[AdamB]

Kevin Harrington, a former associate of Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel brought in to shape national security strategy, saw close ties with oil- and gas-rich Russia as critical to surviving an energy apocalypse — a fate that officials who worked with him said he discussed frequently and depicted as inevitable.

Okay....so it didn't pass the laugh test at the Society....and if Marmico is correct has never been published by any journal, let alone a reputable one. And since it didn't past even a sniff test at the Society, there is no technical review there either. So you name drop as though that is relevant. It isn't.

Do you prefer a different footnote style than the one I PMed you?

[marmico]

Okay....so it didn't pass the laugh test at the Society....and if Marmico is correct has never been published by any journal, let alone a reputable one.

Kevin Harrington, a former associate of Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel brought in to shape national security strategy, saw close ties with oil- and gas-rich Russia as critical to surviving an energy apocalypse — a fate that officials who worked with him said he discussed frequently and depicted as inevitable.

Washington Post

Harrington is a moron. NAFTA (US, Canada, Mexico) is an energy and agricultural fortress.

[AdamB]

Okay....so it didn't pass the laugh test at the Society....and if Marmico is correct has never been published by any journal, let alone a reputable one.

Kevin Harrington, a former associate of Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel brought in to shape national security strategy, saw close ties with oil- and gas-rich Russia as critical to surviving an energy apocalypse — a fate that officials who worked with him said he discussed frequently and depicted as inevitable.

Washington Post

Harrington is a moron. NAFTA (US, Canada, Mexico) is an energy and agricultural fortress.

And his name isn't listed as an author on the report, and he is highly unlikely to have been a technical reviewer on any paper that didn't get technically reviewed because it couldn't pass the Society laugh test.

[Yoshua]

Just a reminder: The Etp Model's MAP was correct about the WTI price for this year as well. The average WTI price for 2017 stayed below 54 USD. The global economy didn't collapse since the WTI stayed below the MAP...although the crude oil extractors suffered.

For 2018 the Etp Model's MAP is 41 USD.

[marmico]

Just a reminder: The Etp Model's MAP was correct about the WTI price for this year as well.

Sure. Just move the goal posts. Are you no longer posting the Loren Soman, futilist, SumYunGai, whatever graph from September 2016 which is the correct ETP MAP? Maximum price of $54.18 on January 1, 2017, declining day by day to $41.16 on January 1, 2018.

Maybe you don't know what a negatively sloped chart looks like. Now if you want to calculate a 2017 mean, that's OK.

The 2017 mean is $47.67. It has been continuously broke since late July 2017. Moving the goal post bought you an additional 6 months of relevancy. Bye-bye.

[marmico]

I never understand your posts, they are usually filled with code words and inexplicable references. This one included.

Fuck off scumbag. Put me on your ignore list.

[ROCKMAN]

Dennis - "A good site giving data on average well productivity is

https://shaleprofile.com/index.php/2017 ... mber-2017/"

I really like that style of chart. Mucho thanks. It clearly shows that the Permian Basin production, without the drilling surge, is in decline. Take 2016 for example. It did boost production but in less then 2 years production from all wells drilled prior to 2017 has declined below their previous 2016 high level. Not shocking, of course...happens in every basin. But what stands out is the net decline in less the 2 years: the nature of the high initial decline rate of fractured reservoirs. If one were to generate a similar graph for the conventional oil production boom of the late 40's thru late 50's one would see decline NOT show a similar reduction for many years compared to less then 2 years for the shales. I've seen large conventional reservoirs hold flat production rates for 4+ years before even a very slight decline rate hits. Typically a conventional oil well is not initially produced at its maximum rate possible. That can damage the well or even the reservoir. So when decline starts to show we will often have some boosting capability. Very different then shale wells where initial production is pushed to the max.

Simply put without the PB drilling surge the region would be in a consistent decline phase. Just as that seen TODAY in every US conventional oil trend. Fortunately at $50+/bbl public companies, desperate to book new reserves, can justify drilling even at the low rate of returns they are probably getting. Be care accepting ROR's you might see some companies brag about: one trick we use is to not add the lease costs into the individual well ROR calculation. The number will still be out there but might be hidden in the general overhead cost. It especially helps to do this because those tens of $millions of lease bonuses can happen several years before a well begins producing. IOW it stretches out the investment time frame. By SEC regs those expenses will still show up on a company's spreadsheet. Just in a less noticeable category and spread over the entire company's operations.

Yes: the Rockman used such slight of hand tricks when he worked for pubcos. As well as others I won't divulge. But all legal. LOL.

[vtsnowedin]

"

Just as a note; I have never been an Etp acolyte (in spite of attacks, accusations to the contrary ), just someone interested in the model because it coincides with my understanding of net-energy. Its assumptions and consequences make sense to me.

.

LOL
ROTFLMAO.
You contradict yourself in just three sentences.
I won't waste my time trying to add up all the posts you have made on several threads defending and supporting this ETP nonsense. It has to be in the hundreds.

[AdamB]

Just a reminder: The Etp Model's MAP was correct about the WTI price for this year as well.

Just a reminder for those who don't see the obvious, Yoshua being just one example. Correlation is not causation. When it becomes obvious to even the most logically challenged that the random number did just that, I wonder if the logically challenged will do the same thing the bell shaped curve folks did? Change the goal posts? Pretend they didn't display blind zealotry because they are so desparate to be right...about SOMETHING....just once? Maybe they'll change the definition of what "price" is?

"Well, the price of CONVENTIONAL oil obviously would have crashed if it weren't for all that NEW supply that showed up."

It will be fun to watch.

[AdamB]

"Loren Soman, futilist, SumYunGai, whatever graph from September 2016 which is the correct ETP MAP? "

If you point is that a particular graph is the so-called "correct" graph, then you need to explain why that particular graph more "correct" than other "less-correct" graphs.

Marmico really needs to do no such thing. When it comes to the random number generator, there are no RIGHT graphs. Just randomly generated ones. Hence the name. Now run along and wiki up some knowledge on spurious relationships and you won't have to ask questions that you SHOULD be able to answer for yourself.

Just as a note; I have never been an Etp acolyte (in spite of attacks, accusations to the contrary ), just someone interested in the model because it coincides with my understanding of net-energy. Its assumptions and consequences make sense to me.

Okay, we'll mark this one up to just your normal lying I suppose.

[AdamB]

I never understand your posts, they are usually filled with code words and inexplicable references. This one included.

Fuck off scumbag. Put me on your ignore list.

No need for foul language. Plus, every time pstarr claims to put someone on his ignore list, you know he doesn't. It is just the lying thing again. Worry when he tells you he thinks you are the greatest! not when he is calling you names.

[asg70]

That is common sense, and seems to be the case now.

While it's true in its vaguest sense, the problem is that ETP overinflates its most important metrics:

1) the degree to which total global economic output is a function of oil consumption
2) the amount of oil the industry itself wastes in its own operations

There are many cases in this and other threads where the above two key metrics have been skewered by skeptics, and yet you remain more of an ETP defender than skeptic.

And why would that be?

Because any model that predicts doom is worth defending.

Conclusion being that you are driven more by a desire for doom than reason.

[shortonoil]

Okay....so it didn't pass the laugh test at the Society....and if Marmico is correct has never been published by any journal, let alone a reputable one.

We should feel sorry for the poor zoo keeper who is responsible for keeping clothes on this ape!

We have begun communications with members of National Security Council.

Kevin Harrington, a former associate of Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel brought in to shape national security strategy, saw close ties with oil- and gas-rich Russia as critical to surviving an energy apocalypse — a fate that officials who worked with him said he discussed frequently and depicted as inevitable.

Washington Post

Trump has released his National Security Strategy, and it doesn't look good for detente between the US and Russia in the near future. Of course with Trump that could change in 10 minutes.

[AdamB]

We have begun communications with members of National Security Council.

Cool. Let us know if you can get past their sniff test.

Do you have any preference on the footnote style example I PMed you?

[Yoshua]

Freaking Hell!

[shortonoil]

Freaking Hell!

With the release of the Pentagon's UFO photos, and more astronomers signing on to the Oumuamua object being an alien probe moving through the solar system much of this could be an attempt to deal with a massive paradigm shift that will be hitting the general public. Throw in the coming end of the oil age, and Harrington's "energy apocalypse" comment, and you have a lot of freaked out people. With an economy that is now being held together with bailing twine and chewing gum that is not likely to work out very well.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Okay....so it didn't pass the laugh test at the Society....and if Marmico is correct has never been published by any journal, let alone a reputable one.

We should feel sorry for the poor zoo keeper who is responsible for keeping clothes on this ape!

So back to the "defense" by name calling?

[Outcast_Searcher]

Freaking Hell!

Tourettes syndrome? (Are you repsonding to something or just having a panic attack or what?)

Tourettes is generally verbal. Maybe you need to spend some time outside or with people dealing with reality?

[Tanada]

The fundamental different between ETP and Economics (I wrote trying to get the thread back on topic) is Economic rules have been demonstrated to work for thousands of years and ETP has only presented a loose correlation for the last handful of years.

If you want to overturn thousands of years of precedent you need something a lot better than a loose correlation between theory and the real world effects. Absolutely nothing about the last decade of oil prices is beyond the economic model of supply demand dynamics. If your intention is to show your new model is more descriptive at demonstrating cause and effect than the supply/demand model then you must demonstrate it to a much greater degree than the loose correlation which has taken place over the last three years.

Fortune favors the doubters because the ETP model has fixed dates and fixed prices for those dates which are now demonstrably false in matching reality. At the same time the supply/demand economic model is demonstrating its accuracy once again, as supplies tighten prices rise. This model was also demonstrated in late 2014 in the opposite direction, when supplies rise prices fall.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The fundamental different between ETP and Economics (I wrote trying to get the thread back on topic) is Economic rules have been demonstrated to work for thousands of years and ETP has only presented a loose correlation for the last handful of years.

...

Fortune favors the doubters because the ETP model has fixed dates and fixed prices for those dates which are now demonstrably false in matching reality. At the same time the supply/demand economic model is demonstrating its accuracy once again, as supplies tighten prices rise. This model was also demonstrated in late 2014 in the opposite direction, when supplies rise prices fall.

+1

Also, backing up the theory with logic that (for example) not using inflation adjusted dollars over 6 decades "proves" that the cost of obtaining a BTU of energy has risen by roughly the amount those dollars have depreciated due to cumulative inflation.

Of course, for the ETP supporters, ignoring math and pretending that magically, starting in mid-2014, the issue with oil became affordability and THAT's why the price fell is another favorite defense/deflection for the ETP theory. The obvious problem with that theory is that every credible source shows that the global and US economy have continued to grow just fine on average (as long as extremists aren't gaming the numbers). Thus the idea that oil at $40 or $50 is less affordable than it was for the four years preceeding mid 2014, when the price was roughly TWICE that on average, is sheer lunacy.

...

For people willing to trust the ideas and evidence of mainstream economics and real world economic data from credible sources, it looks solidly like the score should be check and mate against ETP to me.

Will a maximum MAP price dramatically crashing over the next several years help the ETPers' case? Only, IMO, if they radically move the goal posts, as some of them show evidence of starting to try to play with recently.