Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil prices?

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 05 Jun 2018, 11:32:11

And keeping it on the light side: a joke I heard the other day. Of course the earth is screwed up: it's bi-polar.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11008
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby Yoshua » Tue 05 Jun 2018, 12:25:38

When Shorty used his animal magnetism to pull me to the dark side, he did it with mutilated chickens. At first I thought that he was trying to make a fool out of me. Well..here I am.

I wish that Shorty could repost that chicken comment. I had some weird dreams after that one.
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby Yoshua » Tue 05 Jun 2018, 12:52:40

A farmer who buys diesel is not just paying for the crude and for the still gas, petroleum coke and nat gas to boil the crude, he must also pay for the really advanced science, technology and math behind oil refinery and for the construction, upgrading and maintenance of the refinery and the wages of the educated workforce and the interests on the refineries loans and the loans and taxes and the refineries profits and other million things...it's all there in the price of diesel.
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 05 Jun 2018, 15:29:00

Yoshua wrote:A farmer who buys diesel is not just paying for the crude and for the still gas, petroleum coke and nat gas to boil the crude, he must also pay for the really advanced science, technology and math behind oil refinery and for the construction, upgrading and maintenance of the refinery and the wages of the educated workforce and the interests on the refineries loans and the loans and taxes and the refineries profits and other million things...it's all there in the price of diesel.

And yet, the ETP model is wrong, the MAP is broken. So do you have a point? Because it's not like the overhead for a gallon of gasoline or diesel vs. the underlying crude price has risen much in recent decades.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5261
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 05 Jun 2018, 21:40:57

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
Yoshua wrote:A farmer who buys diesel is not just paying for the crude and for the still gas, petroleum coke and nat gas to boil the crude, he must also pay for the really advanced science, technology and math behind oil refinery and for the construction, upgrading and maintenance of the refinery and the wages of the educated workforce and the interests on the refineries loans and the loans and taxes and the refineries profits and other million things...it's all there in the price of diesel.

And yet, the ETP model is wrong, the MAP is broken. So do you have a point? Because it's not like the overhead for a gallon of gasoline or diesel vs. the underlying crude price has risen much in recent decades.

As far as I see it, ETP is neither inconsistent, nor inconclusive. It has yet to be proven wrong, from what I can tell.

As per the overhead for gallon of gasoline diesel crude price; yes it has risen. Before the run up to the peak in conventional oil production (and the resulting Greatest Recession Ever) . . . crude oil averaged around $30 barrel. Subsequent to the peak it average around $70 barrel, barely enough to jump-start the fracting revolution. Of course that collapsed the world economy. We are only now struggling out of that morass, with the Greatest Debt Ever.

Oil price will crash again and ETP will be VINDICATED !!!!!!1 ha hahhhhh :twisted: :P 8)
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27066
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby Yoshua » Wed 06 Jun 2018, 03:02:51

According to EIA the farmer pays 17% in refinery costs per gallon of diesel (and gasoline).

According to EIA only 80% of the energy content in a barrel makes it to liquid fuels. The refineries remove 20% of the energy content in a barrel for other purposes than liquid fuels.

So up to 35% of the net energy in a barrel of crude is lost in the refinery.

Crude oil engines could use all of the energy content in barrel of crude. If crude oil engines are a solution to our energy dilemma, then the shift to them will probably take place naturally.
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby kublikhan » Wed 06 Jun 2018, 08:16:20

People are willing to pay an extra cost to transform primary energy sources into a form that gives them a higher utility. There are called secondary energy sources. Refined petroleum fuels are an example of secondary energy sources. Electricity is another. We consumers get a higher utility out of electricity than we do from coal & nuclear fuels directly. So we are willing to pay the extra money and energy it costs to convert those fuels into electricity. Just as we are willing to pay the extra money and energy costs to convert crude oil into diesel and gasoline. Because they give us a higher utility than burning crude oil directly.

Primary and secondary sources
The numerous existing energy sources can be classified in different ways. Primary sources can be used directly, as they appear in the natural environment: coal, oil, natural gas and wood, nuclear fuels (uranium), the sun, the wind, tides, mountain lakes, the rivers (from which hydroelectric energy can be obtained) and the Earth heat that supplies geothermal energy.
Secondary sources derive from the transformation of primary energy sources: for example petrol, that derives from the treatment of crude oil and electric energy, obtained from the conversion of mechanical energy (hydroelectric plants, Aeolian plants), chemical plants (thermoelectric), or nuclear (nuclear plants). Electric energy is produced by electric plants, i.e. suitable installations that can transform primary energy (non-transformed) into electric energy.
Primary and secondary sources

A primary energy source is defined as one that is captured directly from natural resources. A secondary energy source is one obtained from a primary energy source through a transformation process, typically with the aim to make it suitable for a particular energy use. For example, gasoline is a secondary product better suited for motor transport uses than crude oil, the primary product from which it is made.
Primary and Secondary Renewable Energy Sources
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4151
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 06 Jun 2018, 09:12:20

Yoshua wrote:
According to EIA only 80% of the energy content in a barrel makes it to liquid fuels. The refineries remove 20% of the energy content in a barrel for other purposes than liquid fuels.

So up to 35% of the net energy in a barrel of crude is lost in the refinery.

Misinformed, or reading comprehension problems or both, so pretty much your usual fare.

"Other purposes" don't have to mean "loss". and they certainly all don't. For example, how about all the plastics that come from crude oil? A big chunk of that 20% is going to be accounted for in that one example. How about asphalt? That isn't exactly liquid fuels either, now is it?

As you've been shown repeatedly by folks like kub and rock, it's no where NEAR the roughly 50% loss (as of 2012) claimed by short. The amount is also not rising exponentially over time, unlike what was claimed by short.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, one of short's biggest mistakes was ignoring several decades of inflation in his calculations, and thus mistaking inflation for a massively rising energy cost to refine crude.

(Source V2 of his ETP paper, dated March 1, 2015).

Both he and you have continued to ignore all of this, and you continue to repeat the same nonsense. Whether you say it ten times or thousands of times, it still doesn't make it so.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5261
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 06 Jun 2018, 09:18:47

pstarr wrote:
Outcast_Searcher wrote:
Yoshua wrote:A farmer who buys diesel is not just paying for the crude and for the still gas, petroleum coke and nat gas to boil the crude, he must also pay for the really advanced science, technology and math behind oil refinery and for the construction, upgrading and maintenance of the refinery and the wages of the educated workforce and the interests on the refineries loans and the loans and taxes and the refineries profits and other million things...it's all there in the price of diesel.

And yet, the ETP model is wrong, the MAP is broken. So do you have a point? Because it's not like the overhead for a gallon of gasoline or diesel vs. the underlying crude price has risen much in recent decades.

As far as I see it, ETP is neither inconsistent, nor inconclusive. It has yet to be proven wrong, from what I can tell.

As per the overhead for gallon of gasoline diesel crude price; yes it has risen. Before the run up to the peak in conventional oil production (and the resulting Greatest Recession Ever) . . . crude oil averaged around $30 barrel. Subsequent to the peak it average around $70 barrel, barely enough to jump-start the fracting revolution. Of course that collapsed the world economy. We are only now struggling out of that morass, with the Greatest Debt Ever.

Oil price will crash again and ETP will be VINDICATED !!!!!!1 ha hahhhhh :twisted: :P 8)

As usual you have nary a clue and post nonsense. The price of crude oil itself is NOT the price, i.e. the cost of refining it (i.e. the overhead of producing products like gasoline or diesel).

The more your signal to noise ratio consistently approaches zero, the more you deserve to be consistently ignored. I'm getting close to that point. Congratulations.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5261
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 06 Jun 2018, 14:15:58

yoshua - "...they still remove them and the net energy falls by 20% per barrel." You seem very confused. The energy in a bbl of oil includes the other products as well as the gasoline and diesel.

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), this is a list of petroleum products and their share of total US petroleum consumption in 2013.

•Gasoline 46%
•Heating Oil / Diesel Fuel 20%
•Jet Fuel ( kerosene) 8%
•Propane / Propylene 7%
•NGL / LRG 6%
•Still Gas 4%
•Petrochemical Feedstocks 2%
•Petroleum Coke 2%
•Residual / Heavy Fuel Oil 2%
•Asphalt / Road Oil 2%
•Lubricants 1%
•Miscellaneous Products / Special Naphthas 0.4%
•Other Liquids 1%
•Aviation Gasoline 0.1%
•Waxes 0.04%
•Kerosene 0.02%

Every one of these refinery products represent an amount of Btu's. Thus the total Btu content (energy) of every bbl of oil entering the refinery is equal to the total Btu content (energy) of the products. As explained many times before refinery products are not CREATED IN THE REFINERY: they already exist in every bbl of oil. It is a distillation process: products are separated from the oil.

But you are correct: there is a net loss of the TOTAL ENERGY entering the refinery. That total includes the energy in the oil AND THE ENERGY in the NG and small amount of electricity that is used to fuel the distillation process, This is the aspect of oil refining that you and others continue to get wrong. Whether done out of ignorance or intentionally to spin a false narrative I'll let others judge.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11008
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby kublikhan » Wed 06 Jun 2018, 14:38:03

Yoshua wrote:If the refineries remove 20% of the energy content in a barrel of crude for other useful purposes than liquid fuels...they still remove them and the net energy falls by 20% per barrel.

Crude oil engines can burn long, heavy hydrocarbon chains as well as long as they are mixed in the crude in smaller percentages.
Are you suggesting shutting down the global refining industry and burning all of the crude oil directly as fuel? That would be a very bad idea for many reasons.

1: It is inefficient:
Crude oil is a mixture of different oils (the difference being the number of carbon atoms in the chains that make up the oil). Different crude oils from different sources have different mixes of these oils so the first problem is that not all crude oils are the same. The second problem is that the different oils in the mix have different properties - such as volatility and combustion characteristics. The combination of these factors makes burning crude oil as a fuel very inefficient because it's impossible to create one ideal set of conditions (e.g. in terms of oxygen availability, temperature, pressure, etc). In simple terms this produces a lot of partially-burnt smoke plus a lot of smell, as well as relatively little energy, clogged exhaust systems and unpredictable power output.
Why does crude oil have to be refined before it can be used?

2: It is very dirty:
The crude oil if used(burned) directly will find a limited usage and will create a lot of pollution. In addition to unburned hydrocarbons the plumes of smoke will contain harmful and toxic gases like SOX, NOX, VOCs, N2O and possibly some mercury too. Therefore, it is not only desired but necessary to refine the crude oil before we use it.
Why does crude oil have to be refined before it can be used?

3: It destroys the current uniformity we have for gasoline and diesel that are consistent fuels:
Could crude oil be used directly if only we had the right kinds of engines and boilers? The answer is no, because each crude oil is very different and made up of a large number of hydrocarbon molecules. The lightest molecules, dissolved gases, have 1 to 4 carbon atoms, while the heaviest have over 20. These molecules are present in varying proportions depending on the deposit , meaning that each oil has its own composition and properties. Some crudes are black and viscous and contain a lot of heavy molecules; others are brown, more fluid and lighter. Each also contains a certain amount of dissolved gas and highly corrosive products, such as sulfur or acids, which can sometimes be toxic. Crude oil is a highly variable mixture of heavy and light hydrocarbons that need to be separated in a refinery to turn them into usable products. For these different reasons it is impossible to develop a universal boiler or engine capable of running on all crude oils.
Why Crude Oil Needs to be Refined

4: It would eliminate an important feedstock for the petrochemical industry. And this industry covers much more than plastic and asphalt. it also includes fertilizers, pesticides, polyester, medicines, food additives, carpeting, shampoo, etc.

The Many Uses of Petrochemicals
Petrochemicals are any products made from petroleum. You're probably aware gasoline and plastic start out as petroleum, but petrochemicals are incredibly versatile and are incorporated into a huge range of products ranging from groceries to rocket fuel.

Petrochemicals in Medicine...
Petrochemicals in Food...
Petrochemicals in Agriculture...
Petrochemicals in Household Products...
Examples of Petrochemicals and Petroleum Products

Anyway you look at it, your proposal is a very bad idea.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4151
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 06 Jun 2018, 14:55:38

k - "Are you suggesting shutting down the global refining industry and burning all of the crude oil directly as fuel? That would be a very bad idea for many reasons." Nice LONG explanation. But the short answer: who the f*ck drives a vehicle powered by a crude oil engine? LOL. BTW I don't know of any company building tractors powered by crude oil engines.

This conversation has mutated from merely foolish to truly worthless. I will do my best to avoid contributing any further.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11008
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 06 Jun 2018, 19:51:07

The Historical Chart of the stock of General Electric tells you everything you need to know about the state of Oil Production in the USA:

The Shale "Industry" doesn't even exist anymore. GE stock has been cratering since mid 2016 after being in General Collapse since year 2000. The Y2K computer bugs were right about doom, just the wrong type.

Industrial Erosion in the USA is continuing to worsen.

In other words, Bankrupt.

I no longer will waste time arguing with fools who believe Bankruptcy will make the CEO's (oops meant "oil industry") stronger or cretins with their EV Toys and "Renewables" that have no industrial relevance.

The only solution is the Declaration of War against the State of California and City of Vancouver to free them from Tyranny.

Watch the evening news for my unveiling of the Road Superiority Vehicle (RSV) NOT powered by fossil fuels, nor uses batteries, or fuel cell, and comes with infinite range and is impenetrable by RPG and AK-47 fire. It will crush both the EV vermin and the medievalists in one fell swoop.

This is my last post.

See you in hell, Roadkill.I will guarantee you MAD MAX 3.
There is no escaping The Oil Apocalypse and there will be no survivors.
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 06 Jun 2018, 20:40:54

This is my last post.


Thank frigging Christ!
we should all be so lucky.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5877
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby Yoshua » Thu 07 Jun 2018, 06:52:40

So we can count out the crude oil engine as a solution? It could well be so that we have chosen the current petroleum path since it's the only functional.

Well...then we are back to the Etp Model's thermodynamic death.
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby kublikhan » Thu 07 Jun 2018, 11:22:57

The ETP Model has been thoroughly debunked by multiple experts in their field. No need to hitch your wagon to that train.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4151
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby Cog » Thu 07 Jun 2018, 12:11:13

If you get in between a man and his doom he won't thank you for the education. It will only make him more angry.
User avatar
Cog
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10264
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby Yoshua » Thu 07 Jun 2018, 14:41:49

RIP Brazil
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby Yoshua » Fri 08 Jun 2018, 09:25:00

I remember when the professor in thermodynamics debunked the Etp Model. He took the entropy equation to the dead state...then erased parts of the equation and turned the the rest of the equation up side down. Voila! Negative entropy.

Shortonoil and Futilitits (and even I) and then even Dennis at Peakoilbarrel recognized that the professor was just full of shaith. He's only purpose was to deceive the fools. Well...I must admit that he did a good job.
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 08 Jun 2018, 11:48:04

Yoshua wrote:Shortonoil and Futilitits (and even I) and then even Dennis at Peakoilbarrel recognized that the professor was just full of shaith. He's only purpose was to deceive the fools. Well...I must admit that he did a good job.
Ummm. Futilitits is...what is the polite term....scientifically challenged? I tried engaging him many times on a variety of subjects. He would always dismiss any argument you made, insult you, and declare victory. I would not be quoting his "debunking" on anything. Shortonoil engaged in similar behavior. I personally torn his nonsense on refining and inflation to pieces many times. He would ignore my points, insult me, and declare victory. This is not the kind of behavior I would be hitching my wagon to if I were you. And as for Dennis at peakoilbarrel.com, he said the professor was correct and the ETP Model was wrong:

Dennis Coyne wrote:So you think the mechanical engineering professor does not understand classical thermodynamics. You are ignoring the irreversibilities in the extraction of oil, the mechanical engineers are pretty well versed in mechanics and thermodynamics, perhaps it is you who needs a refresher on your basic physics?

Note that you are assuming the Hill’s Group has made correct assumptions in their thermodynamic analysis, they have not.

There is a good reason the ETP model has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, it would likely be rejected by qualified reviewers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also have a good physics background having majored in it as an undergraduate. I will go with the evaluation of the Professor emeritus. There are several people who post here with good physics backgrounds who are unconvinced by the ETP model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A basic assumption of Hill’s analysis is incorrect, see the second equation in the post, incorrect assumptions lead to a flawed analysis. I noticed so far Hill’s attempts at rebuttal essentially are name calling. Yours, argument from authority.

I believe [professor]SK’s analysis both because he is an authority and because he is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A layman’s guide.

Oil prices are not determined primarily by thermodynamics as the Hill’s Group suggests.

Geology and technology will affect the cost to supply the oil and World economic growth and technology will affect the demand for oil, the price of oil will mostly be determined by these factors along with policy and political choices made by individual nations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree net energy is important, but only as it relates to all sources of energy used by society. When the ETP model looks at energy flows into and out of the petroleum production system (PPS) it needs to account for the source of energy, in many cases the energy is supplied by coal or natural gas and not by oil.

Simply put it is the net energy of all forms of energy which society uses that is important, not the net energy of a single product (oil).

What is the net energy of the electricity you use? Does it affect the price you pay? My guess is that you have no idea what it actually is. Or maybe you do, most people have no idea, so it has little bearing on the price they pay.

The companies that produce the electricity also don’t bother to find the EROEI of the electricity produced, the point is to supply the electricity at as low a cost as possible to keep profit margins as high as possible at the market price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of problems with the analysis besides just the thermodynamics.

A basic assumption of the theory is that oil has to be a source of energy. Not clear why.

As long as people need oil they will pay a price for it, the price has to be high enough so that demand can be met by suppliers at a profit (in the long run). It really is that simple. Just as we are willing to pay for electricity, we would be willing to pay for oil even if it’s net energy was negative. It is the net energy of all social energy sources that is important, not that of a single product.
On the Thermodynamic Model of Oil Extraction by the Hill’s Group
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4151
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests