Page 18 of 19

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

Unread postPosted: Mon 11 Jun 2018, 10:38:37
by asg70
onlooker wrote:So Outcast, the rosy MSM picture is the be all end all eh?
"Is the Global Economy Just a Giant Debt Scam? Here's What the Financial Elite Doesn’t Want You to Know"

https://www.alternet.org/global-economy ... =hootsuite


Here we go linking to doomer/tinfoil blogs again in a futile attempt to appeal to authority.

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

Unread postPosted: Mon 11 Jun 2018, 12:06:13
by Outcast_Searcher
Revi wrote:The ETP people may end up having a point if the value of the US Dollar goes down. It was at 103 and change at the beginning of last year. Now it's at 93 and change. That explains at least the 10% it's gone up over the past year and a half. Gas was at around $2.50 and now it's at $2.85. That's about a 35 cent increase, which is not much above the 25 cent increase that the 10% drop implies. It might have nothing to do with etp. It might be just inflation, caused by the dollar's drop.

But if you look at a DXY chart, the massive rise in oil prices seems to have little correlation with the direction of the dollar since early 2017. For example, from early April to late May of this year, the dollar surged over 5%. And WTI was surging too, right through $72 until the concerns about OPEC production surfaced the last week in May.

Plus, WTI nearly tripled from the bottom in early 2016 to the recent top in May. Your sense of scale here re the 10%ish move for the dollar and the HUGE move for crude seems way off to me.

The price of gasoline was more like $2 in early 2016 near the bottom for oil prices, indicating the move in gasoline prices was far more than the 35 cents or so you're talking about.

And WHAT inflation? Overall inflation is still below 2% in the US, or was when I last checked a month or so ago.

Am I missing something?

https://www.dailyfx.com/crude-oil

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta ... ine-prices

(I'm looking at the 5Y option for the gasoline price chart, and it's priced in liters).

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

Unread postPosted: Mon 11 Jun 2018, 15:31:37
by Yoshua
The world consumes 8% of GDP on energy...or...the global energy sector consumes 8% of world GDP to produce and distribute energy to the economy.

That would give the global energy mix an EROI 12.5:1 in total.

If petroleum is close to EROI 1:1 today, then the rest of the 2/3 of the energy mix would be EROI 18.75 today.

Even if petroleum delivers zero net energy to the economy, it is valuable to the economy and to the energy sector as a liquid fuel to run the operations.

The oil price would then be determined by the EROI of the energy mix and the economic activity that the energy mix generates.

Dennis is right and Shortonoil is wrong. Unbelievable!

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

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jun 2018, 12:35:57
by Yoshua

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

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jun 2018, 13:01:06
by Yoshua
World energy consumption grew by 2.2% in 2017.

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

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

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jun 2018, 13:14:12
by Cog
But I was told on this very board that no one can afford the current price or any price for oil. Please don't tell me that was wrong. I would be shocked to my very core.

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

Unread postPosted: Sat 16 Jun 2018, 03:43:23
by Yoshua
Energy prices increased by 16% in 2017. The global energy sector would then consume 9.3% of the global GDP. The last time the energy sector consumed 10% of the global GDP was in 2008 and then we also had a global financial crisis.

The rise in energy prices is now hurting some economies, or some economic sectors, depending on what they are producing and exporting, or selling. One could perhaps say that economies with a low energy mix EROI are taking the first hit when energy prices rise...if one considers that GDP = Energy and Energy = Matter. It takes energy to produce all the goods and services that make up the GDP.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34352

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

Unread postPosted: Sat 16 Jun 2018, 06:19:47
by marmico
Energy prices increased by 16% in 2017. The global energy sector would then consume 9.3% of the global GDP. The last time the energy sector consumed 10% of the global GDP was in 2008 and then we also had a global financial crisis.]


More bullshit from the Finnish Flash. Teemu Selanne was a great hockey player. Bedford W Hill was a lousy energy analyst.

Like are you a grade school arithmetic retard or what? $75 nominal oil in 2018 is not the same as $150 nominal oil in 2008.

The EIA provides data. Use the US as proxy for the world.

The world economy, not the subset energy sector, spent 13% on energy in 1980, 9.5% on energy in 2008 and 6.5% on energy in 2017.

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/mo ... ec1_17.pdf

If you really want to get deep into the weeds, you could read this.

http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/8/11/12347

The analysis makes your peak oil heroine, Gail Tverberg, look ridiculous.

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

Unread postPosted: Sat 16 Jun 2018, 14:26:06
by Yoshua
Arithmetic genius

Using the U.S as a proxy might be difficult when imported nat gas prices in Europe are twice as high to U.S prices. The Brent price is higher than the WTI price as well and electricity prices are higher in Europe.

The energy expenditure as percentage of GDP was 6.2 in 2015 in the U.S and might have been so in 2016 as well, so an 16% increase would give 7.2% in 2017 in the U.S.

The U.S might have a high energy mix EROI after all...minus the scraping up what's left in the oil barrel business?

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

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

Unread postPosted: Sat 16 Jun 2018, 15:11:29
by Yoshua
Coal prices are lower in the U.S compared to other major economies.

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

The geniuses in Texas calculated the global energy mix EROI to 30:1 in 1980 and that it then declined to 15:1 and stayed there until 2010.

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

Unread postPosted: Sat 16 Jun 2018, 15:46:52
by kublikhan
Yoshua wrote:Using the U.S as a proxy might be difficult when imported nat gas prices in Europe are twice as high to U.S prices.
And what did you use when you came up with your figure of 9.3%?

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

Unread postPosted: Sat 16 Jun 2018, 21:22:52
by AdamB
Observerbrb wrote:Finally, it seems that the ETP model was completely wrong.


Duh. And it only took minutes to figure it out, like years ago.

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

Unread postPosted: Sat 16 Jun 2018, 21:37:35
by Outcast_Searcher
AdamB wrote:
Observerbrb wrote:Finally, it seems that the ETP model was completely wrong.


Duh. And it only took minutes to figure it out, like years ago.

But you weren't going to convince ANY of the ETP advocates about that until a significant prediction from the ETP failed miserably (eliminating ambiguity). And that's what we have occurring re the MAP in 2018.

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

Unread postPosted: Sat 16 Jun 2018, 21:43:19
by AdamB
Yoshua wrote:I will say something: The Etp Model isn't just the coolest model out there...but it's also the coolest new economic theory out there today.


It is no such thing.

Yoshua wrote:
But then again...what is the point of me saying it since you will never understand even the basics of the Etp Model.


It took minutes to identify it as a crock. Years ago. You really should have paid more attention to those of us who could figure this out without waiting around for the obvious to happen.

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

Unread postPosted: Sun 17 Jun 2018, 02:37:25
by Yoshua
The Etp Model is still the best energy analysis of petroleum production. The Model provides valuable information about the net energy decline in petroleum production.

The net energy value of petroleum production will fall to zero. The economy and the energy sector will need petroleum as a liquid fuel to run their operations, which will give petroleum an economic value even when the net energy value falls to zero.

There will still be constrains on how high the oil price can rise to maintain oil production on todays high level. It will have an enormous impact on the world.

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

Unread postPosted: Sun 17 Jun 2018, 04:15:09
by Yoshua
I took the 8% number from these two articles and just added 16% to it. The articles are bit old, but I had to start somewhere.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/a ... affect-it/

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ener ... &IR=T&IR=T

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

Unread postPosted: Sun 17 Jun 2018, 05:59:11
by AdamB
Outcast_Searcher wrote:
AdamB wrote:
Observerbrb wrote:Finally, it seems that the ETP model was completely wrong.


Duh. And it only took minutes to figure it out, like years ago.

But you weren't going to convince ANY of the ETP advocates about that until a significant prediction from the ETP failed miserably (eliminating ambiguity). And that's what we have occurring re the MAP in 2018.


In the case of zealots, often they are not convinced even AFTER the model has been proven wrong. See peak oilers and bell shaped curves.

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

Unread postPosted: Sun 17 Jun 2018, 06:09:59
by AdamB
Yoshua wrote:The Etp Model is still the best energy analysis of petroleum production.


It is no such thing.

Yoshua wrote: The Model provides valuable information about the net energy decline in petroleum production.


It does no such thing. It isn't even incoherent, it is so stupid.

Yoshua wrote:
The net energy value of petroleum production will fall to zero.


Depending on how you want to define "net", it can fall below zero.

There are reasons why folks define their terms when doing technical writing, rather than just making up new definitions for them as they go along. Why don't you focus on figuring out just what you might mean when you say "net".

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

Unread postPosted: Sun 17 Jun 2018, 11:17:12
by Yoshua
The surplus energy from petroleum production will eventually fall to zero. When the surplus falls to zero, the value of the surplus falls to zero as well.

Adam, you have extracted oil from oil fields, what would you say is the reason why on average only about 40% of the oil is extracted from the oil fields. What is the main resistance to get all of the oil up to the surface?

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

Unread postPosted: Sun 17 Jun 2018, 12:48:50
by kublikhan
Yoshua wrote:I took the 8% number from these two articles and just added 16% to it. The articles are bit old, but I had to start somewhere.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/a ... affect-it/

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ener ... &IR=T&IR=T
The second article is US data only, the same data you where chastising marmico for using. And the first article has the global energy cost 1% below the US cost. IE, if you calculate the 2017 US energy cost as 7.2% of GDP, global energy cost would be around 6.2% according to your first link. That would make Marmico's point even stronger.