Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Economics vs. ETP

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 05 Dec 2017, 18:41:21

looker - I do appreciate your effort but you link didn't open. And as far as all the others who have responded NO ONE seems to answer the basic question: if the model predicts the price of oil as some you say why cannot one of you post a link several years old that shows the model? Seems with all the ETP "experts" here that should be easy. Just saying it predicted $X/bbl is meaningless. If you have a chart from several years back just post the f*cking link. Everyone here is capable of reading a chart...we don't need you to "hold or hand". LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10666
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby EdwinSm » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 03:36:26

Some figures that have been posted for the ETP model (I am too lazy to look back through 100s of posts so saved the data to my computer, so sorry for no link).

Here is the output for the Maximum Affordability function for WTI by year:

2016...$65.94
2017....54.18
2018....46.16
2019....26.88

and


Year MAP EIA
2010 118.44 87.48
2011 112.14 71.21
2012 104.58 94.05
2013 96.18 97.98
2014 87.36 93.26

2015 77.28 48.67
2016 65.94 43.33
2017 54.18
2018 41.16


- - - -
According to these figures I find that the model was broken in the years 2013 and 2014. When I first pointed this out someone recalculated the MAP for a point around mid-year to make it fit, but it seems to me that an important part of ETP is only taking the end of year price.

To ETP supporters, are the figures I posted correct, and if not please post corrected figures.

ps. I know it is not the end of the year, but it looks like for this year (2017) the EIA average price for the year will be less than $54.18 so the model looks like it will hold for this year.
EdwinSm
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Thu 07 Jun 2012, 03:23:59

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 12:51:16

Yoshua wrote:
The Etp Model predicts that the oil industry will consume 57% of the energy content in a barrel of crude oil to produce (extract, refine and distribute) the barrel to the economy in 2017.

How does this square with the fact that for first world countries specifically, and globally generally, economies are becoming far more efficient in terms of energy produced per dollar of GDP? (Using constant dollars, not playing the "ignore inflation" game that short tries to get away with).

For example:

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-ene ... -data.html

...

If the world were about to reach the limits of such efficiency, so badly that the global economy were going to be dragged under by the weight of the costs -- there would be clear signs of that. The energy intensity would be going solidly up, not proceeding down, as usual.

Just stating the same thing endlessly, when it is easily demonstrated as clearly false in a variety of ways, doesn't buy ETPers any credibility points.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4160
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Cog » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 14:05:57

The only thing shorty needs to predict is how he is going to pay off his wager to VT when he loses on December 31st, 2017. Tick tock man.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9637
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby jawagord » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 18:09:45

Yoshua wrote:A scientific theory must be predictive. The thermodynamic laws are predictive. The Etp Model is based on the thermodynamic laws. The Etp Model must be predictive. If it isn't, then it is flawed.

The Etp Model predicts that the oil industry will consume 57% of the energy content in a barrel of crude oil to produce (extract, refine and distribute) the barrel to the economy in 2017.

The Etp Model is looking at the full life cycle of oil production.

To fight rising energy costs, the oil industry will cut its energy costs. Exploration and development of new fields will go first. The oil industry will start to cannibalize on its existing reserves until they are exhausted. The cannibalization of the existing infrastructure will continue until it collapses beyond repair...

Human behavior will respond to falling net energy. The economy will respond. The financial system will respond. The problem is just that we are against the laws of physics...it will take freaking magic to beat the laws of physics.

So let's hope and pray that the Etp Model is flawed.


Well of course it is flawed! We use oil as a feedstock to produce fuels and lubricants and it's not the sole input.

The equation for Refined Products = Crude Oils+Electricity+Natural Gas+Facilities+Labour. The crude and gas mix is variable depending on the quality and cost of the crude and the other inputs.

In Canada we have about 1 million energy workers, and with "crappy EROI" tar sands those men and women manage to produce all the fuels and electricity used by 36 million other Canadians (and we use a lot) and supply the energy needs of a whole passel of Americans, at a price much to the chagrin of Rockman et al. For the world economy what is important is the price of refined fuels and how many people it takes to produce them, those factors will tell us when we are running out, not ETP.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_ca ... _nus_a.htm
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan ... ergy_e.pdf
jawagord
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 09:49:17

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby radon1 » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 03:01:21

So, with the ETP trash duly thrown out to the trash bin given the oil price dynamics, the trickster is now up with a new "report" to show us the "truly real truth"?
radon1
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1957
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 05:09:44

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Cog » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 08:11:49

Its new AND improved ETP. Like laundry detergent.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9637
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby asg70 » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 10:56:50

shortonoil wrote:
So let's hope and pray that the Etp Model is flawed.

We can hope so!


Be genuine. Your ego doesn't want to take the hit of being proven wrong.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Cog » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 12:25:46

After shorty's ETP model blows up, which should be within the next six months, he will move onto some other scam. Its what his type does.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9637
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby shortonoil » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 12:56:44

The oil industry will start to cannibalize on its existing reserves until they are exhausted.


The industry is now replacing less than 8% of the reserves that it is extracting. Water breakthrough occurs at an average of 6.9 years for offshore, or the point where the field is 79% depleted. Existing producing fields are at least on average that old. Replacement has been low for more than a decade. Production growth from these fields can be expected to continue for no more than a year or so. The Giants, that still produce 60% of the worlds oil supply, and account for less than 1% of its fields, have apparently reached their maximum production levels, and are likely to soon go into decline; being on average more than 70 years old.

According to the Etp Model the petroleum industry, to continue at its present production rate, must now be receiving 15.7 quad BTU per year from other sources. That number is presently increasing by 2.6 quad BTU per year. The only available source for an energy input of that magnitude is NG, but the growth in NG production appears to have gone stagnant.
In 2016, global natural gas production increased by only 0.3%, or 21 billion cubic metres (bcm) to 3552 bcm , the weakest growth in gas output for [20 years], other than in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/ ... ction.html

Without increasing production of NG to help power petroleum production Peak Oil is imminent -- or it is already here. The 2014 price crash was the incentive that caused producers to boast production to its maximum. There is no upside remaining to be extracted from existing fields. Once the Peak becomes generally recognized faith will be lost in the Central Banks capability to generate miracles. With a world Debt/ GDP ratio of 320% irrational exuberance will rapidly turn to fear. Market reaction will be violent!
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 13:32:42

radon1 wrote:So, with the ETP trash duly thrown out to the trash bin given the oil price dynamics, the trickster is now up with a new "report" to show us the "truly real truth"?

From what I have heard, the running average for the WTI price is STILL running below the Etp MAP. So some of you better get your facts straight :razz: :razz:
You can ignore reality but not its consequences
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8173
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 14:14:44

shorty - This is where you lose me. Everything you describe (low reserve replacement, fields already at high water cut and thus already at high lifting cost, depleting NG reserves which were supplementing some oil production ops such as the Canadian oil sands, an industry removing an ever increasing of oil from the market place to fuel its activity, etc.) paints a picture of increasingly less oil for a world fully addicted to it. A world that bought 84 million ICE's last year. That is not a dynamic forecasting lower oil prices but higher prices. Rather simple model: you keep saying the industry is delivery ever decreasing amounts of net oil. From my producer point of view that's great: I would rather sell 60 bbls of oil @ $100/bbl then 100 bbls of oil at $40/bbl. Nothing would please me more then see 70% competitors go out of business. Especially all those f*cking Canadians in Alberta. LOL.

I've always made better ROR's during the busts then during the booms because I know how to make a f*cking profit in this business. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10666
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby shortonoil » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 14:32:45

When PStarr decides he likes somebody he becomes quite the defensive groupie.


That is an interesting comment coming from someone that no one likes!

Back to the subject at hand:

The world's economy is now running on a combination of extreme complacency, and hubris. That can change to panic in short order. The internet can propagate the message that Peak has arrived at the speed of light. The implication may take a little while to sink in because it is now completely off most people's radar. The majority of people just do not understand that the world runs on oil. But, with $250 trillion in unpayable debt hanging over the world's head, adjustment once it begins, will happen as fast as the message arrives.
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 14:40:27

shortonoil wrote:
When PStarr decides he likes somebody he becomes quite the defensive groupie.


That is an interesting comment coming from someone that no one likes!


You mean YOU don't like ASG, because he uses facts and trends which the doomers don't want to admit exist.

Pretending like "no one" likes those you don't like the comments of is like pretending your indefensible data is the only "correct" data out there. Just more nonsense.

I don't agree with every point ASG makes 100% of the time. But since ASG tends to back up his/her points and use credible data/articles to make his points, I like his/her posts just fine.

BTW, I don't like that you apparently lack the ability or willingness to properly use the quote function on this site, and properly give credit to whom you're quoting.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4160
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby shortonoil » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 16:46:47

You mean YOU don't like ASG, because he uses facts and trends which the doomers don't want to admit exist.


He uses facts? Are you referring to the stuff that he copies out of the Onion, or the stuff he gets out of his old Mad Magazines? Can you be a little more specific?
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 18:26:58

shortonoil wrote:
You mean YOU don't like ASG, because he uses facts and trends which the doomers don't want to admit exist.


He uses facts? Are you referring to the stuff that he copies out of the Onion, or the stuff he gets out of his old Mad Magazines? Can you be a little more specific?

Generally, when he talks about specifics with respect to green energy, for example, he cites credible publications or knowledgeable sources.

Not doomer blogs like zerohedge, or his own nonsense he is selling copies of.

Get it?

As far as the informal exchanges -- you call people enough names, in the style of a five year old, that you earn all the sarcasm, etc. you get around here.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4160
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Cog » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 18:31:51

Remind me of grade school notes:

Do you like me

Yes

or

No
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9637
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 19:04:01

The industry is now replacing less than 8% of the reserves that it is extracting. Water breakthrough occurs at an average of 6.9 years for offshore, or the point where the field is 79% depleted. Existing producing fields are at least on average that old. Replacement has been low for more than a decade. Production growth from these fields can be expected to continue for no more than a year or so. 


Once again demonstrating you don’t listen and don’t understand. This is the umpteenth time you have been corrected on this claim.

According to the Ernst & Young US oil and gas reserves study for 2017 Oil replacement rates were 128% excluding revisions (P1 dropped to lower category as a consequence of price) for 2016. The three year average replacement rate of produced reserves was 158% and the five year average replacement rate was 190%. This is measured amoungst the top 50 US oil and gas companies and includes Exxon, Shell and all the major shale players. As an example CHK had a reserve replacement rate excluding revisions of 486% in 2016

Your 6.9 year number is complete BS. Please provide us with the reference for that. And if you once again point to a paper about water flood injection as you have every other time you have been questioned we will all get to once again point out you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. Wytch farm as an example began production in 1978 and didn’t even reach peak until 20 years later. It was still producing 17,000 bopd 30 years after discovery. And water production at Wytch farm did not even start until 8 years after first production and remained low for decades. And what happens after water break through from a natural water drive....nothing other than the Operator has to handle more water. Offshore this isn't that problematic as at even very high water cuts the produced water can be treated and then released at the seabed.

As I have said time and time again no two reservoirs are identical and hence there is no rule of thumb for when water breakthrough will occur if a field has strong natural water drive nor, in fact, is there a guaranty that it has a natural water drive at all.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5568
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby radon1 » Fri 08 Dec 2017, 02:11:02

onlooker wrote:From what I have heard, the running average for the WTI price is STILL running below the Etp MAP.


Which running average? The one over the last couple hundred years? It is probably pretty close to zero all the time, so yeah, it is running below almost everything.
radon1
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1957
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 05:09:44

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby BahamasEd » Fri 08 Dec 2017, 05:51:36

According to the Ernst & Young US oil and gas reserves study for 2017 Oil replacement rates were 128% excluding revisions (P1 dropped to lower category as a consequence of price) for 2016.


you do realize the ETP is modeling world oil output of which the US only produces about 10% of the daily total.
BahamasEd
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2016, 19:44:57

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests