applying this approach to modelling the life cycle of world oil production. The methodology is up for serious discussion. If no one here can find a real flaw in the methodology, then the Etp model must be accepted. That is how science works.

The ETP model is a reasonable theory (although EROEI is a simpler description of the issue.) It is your conclusions that are fundamentally flawed. But this isn't new - your earlier predictions about the end of society were flawed as well. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

Russ Watters' vexatious comments do not rise to the level of a serious refutation.

That is because you do not understand them. This is the classic argument from incredulity - "I do not understand what you said, therefore it does not refute what I said."

Look, we know you can post a lot. But posting a lot does not mean you're any more correct; it just means you can type. And you have a poor track record - and that DOES matter in science.

I really was hoping that someone here was capable of more than just posturing. That is why I posted this discussion in the physics section, where the discussions are supposed to be more weighty and scientifically grounded. So far, things are not looking too good for the house.
So, where are the hardcore physics gurus?

Right here; they have been answering you. You are calling them idiots, blind, fools etc - which is a common method used to troll a forum.

 

[origin]

So, where are the hardcore physics gurus?

Obviously they are out digging bunkers to try and survive the inevitable apocalypse.

Is this a real science forum?
---Futilitist

Well since you are allowed to post here it does give one pause.....

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I couldn't be bothered to read your post, Futilitist.

I would if you were more concise.

 

[origin]

I couldn't be bothered to read your post, Futilitist.
I would if you were more concise.

Here is what he was saying in a concise manner.

1. The world is going to be plunged into the dark ages any second.
2. Anybody that disagrees with him is stupid.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

It wouldn't be fair, I think, to acknowledge that without reading his posts.

What I'd like to convey is, there is so much other stuff I can do besides being at the mercy of someones spam.

 

[billvon]

Here is what he was saying in a concise manner.
1. The world is going to be plunged into the dark ages any second.
2. Anybody that disagrees with him is stupid.

Funny, he was saying the same thing back in January of 2013. Let's see what he said back then:

"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. Hypothetically, gasoline will be 12-24USD a gallon the first year, and 24-48USD a gallon the next, except that the economy will completely collapse before that can happen. Alternatives are not capable of replacing oil, and even if they were, we have run out of time to react."

And anyone who disagreed with him was an idiot.

Back then I posted this:

" In 2016 when our economy doesn't collapse from $24/gallon gasoline I am sure you'll have another paper proving that while Price was wrong, this new guy is certainly right, and the Apocalypse will come in 2020 instead."

Can I call it or what? Now it's the Etp model that proves that everyone is going to die. A year early even!