[onlooker]

Tanada with all due respect and I do subscribe to what you just said. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. However, my inquiry is simply this. Does not Energy provide a different context in which Economics will act and react. For energy is the prime mover of economic activity. So the ETP is arguing that as Net Energy or energy left over from the entire Energy Acquisition process becomes less, this will and must stifle real Demand. So, at that point the cues of supply/demand interaction and the corresponding price break down given that these classical economic axioms cannot address the problem posed by an Economy starved of its fuel to function. So, the interaction of a failing Oil Industry and a failing General Economy will reinforce each other and relentlessly bring each other down regardless of what supply/demand price signals exist.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Tanada with all due respect and I do subscribe to what you just said. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. However, my inquiry is simply this. Does not Energy provide a different context in which Economics will act and react. For energy is the prime mover of economic activity. So the ETP is arguing that as Net Energy or energy left over from the entire Energy Acquisition process becomes less, this will and must stifle real Demand. So, at that point the cues of supply/demand interaction and the corresponding price break down given that these classical economic axioms cannot address the problem posed by an Economy starved of its fuel to function. So, the interaction of a failing Oil Industry and a failing General Economy will reinforce each other and relentlessly bring each other down regardless of what supply/demand price signals exist.

But pretending like industry is generally failing or that the global economy is generally failing is a straw man and an epic fail by the fast crash doomers in general, and the ETPers in particular.

When the global economy is truly failing and can't revive over time AND we're experiencing chronic energy shortages DUE TO ENERGY BEING UNAFFORDABLE to produce enough economic activity to sustain the economy -- be sure and get back to us and point that out.

Until then, aside from the straw man of growing debt (as though this is anything new -- see debt levels after WWII for example, and somehow things have moved along economically another 70+ years just fine), there IS no such evidence. Only moaning and dark predictions by the naysayers.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Dup, due to some general SQL failure for "too many threads", where I thought the previous post didn't occur.

[Tanada]

Tanada with all due respect and I do subscribe to what you just said. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. However, my inquiry is simply this. Does not Energy provide a different context in which Economics will act and react. For energy is the prime mover of economic activity. So the ETP is arguing that as Net Energy or energy left over from the entire Energy Acquisition process becomes less, this will and must stifle real Demand. So, at that point the cues of supply/demand interaction and the corresponding price break down given that these classical economic axioms cannot address the problem posed by an Economy starved of its fuel to function. So, the interaction of a failing Oil Industry and a failing General Economy will reinforce each other and relentlessly bring each other down regardless of what supply/demand price signals exist.

This is simple the EROEI argument with a bunch of unnecessary ETP bells and whistle stuck on it to make it 'prettier'. EROEI theory may very well prove to be the true effect over time, however marrying EROEI to overnight crash fast doom is where ETP comes from. EROEI means you have to choose to change your method of energy acquisition as one source of net energy goes into decline. I find this to be pretty basic and sound in concept, as Oil runs out of net energy we will be forced to select alternative energy sources to first supplement and then ultimately replace the energy we get from oil. Only a person blind to all the other sources of energy that feed into our civilization however would predict instant doom the day oil EROEI declines beyond (insert arbitrary number here).

Decline in net energy will not be system wide instant doom. While fracking wells may only produce 10:1 EROEI and Tar Sands 7:1 EROEI the vast flow out of OPEC is still coming at 85:1 or better and deep water sources are say 25:1 or better. Thus over the whole spectrum of sources the world net oil energy flow remains a high average and slowly declines as poorer sources are used to supplement better sources over time. When all the easy high EROEI conventional oil is exhausted and the only oil available is the low EROEI fracking/tar sand/extra heavy oil the net EROEI will fall to 10:1 or less. But that will take years, perhaps even decades, after conventional peak is irrefutably in the rear view mirror and we have passed a long distance down the depletion curve. In that window of time there will still be vast sources of Natural Gas, Coal and other energy sources to draw upon and as oil wanes they will move up the scale of desirability to higher levels. There is plenty of energy out there at this point in time and it will take years for the post peak crash to have full effect. We may have passed world peak in 2015, but we might not have as there is still a flush of fracking that has not yet come fully into use. The next few years are crucial.

[Tanada]

Pstarr see above reply to Onlooker.

[onlooker]

Thanks for the reply T. So, I do think you have faith that EV's will address the critical transportation sector in being a somewhat adequate replacement for Oil and the internal combustion engine. So, while all you say makes sense, all of us here have been debating the energy issues for some time. We have difference of opinion of how effective other energy sources can be in maintaing the integrity of our world civilization. So, I do believe the next few years are crucial in informing us if we can speed up the contribution of Coal/Nat. Gas and alternative/renewable sources to offset what will in my opinion be a precipitous drop in contributions of Oil to our energy supply .
PS. I also do not consider myself an acolyte of Etp but rather a curious observer of it.

[shortonoil]

Economic rules have been demonstrated to work for thousands of years

Where exactly did you get that idea from? Economic theory is no more than a couple hundred years old. Huge empires were run for millennium without any knowledge of it at all. Some of those empires lasted for more than a 1000 years. Maybe they lasted as long as they did because they didn't have modern economic theory to perturb them? Your reverence for economics is unfounded.

[shortonoil]

PS. I also do not consider myself an acolyte of Etp but rather a curious observer of it.

The Etp Model is an equation. To understand it all that is needed is to study the equation. Anything else is just conjure.

[StarvingLion]

Thanks for the reply T. So, I do think you have faith that EV's will address the critical transportation sector in being a somewhat adequate replacement for Oil and the internal combustion engine. So, while all you say makes sense, all of us here have been debating the energy issues for some time. We have difference of opinion of how effective other energy sources can be in maintaing the integrity of our world civilization. So, I do believe the next few years are crucial in informing us if we can speed up the contribution of Coal/Nat. Gas and alternative/renewable sources to offset what will in my opinion be a precipitous drop in contributions of Oil to our energy supply .
PS. I also do not consider myself an acolyte of Etp but rather a curious observer of it.

Meanwhile Lockheed (the maker of the F-35) is working on Compact Fusion apparently because Saudi requires a compact fusion device to get the rest of its oil out of the ground.

[StarvingLion]

Thanks for the reply T. So, I do think you have faith that EV's will address the critical transportation sector in being a somewhat adequate replacement for Oil and the internal combustion engine. So, while all you say makes sense, all of us here have been debating the energy issues for some time. We have difference of opinion of how effective other energy sources can be in maintaing the integrity of our world civilization. So, I do believe the next few years are crucial in informing us if we can speed up the contribution of Coal/Nat. Gas and alternative/renewable sources to offset what will in my opinion be a precipitous drop in contributions of Oil to our energy supply .
PS. I also do not consider myself an acolyte of Etp but rather a curious observer of it.

The logic of the EV NutJobs:

"I no longer invest in the oil & gas industry"

Oil Company NutJobs:

"We no longer invest in oil exploration"

Government NutJobs:

"We must ban the ICE"

Suckers ("investors")

"We no longer have any money left to invest in oil"

All believers in a worthless junk currency. Just send more F-35's to Saudi and more oil will magically arrive.

[Baduila]

ETP is not only an equation. It is a consequence of a simple physics fact: If two things are in thermal equilibrium, none of the thermal energy of one part can be used to heat up the other part. To heat up one part, external energy is necessary.
Earth interior interior and earth surface are in equilibrium, masked by a thermal gradient of 35 K/km. To heat up the earth surface, it is not possible to use the heat of the oil. All energy must come from external sources. The energy necessary is calculated by ETP.

Thermodynamics, developed by Rudolf Clausius (+1988), results in ETP as a logical consequence.

[asg70]

We don't know and never will know exactly how much energy is wasted getting energy.

ETP does NOT fill in the blanks. If it can't model the whole system then its conclusions are meaningless. It's that uncertainty that doomers fill in as required (usually with spurious zerohedge-style correlation = causation logic) in order to predict the end is nigh.

The end result is a model which is nothing but window dressing on top of the usual biased doomer speculation.

[onlooker]

How do you know that Asg. You have never demonstrated that you are familiar with the technical/mathematical aspects ts of the Etp equations

[asg70]

You have never demonstrated that you are familiar with the technical/mathematical aspects ts of the Etp equations

Feel free to school me.

[onlooker]

You are hereby reprimanded for mocking the Etp. haha

[asg70]

You are hereby reprimanded for mocking the Etp. haha

How will I live with myself?

[Tanada]

Economic rules have been demonstrated to work for thousands of years

Where exactly did you get that idea from? Economic theory is no more than a couple hundred years old. Huge empires were run for millennium without any knowledge of it at all. Some of those empires lasted for more than a 1000 years. Maybe they lasted as long as they did because they didn't have modern economic theory to perturb them? Your reverence for economics is unfounded.

Hammurabi understood supply/demand economics 3750 ybp, yet somehow the concept escapes you.

[vtsnowedin]

I expect that the first economist was a Neanderthal grandmother that knew how long a winter was and calculated the size of the wood pile she needed to get the youngsters to gather before the first snows and the pile of nuts and edible roots needed in case the hunters came up short on the meat pole.
"Bring me an armload of wood, each of you children, and I'll tell you the story about the great mystery."

[AdamB]

Tanada with all due respect and I do subscribe to what you just said. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. However, my inquiry is simply this. Does not Energy provide a different context in which Economics will act and react.

No, it doesn't. But economics provides a context within which energy is quantified and accounted for quite well.

[ralfy]

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.

Economic concepts such as GDP and backward-forward linkages did not exist thousands of years ago.