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 pstarr » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 15:43:54

The more empty economic theories you bloviate without any credible backing, the less credible you are on the entire subject.

Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.

You are such a nasty piece of work. It's almost as if you were fighting your own demons here, in public for all to see.

Not pretty
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27176
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 ROCKMAN » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 15:50:00

Cog/Outcast – The illogic is even worse then y’all imply. Even after countless explanations some here still can’t grasp the details behind those US oil “consumption” stats. They typically include the 1.4+ BILLION BBLS per year that our citizens neither buy nor consume. IOW more than $65 BILLION per year of cost to our economy that doesn’t really exist. It includes the oil bought by our refineries which is processed with the products EXPORTED to overseas buyers. In fact, not only IS IT NOT a negative on our economy it is a BIG PLUS: it adds to our GPD, adds to workers’ income and adds to our tax revenue.

I couldn’t careless how anyone rightly or wrongly tries to calculate the math. It really doesn’t mean anything to me. But such efforts should at least avoid major blunders as I just described.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11033
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 Outcast_Searcher » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 17:49:34

pstarr wrote:
The more empty economic theories you bloviate without any credible backing, the less credible you are on the entire subject.

Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.

You are such a nasty piece of work. It's almost as if you were fighting your own demons here, in public for all to see.

Not pretty

Look in the mirror and repeat your words to yourself many times. Then, some time, try contributing something positive to the site, like you used to ages ago.
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: 5423
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

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

Unread postby asg70 » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 12:34:43

Outcast_Searcher wrote:Look in the mirror and repeat your words to yourself many times. Then, some time, try contributing something positive to the site, like you used to ages ago.


Image
[space to store bad short-term prediction currently vacant]
asg70
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

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

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 12:50:53

asg70 wrote:
Outcast_Searcher wrote:Look in the mirror and repeat your words to yourself many times. Then, some time, try contributing something positive to the site, like you used to ages ago.




Thank you. Thank you very much. (Borrowed from Elvis).

https://www.google.com/search?q=thank+y ... e&ie=UTF-8

It was like a knee high knuckleball in the middle of the plate which didn't move at all. It screamed to be hit. :)
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: 5423
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

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

Unread postby Yoshua » Sat 23 Jun 2018, 03:12:45

Things are always more complicated in reality. There are differences between the energy mix and final consumption, between primary and secondary energy use, imports and exports and so on. Who can count all the berries in the world?

"It should be noted that the primary energy mix figures do not match final energy consumption figures. This is because a fairly significant portion of primary energy is lost in conversion processes to generate secondary energy. France, for example, has primary energy consumption of 260 billion metric ton of oil equivalent (toe) (toe) but final energy consumption of only 162 billion toe. This huge loss is due almost entirely to nuclear power generation, where a large proportion of the energy produced escapes into the atmosphere in the form of heat. Final consumption reflects demand for refined petroleum products, natural gas, electricity and heat. In France, final consumption in 2015 corresponded to 45% refined petroleum products, 23% electricity, 19% natural gas and 9% heat."

https://www.planete-energies.com/en/med ... energy-mix
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1086
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 » Sat 23 Jun 2018, 10:55:11

Yoshua wrote: France, for example, has primary energy consumption of 260 billion metric ton of oil equivalent (toe) (toe) but final energy consumption of only 162 billion toe. This huge loss is due almost entirely to nuclear power generation, where a large proportion of the energy produced escapes into the atmosphere in the form of heat.

https://www.planete-energies.com/en/med ... energy-mix

What does the efficiency of French nuclear power have to do with the ETP or a top for global oil prices?
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: 5423
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

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

Unread postby Yoshua » Sat 23 Jun 2018, 14:33:42

France decided to go all in on inefficient nukes to produce electricity, to avoid chocks from rising oil prices. The result: Petroleum products count for 45% of their energy consumption and are now very fragile to oil price chocks. France actually also has the second largest current account deficit in the eurozone, it is much larger than Italy's. The economy of France is inefficient and uncompetitive. When German economists like Hans Werner Sinn looks at the French economy they get really worried about the future of the eurozone.
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1086
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

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

Unread postby pstarr » Sat 23 Jun 2018, 15:10:10

Time to give up on this nonsense. This thread confuses two issues.

ETP is purely thermodynamic; it measures (and subtracts) energy necessary to operate both the crude-gathering infrastructure and the crude-consumed infrastructure that must pay for both. This critical issue explains why eroei of 2x is so important to the model. But it is not enough.

Because like any petroleum net-energy model, ETP will always be incomplete without the inclusion of other, non-crude liquid energy inputs such as coal, wind, solar natural-gas electricity. We don't know how much of the crude-gathering infrastructure is powered by that.

The other . . . more . . . important issue (and the confusion of this thread) is the entirely different demand for petroleum by every unique society that uses petroleum energy. So a country like India (where diesel is measured in gallons rather than tankfuls) agricultural, industry and consumer life-styles essentially substitute low-input non petroleum modes for power/transport oil. As a consequence each unique industrial infrastructure/societies places its own economic value and demand upon a measure of crude. We can not compare. It is fruitless. How can we say there is a single top for oil prices. Collapse is a local event. Won't be measured on the Dow or by any model.

Having said that . . . this thread is crazy.
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27176
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 kublikhan » Sat 23 Jun 2018, 19:55:50

Yoshua wrote:France decided to go all in on inefficient nukes to produce electricity, to avoid chocks from rising oil prices. The result: Petroleum products count for 45% of their energy consumption and are now very fragile to oil price chocks. France actually also has the second largest current account deficit in the eurozone, it is much larger than Italy's. The economy of France is inefficient and uncompetitive. When German economists like Hans Werner Sinn looks at the French economy they get really worried about the future of the eurozone.
What the hell is this nonsense? The problems in the french economy have nothing to do with the efficiency of a nuclear power plant. The efficiency of a nuclear power plant is the same as an oil or coal plant. Actually nuclear is slightly better. Oil and coal are where France got most of it's energy from before it's nuclear switch. And oil is not 45% of their energy consumption. It is 31%. Down from 64% in 1970. IE, before their switch to nuclear, France was MUCH more vulnerable to oil price shocks. You are just making up BS with no backing what so ever.

Energy Mix Trends, 1970 to 2012
The term “energy mix” refers to how final energy consumption in a given geographical region breaks down by primary energy source. It changes over the years. In France's case, the share of coal fell from 21% in 1970 to 4% in 2012, while oil consumption dropped from 64% to 31% over the same period because of the growth of nuclear power.

Image Image
The History of Energy in France

According to the EIA, natural gas has the highest efficiency at around 43% as of 2015. Coal, oil, and nuclear plants all fall around 33%, with nuclear keeping a slight lead.
How Efficient is Nuclear Really?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4170
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 Yoshua » Sun 24 Jun 2018, 03:04:36

The primary energy mix and final energy consumption are not the same thing.

But, sure, the whole energy system is inefficient. We are producing more waste heat than work with every fuel type.

So maybe the nukes ain't the problem in France, the problem is just that they ate French. They are just living a bit better than they deserve. Nothing wrong with that.

...........................

Individual collapse is already taking place in Syria and Yemen. More nations will be added to the list after this EM market crisis that has just started.

A crazy thread...but better than nothing?
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1086
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 » Sun 24 Jun 2018, 05:06:02

Yoshua wrote:France decided to go all in on inefficient nukes to produce electricity, to avoid chocks from rising oil prices. The result: Petroleum products count for 45% of their energy consumption
....
The primary energy mix and final energy consumption are not the same thing.
Yoshua, those petroleum products you mention also lose most of their energy as waste heat when they are used. Just like a nuclear power plant. Just like a coal power plant. Just like an oil power plant. The figure you are using has already stripped out the waste heat for nuclear(because they are reporting only the electricity generated, not the waste heat). But has not yet performed this calculation for the petroleum products. However when those fuels are burned they also lose most of their energy to waste heat. Only a small fraction of the energy in the petroleum products ends up as useful work. In fact cars are even less efficient than a nuclear plant is:

The efficiency of an average gasoline powered car is about 20%.
Energy

Natural gas has the highest efficiency at around 43% as of 2015. Coal, oil, and nuclear plants all fall around 33%, with nuclear keeping a slight lead.
How Efficient is Nuclear Really?

Yoshua wrote:But, sure, the whole energy system is inefficient. We are producing more waste heat than work with every fuel type.
Exactly.

Yoshua wrote:Individual collapse is already taking place in Syria and Yemen.
Pick any year in history and you will find a crisis going on somewhere in the world. There is something called the Fragile States Index that measures just how screwed up nations are year by year. Every year the rankings change as some countries move into crisis while others recover. Doesn't mean the end is nigh. In fact overall, 2017 saw more improvement than fragility. It might not seem like that though if you spend all your time reading depressing news stories. That was one of the points brought up in a previous post of mine. The one talking about how most people will say being a policeman is more dangerous than being a fisherman because you read about more policeman deaths than fisherman deaths. Same thing here. You read about how horrible things are in Syria and Yemen. But how many articles have you read about how things are improving? Just because you didn't read about it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Why bad news dominates the headlines

It certainly felt like a tumultuous year in 2017. As the wars in Syria and Yemen ratcheted up in intensity, Qatar was suddenly politically, economically and physically isolated from its neighbors, Catalonia moved forward on its attempts to separate from Spain, Venezuela fell further into chaos, the United Kingdom continued to struggle with the terms of its exit from the European Union, and the United States (in addition to being plagued by a series of natural disasters) moved from one political crisis to the next. Yet despite all of these concerns, the clear message of the Fragile States Index (FSI) in 2018 was that, on the whole, most countries around the world continue to show signs of steady improvement, and many – particularly Mexico – demonstrate resiliency in the face of enormous pressure.
2018 Fragile States index

Yoshua wrote:More nations will be added to the list after this EM market crisis that has just started.
Financial crises also happen at regular intervals. Doesn't mean those countries collapse. In fact some countries even seem to have made the whole borrow, boom, bust, default cycle into an art form.

Markets, despite their collective expertise, are apparently destined to repeat history as irrational exuberance is followed by an equally irrational despair. Periodic bouts of chaos are the inevitable result. Financial crises have been an unfortunate part of the industry since its beginnings. Bankers and financiers readily admit that in a business so large, so global and so complex, it is naive to think such events can ever be avoided. A look at a number of financial crises over the last 30 years suggests a high degree of commonality: excessive exuberance, poor regulatory oversight, dodgy accounting, herd mentalities and, in many cases, a sense of infallibility.

William Rhodes has been involved in the industry for more than 50 years and has lived through nearly every modern-day financial crisis, many of which are detailed in his book, “Banker to the World”. As he puts it, there is a common theme of countries and markets wanting to believe that they are different and that they are not as connected to the rest of the world’s economy. In his view, many aspects of the Latin American debt crisis of 1982 have been repeated a number of times.
A history of the past 40 years in financial crises
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4170
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 pstarr » Sun 24 Jun 2018, 09:52:58

Yosh, any well-to-wheel energy life cycle analysis deals with boundries; how far from the center to include inputs? On what side of the equation? Is labor one or both. Why is Etp exempt from this quandry?
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27176
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 pstarr » Sun 24 Jun 2018, 10:11:03

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
asg70 wrote:
Outcast_Searcher wrote:Look in the mirror and repeat your words to yourself many times. Then, some time, try contributing something positive to the site, like you used to ages ago.




Thank you. Thank you very much. (Borrowed from Elvis).

https://www.google.com/search?q=thank+y ... e&ie=UTF-8

It was like a knee high knuckleball in the middle of the plate which didn't move at all. It screamed to be hit. :)

A null comment upon a null thought.
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27176
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 » Sun 24 Jun 2018, 14:27:31

The Etp Model just calculates the energy needed to work against the increase in entropy as the process moves forward. It doesn't matter where this energy/work comes from. But is the Etp Model exempt from all costs outside its boundaries? I don't think so. What has military/police protection costs of oil wells and pipelines got to do with the laws of physics, or insurance and financing costs?

The paper marmico linked actually calculated EROI 3:1 of the global energy system when all costs were included. The energy sector consumed about 30% of the energy and the economy received about 70%.

I guess we will never know what the EROI really is...we will just see nations collapse and never rise up again...and then argue about the resons...while other nations in alliances are bailed out until that alliance collapses too...and argue about the reasons of its collapse...
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1086
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

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

Unread postby marmico » Mon 25 Jun 2018, 04:30:14

The paper marmico linked actually calculated EROI 3:1 of the global energy system when all costs were included.


I don't think the paper says that. My position is simple. Petroleum is EROI 5 from the well to the gasoline tank and has been the same for 50 years. The ETP says EROI is <2.The EROI guys have a conundrum. Why was energy spending relative to the economy 13% in 1980 @ well head petroleum EROI 30 and is 6.5% in 2018 @ well head petroleum EROI 15?

The difference between EROI 30 and EROI 15 is 3.3 percentage points. EROI is practically meaningless.
marmico
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 13:46:35

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

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 25 Jun 2018, 09:56:01

marmico wrote:Petroleum is EROI 5 from the well to the gasoline tank and has been the same for 50 years. The ETP says EROI is <2.The EROI guys have a conundrum. Why was energy spending relative to the economy 13% in 1980 @ well head petroleum EROI 30 and is 6.5% in 2018 @ well head petroleum EROI 15?

The difference between EROI 30 and EROI 15 is 3.3 percentage points. EROI is practically meaningless.

Right. And what is NOT meaningless is the intensity of energy per unit of GDP. That has been improving globally and in the first world, decade after decade, and is forecast to continue that trend in coming decades.

And THAT's where the major 4ish decade drop in energy spending relative to the economy of about half comes from.

But of course, just like it ignores inflation, the ETP ignores energy efficiency on the consumption side -- since neither tell the tale of short term economic doom it is bent on.

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

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10191
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: 5423
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

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

Unread postby Yoshua » Tue 26 Jun 2018, 01:12:53

Marmico

The paper says that the EROI of the world energy mix was 34:1 and then fell to 15:1 and had remained there.

Energy by it self can't do any work. Energy and machine is needed to do work. They calculated that the EROI then actually is 3:1 of the world energy sector. The energy sector consumes 30% of the worlds energy and the economy receives 70% of the energy. They say that this rings true with that 70% of the world GDP goes to consumption.

This would make solar panels an energy sink? The solar panels can't produce enough energy to produce solar panels and electric machines?

http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/8/11/12347/htm
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1086
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 26 Jun 2018, 02:45:18

The Etp Model calculates the work needed to produce petroleum? So at EROI 2:1 petroleum still has energy enough to produce petroleum and the machines needed to keep the process moving forward?
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1086
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

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

Unread postby asg70 » Tue 26 Jun 2018, 08:32:33

Yoshua wrote:This would make solar panels an energy sink?


The universe itself is an energy sink. That's what entropy is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_deat ... e_universe
[space to store bad short-term prediction currently vacant]
asg70
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests