[Baduila]

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_a.htm

Use Period "annual".
39.16 $ is valid for 2020

[AdamB]

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_a.htm

Use Period "annual".
39.16 $ is valid for 2020

Really? Then why was it built as a curve? And here is one saying that the price of oil should be <$10bbl last year and $0 now.




This isn't the one proclaiming the end of the world, this graphic was just another revision when reality demonstrated that the ETP was a crock.

So you are saying that Short was so stupid he meant to make yearly step function drops rather than make a curve as demonstrated above? BOY IS THAT A TINHORN SCREWUP!!! Can't even graph his own claim correctly!!

[Baduila]

As far as i know, this is the only graphic from shorty with a price prediction, which was accessible for everyone. The loction was the commentary section of the HG website. Nearly the same graphic is in the report, but without the blue arrows.


The date in the graphic is September 2014, a time, when each economist of the world (with 4 exceptions) expected a continuous price increase for oil in the following years. In contrast to the mainstream economists, shorty was right, the price went down.

I'm quite astonished that you have never seen the graphic, but that you say, shorty was wrong. I do not know where you have got your crap. Please refer to original data from the HillsGroup.

[Pops]

The date in the graphic is September 2014, a time, when each economist of the world (with 4 exceptions) expected a continuous price increase for oil in the following years. In contrast to the mainstream economists, shorty was right, the price went down.

A broken clock regularly predicts the time, twice every 24 hours!
Short said LTO would suck up all the energy and there would be no demand for oil
Back in the real world, LTO caused a glut of oil that killed the price.

I get it tho, more fun to believe we're all dead men driving

[Baduila]

I'm quite sure he said something different. Why is it not possible for you to cite the original text ? Graphics of unknown origin, hearsay from hearsay, rumours.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I'm quite sure he said something different. Why is it not possible for you to cite the original text ? Graphics of unknown origin, hearsay from hearsay, rumours.

And if YOU'RE so "sure", why are YOU incapable of refuting it re citing the original text?

Given the randomness of your body of posting re credibility of credible citations, you're not acting like someone with a clue.

By ALL MEANS -- quote exactly what was said from the original text, and prove your point.

I have the original V2 ETP paper dated 3/1/15, which I saved from shorty, so if you make a specific citation with a specific page and document reference (like an adult), I can likely check the validity of what you claim.

And no, based on NOTHING but your typical BS, I'm not going to search around for what you claim to be "sure of" in a long document.

[Outcast_Searcher]

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_a.htm

Use Period "annual".
39.16 $ is valid for 2020

In your own words, why can't you cite your work, via shorty?

In the real world, in his POS ETP theory, he claimed Oil would be at about $2 by the end of 2021, because "we couldn't afford" to produce oil. (v2 of his ETP paper, V2, dated 3/1/2015, chart page 34.) Showing about $12 as of the end of 2020 for WTI (off by more than a factor of four, and clearly pointed plummeting to zero.

Yet in the REAL world, here we are in 2021, with oil well over $50 for WTI, and the overall trend being up. IN THE MIDDLE OF A NASTY GLOBAL PANDEMIC, no less!

But keep typing pure BS. No doubt some doomer will believe you.

[AdamB]

As far as i know, this is the only graphic from shorty with a price prediction, which was accessible for everyone.

You've got to be kidding? You never read his original report? I would footnote it for you, but because it was laughed out of review, it was never published in any place I can use for my own publications. Grey literature references are a no-no, let alone internet nonsense.

Theoretical Max Price Per Year, Graph #31,Page 34 of "A reserve status report: Report# HC3-433 : Version 2: March 1, 2015".

Price in 2020? (annual of course) is approx. $12.5/bbl.This year? $0/bbl.

There are others around here, just as available.

The loction was the commentary section of the HG website.

Link please. You see, when Shorty was getting laughed off the internet, he also began sanitizing his domain. So...what commentary section?

The date in the graphic is September 2014, a time, when each economist of the world (with 4 exceptions) expected a continuous price increase for oil in the following years. In contrast to the mainstream economists, shorty was right, the price went down.

And then it went back up. And it wasn't $12.50/bbl in 2020 was it? Nor is it $0/bbl now. Flip a coin as to whether the price goes up or down a year from now, compared to today. You'll have better odds of getting it right than Shorty's system did.

I'm quite astonished that you have never seen the graphic, but that you say, shorty was wrong.

I'm quite surprised you didn't read his report and see Graph #31. I'm happy to just let the difference between his claim and reality put the lie to his claim.

I do not know where you have got your crap. Please refer to original data from the HillsGroup.

See reference above. Graph #31 was crap, I've got to agree with you on that one. But I never needed Graph #31 to know it years ago. Neither did Pops.

[AdamB]

I'm quite sure he said something different.

I agree with you. He said all sorts of things, quite a large chunk of it blabbering nonsense. Pops was making plenty of sense 5 years ago when he was rebutting Shorty-The-Welsher in real time.

Why is it not possible for you to cite the original text ?

Why is it you don't have the original report in front of you for source material?

[Baduila]

Adam and Outcast, sorry, i do not feed trolls.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Adam and Outcast, sorry, i do not feed trolls.

When all you have is nonsense, give it up.

But no, easier to whine about it.

Well, OK then. Everyone should believe you if you call people who present facts, trolls.

Meanwhile in the real world, even with a nasty global pandemic GREATLY impacting the global economy, the fact is that WTI is over $50 and trending up over time as global oil demand for 2021 and on is expected to rise as the global economy trends toward recovery with effective vaccines in the works, slow and inefficient as distributing them may be. And as much disinformation as the anti-vaxxers will continually spew.

The ETP predicted WTI to go from about $12 to $2 over the course of 2021, due the inability of the global economy to produce oil at ANY price, since it would be "too expensive" to use it.

And you can't state ANYTHING meaningful to contradict those facts. Well, empty name calling doesn't get it done in the adult world.

Oh, and every time your ilk tries babbling about entropy, I point out that the earth is NOT a closed system and has HUGE amounts of energy pouring into it every second from our sun. In fact, with AGW, we have an excess heat problem, not a lack of sufficient energy to produce oil.

So couple that with the fact that as actual petroleum engineers like rockman, rockdoc et al have pointed out, the industry plans oil production on geology and cost to yield projected profit, NOT anything to do with entropy. So you have absolutely NOTHING meaningful there.

But keep making things up. Someone new will happen along and believe you no doubt.

[AdamB]

Adam and Outcast, sorry, i do not feed trolls.

Choosing to stay ignorant of the source material and folks who know it is a smooth move.

[Baduila]

A short information for new visitors to this subblog:
The ETP-model is an exergy analysis of the energy requirements for oil production. If you want to read it, search the internet for „petrohgv2.pdf“. It has been developed by the HillsGroup, and explained by shortonoil (shorty) on this blog. It has been discussed very controversial.

ETP calculates the necessary energy using the „steady-state form of the entropy rate balance“, which is a statement of the second law of thermodynamics. This calculation is valid for oil production, because oil production can‘t be a perpetual machine of the second kind. ETP‘s main result is that the energy required to extract oil out of the earth today is roughly equivalent to the energy content of oil.
ETP requires some input values of a magnitude not perfectly known: water cut of all oil wells, efficiency of machines converting oil to energy and share of other energy sources than oil used for oil production. ETP predicts that the oil price must go down, with a rate of decrease depending on the not perfect known values. So the observation of the oil price, which summarizes about all inputs, is the only tool to determine the end of the oil age. Oil prices now (January 2021) go down with about 6.5/bbl/year, and will reach zero in about 2026.

The original report of the HillsGroup has some weaknesses: Inaccurate formulas, use of imperial unit system instead of the SI-system, and the above mentioned input values. But the core is correct. Very important is, that the HillsGroup did not recognize why so much energy is required: They assumed it is necessary because of entropical decay of the infrastructure. In reality, the energy is necessary to change the temperature equilibrium of earth.

Most important is: People do not want that the oil age ends, and get irrational if the end is mentioned.

See: https://limitstogrowth.de/wp-content/up ... _EN_09.pdf

[Baduila]

Correct link:
https://limitstogrowth.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Mar_2020_Thermo_EN_09.pdf

[AdamB]

Correct link:
https://limitstogrowth.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Mar_2020_Thermo_EN_09.pdf

This link isn't to the original work, the one we have been happily laughing at for more than a few years now. Do you wish to have a conversation on this provided unpublished example of...whatever...it is?

Do you know if the author of this work consulted any professionals besides themselves or Short in the appropriate fields of science before attempting to advance, validate or improve on an idea that has since been invalidated? I ask because I asked Short the same question, and it became apparent that when he claimed that reservoir engineers do such and such, or assume such and such, that he hadn't consulted them at all.

I offered Short a professional technical review of his paper, and the poor guy couldn't even answer how he would want the thing footnoted. A key component of science tends to be assigning credit to the authors, that they might receive recognition for it. Good or bad.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Correct link:
https://limitstogrowth.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Mar_2020_Thermo_EN_09.pdf

This link isn't to the original work, the one we have been happily laughing at for more than a few years now. Do you wish to have a conversation on this provided unpublished example of...whatever...it is?

Do you know if the author of this work consulted any professionals besides themselves or Short in the appropriate fields of science before attempting to advance, validate or improve on an idea that has since been invalidated? I ask because I asked Short the same question, and it became apparent that when he claimed that reservoir engineers do such and such, or assume such and such, that he hadn't consulted them at all.

I offered Short a professional technical review of his paper, and the poor guy couldn't even answer how he would want the thing footnoted. A key component of science tends to be assigning credit to the authors, that they might receive recognition for it. Good or bad.

Taking a brief look at the PDF from the link, I'll second that.

It looks like PERHAPS an attempt to refresh what Shorty did on ETP using only more recent data.

I notice re the usual "energy in the earth's crust" issue re the second law of thermodynamics (re page 5) that ONCE AGAIN, the whole concept that the earth is NOT a closed system, having trillions of watts of solar energy poured onto the earth by the Sun, continuously. But of course, the usual suspects continually ignore that the second law of thermodynamics applies ONLY to a CLOSED system -- and the earth is not such a system.

This is stuff I learned in GRADE SCHOOL at the ripe old age of around 10, in science class. In a typical KY public school, no less.

https://phys.org/news/2011-10-vast-amou ... 0the%20sun.

A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That’s more than 10,000 times the world’s total energy use.

And again, with AGW, we have an excess heat problem re heat building up, NOT a running out of heat energy problem. Oh, and solar energy is increasingly a productive thing. So equipment to extract oil can increasingly be run by solar energy and batteries, and is less dependent on fossil fuels over time. That's an example of how technological progress can make things better (hard as it is for perma-doomers to grasp that idea).

https://www.britannica.com/science/seco ... modynamics

The second law of thermodynamics states that, in a closed system, no processes will tend to occur that increase the net organization (or decrease the net entropy) of the system.

(Red font in quotes mine, for emphasis).

And AGAIN, as the pandemic depression appears poised to recede over the next 12 to 24 months, oil is solidly moving in the OPPOSITE direction it is supposed to be moving in during this timeframe, re the ETP predictions. (Extending and pretending by a couple/few years with new graphs doesn't change that at all).

So what now? Try yet another "paper"? More name calling? Shout "squirrel!" and hope everyone forgets about basic scientific principles, as well as technology advancing? Or the reality that oil remains abundant and affordable for decades re projections by actual experts from the IEA and EIA, for example?

[AdamB]

It looks like PERHAPS an attempt to refresh what Shorty did on ETP using only more recent data.

Yeah, the heat in the earth's crust being a first order principle of oil production isn't going anywhere. I looked over the first dozen pages or so, just to get a feel for where this variant on "something else causes oil to be produced rather than the things that have been doing it since 1859".

I tend to react poorly to generalizations, and the big one early on in this work is that oil price goes down. And why you might ask? Because I start my trend line at the peak in price, knowing that the current price is lower. I mean, come on already.

Circular logic doesn't work very well in published work, as with Short's demonstration of the same, it gets kicked out of the review process pretty quickly.

It is also of note that when doing science, you tend to tackle the counter arguments within your work, as much as you do your new idea. Short and the author of this work don't appear to do that. They don't debunk price/production relationships, demand/supply relationships, global fungibility of commodities, free market versus NOC philosophy, just a wave of the hand and presto....the earth is cooling wins!

[Baduila]

Finally, the WTI price has succeeded to cross the dotted green line !
Two friends helped him:
- The US government by printing 1900 Billion Dollars of fresh money.
- Saudi Arabia by cutting one million barrels per day of oil production.

[AdamB]

Finally, the WTI price has succeeded to cross the dotted green line !
Two friends helped him:
- The US government by printing 1900 Billion Dollars of fresh money.
- Saudi Arabia by cutting one million barrels per day of oil production.

Time for the looney tunes update!!! By the way, in perusing your update of the failed ETP nonsense that Short put out, I didn't see a section explaining why it was all wrong when he did it, but is now right the way you are doing it? Your technical understanding of how oil and gas works is as infantile as his was, and the entire "cooling the earth through oil production" is nothing short of amusing from the perspective of anyone who has ever run a log suite including temperature logs. Let me guess, you didn't know those existed? Because if you did, you could empirical verify your idea. Or in the case of those of us who HAVE run temperature logs, we could tell you otherwise.

[Pops]

- The US government by printing 1900 Billion Dollars of fresh money.
- Saudi Arabia by cutting one million barrels per day of oil production.

But wait, this isn't about economics remember?
It is about the immutable laws of thermodynamics!!!