Baduila wrote:https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_a.htm
Use Period "annual".
39.16 $ is valid for 2020
Baduila wrote: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.
Baduila wrote: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.
AdamB wrote:Baduila wrote:https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_a.htm
Use Period "annual".
39.16 $ is valid for 2020
Baduila wrote:As far as i know, this is the only graphic from shorty with a price prediction, which was accessible for everyone.
Baduila wrote:
The loction was the commentary section of the HG website.
Baduila wrote: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.
Baduila wrote:I'm quite astonished that you have never seen the graphic, but that you say, shorty was wrong.
Baduila wrote: I do not know where you have got your crap. Please refer to original data from the HillsGroup.
Baduila wrote:I'm quite sure he said something different.
Baduila wrote: Why is it not possible for you to cite the original text ?
Baduila wrote:Adam and Outcast, sorry, i do not feed trolls.
Baduila wrote:Adam and Outcast, sorry, i do not feed trolls.
Baduila wrote:Correct link:
https://limitstogrowth.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Mar_2020_Thermo_EN_09.pdf
AdamB wrote:Baduila wrote: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 Do you wish to have a conversation on this provided unpublished example of...whatever...it is?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.
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.
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.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:It looks like PERHAPS an attempt to refresh what Shorty did on ETP using only more recent data.
Baduila wrote:
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.
Baduila wrote:- The US government by printing 1900 Billion Dollars of fresh money.
- Saudi Arabia by cutting one million barrels per day of oil production.
Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests