[Outcast_Searcher]

OS, you still haven’t explained why battery prices will continue to fall in this inflationary environment.

1). Battery prices re BEV technology are falling faster on a YOY trend over time than the moderate real world inflation we're experiencing.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... ee-decades

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/11 ... combustion

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf

2). Most of the current inflation spike is from the supply chain mess and mismatch between supply and demand for products generally, caused by Covid. Within a year or two, most of that will go away as companies and the economy adapt over time.

3). The overall longer term forces are deflationary (like automation and technology improving productivity), so the longer term inflation rate should return to the low rates or even disinflationary trend we saw overall from the 2008 mess through 2019.

Just because so many of the usual suspects on the internet generally are claiming that inflation will become hyperinflation and we're doomed doesn't make that so.

5%ish inflation is annoying, but it's really not that bad. It was pretty normal for much of the 60's, 80's and 90's. It's MILD compared to what we experienced through the 70's.

Overall, the rate of US inflation has been in the %3.5ish rate on average for a long time. As a sanity check on that:

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf

60 years of US inflation (a round number that includes the highly inflationary 60's and 70's) from 1961 to 2021 has total inflation of under 820%.

So that's a little over 3 doublings of prices. Using the rule of 72, if it takes 20 years to double prices, that's an average inflation rate of 3.6% (72 / 20). So certainly below 4%.

The 5.5% inflation rate we've been seeing for much of 2021 is only about 1.5 times the more typical average historical US rate for at least a couple of generations (call it 3.7% or so). I think people tend to get so wound up about this inflationary blip because we're so spoiled by how low inflation has been for a couple decades (recency bias). (As someone who retired in 2007, I consider low inflation a real nice break, having grown up with 70's inflation wreaking relative havoc).

[Baduila]

So, you trolls can't present any trace of evidence that i have written that the oil price will be 2 $ in 2021.

Information for newcomers: This is an original ETP price diagram:



Trolls, hurry up and explain, why it predicts 2$ in 2021.

[AdamB]

Trolls, hurry up and explain, why it predicts 2$ in 2021.

Silly rabbit, explain why there isn't even a 2021 on the graph to be seen?

[kublikhan]

Information for newcomers: This is an original ETP price diagram:
Trolls, hurry up and explain, why it predicts 2$ in 2021.

As explained in the ETP, the black line is "the maximum theoretical energy that can be extracted from a unit of 37.5° API crude." It is not the maximum affordable price for the consumer. That would be the light blue line. The ETP model had another graph that shows this more clearly:



If you prefer text over graphs, shortonoil stated the dollar values in text in this post:

Here is the output for the Maximum Affordability function for WTI by year:

2016...$65.94
2017....54.18
2018....46.16
2019....26.88

Also note that in the plot above the Maximum Affordability curve is plotted to zero.

What does the ETP model predict for the future?

Obviously, short's Maximum Affordability predictions did not hold up to reality. Short himself already admitted this:

The Maximum Affordability function (which states a relationship between the energy delivered from a unit of oil, and the dollar) held for 58 years, then it broke.

Is EROEI Important Pt. 3

Outcast_Searcher already explained this over a year ago. Everyone here, including the author himself, has already admitted the Maximum Affordability Price prediction is broken. There is no reason to keep this nonsense alive when when even the author himself says not to.

[Baduila]

kublaikhan,

the diagram you show (#2) is not part of the HG report, my diagram (without the blue arrows) is. The diagram #2 has been included in "commentary 4", together with my diagram (#1, with arrows).

I have always used the report, and very seldom the commentaries. Only sometimes, i have followed the discussion at peakoil. So #2 has never been important for me.

In my opinion diagram #2 is an oversimplification of the ETP-model. This over simplified version of the ETP-model is clearly wrong. Trolls, you can jubilate !!! Trolls, stop reading now.

Only for kublaikhan:
The HG made a lot of errors when developing the ETP-model, but the core is right. If you have tried to understand the model, we can discuss it further. If not, stop reading now.

One of the errors is to assume an practical efficiency of 62 % for exergy extraction out the oil energy content, as shown in diagram #2. This value is much too high, about 35 % is realistic. If you consider that, #2 must be false. An efficiency of 35 % would have resulted in an oil price decay about 20 years ago.

[AdamB]

This over simplified version of the ETP-model is clearly wrong. Trolls, you can jubilate !!! Trolls, stop reading now.

Why should we stop, as it has now been demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about? Those of us who have been watching already knew this was a crock. The question is, why didn't you figure it out BEFORE pretending it had value?

Only for kublaikhan:
The HG made a lot of errors when developing the ETP-model, but the core is right. If you have tried to understand the model, we can discuss it further. If not, stop reading now.

It has just been pointed out what "understanding" the model means. It is full of crap. There are plenty of UFO/Bigfoot threads around here somewhere, go participate in those as they are far more realistic than the ETP.

[Baduila]

So, the trolls did not have an idea where ETP predicts 2 $ in 2021, but kublaikhan saved them, and showed an over simplified model which is the reason.

Last question:
The actual folks who work in oil production on this site have had a tendency to repeatedly point out that it's ECONOMICS that decides whether to produce oil at a given site, NOT thermodynamics.

Where in the ETP model is written that thermodynamics should be considered by drillers if they want to produce at a given site ?

[AdamB]

Last question:
The actual folks who work in oil production on this site have had a tendency to repeatedly point out that it's ECONOMICS that decides whether to produce oil at a given site, NOT thermodynamics.

Yes. And we told the truth. You really should have asked someone who knows something about the industry before pretending that Shortys pet idea had any value. You sucked up to Shorty instead, and he can't oil and gas his way out of a wet paper bag. Boy did he leave you holding the bag.

Where in the ETP model is written that thermodynamics should be considered by drillers if they want to produce at a given site ?

Why are you asking us? It took seconds to see the holes in Shortys idea and confusion between correlation and causation, why would any sentient being waste any more time? You aren't claiming that the oil and gas industry is so stupid it takes your nonsense seriously are you?

[Outcast_Searcher]

So, the trolls did not have an idea where ETP predicts 2 $ in 2021, but kublaikhan saved them, and showed an over simplified model which is the reason.

Last question:
The actual folks who work in oil production on this site have had a tendency to repeatedly point out that it's ECONOMICS that decides whether to produce oil at a given site, NOT thermodynamics.

Where in the ETP model is written that thermodynamics should be considered by drillers if they want to produce at a given site ?

Playing rhetoric games doesn't make you the least bit credible. But hey, if that's all you have, why not try? LOL

[Baduila]

Both trolls are not able to demonstrate that something like "Drillers should use thermodynamics instead of economics" is written in the HG report. The reason is simple: Such a sentence does not exist in the report.
Both trolls are aware, that they are lying, and they hope, that readers do not recognize that.

Trolls, ever asked if this sentence is written in the safety standards for drilling ?

Trolls, is the sentence "The trolls are payed by an hidden sponsor for writing lies at peakoil.com"
the truth or malicious gossip or a lie ?

[AdamB]

Both trolls are not able to demonstrate that something like "Drillers should use thermodynamics instead of economics" is written in the HG report.

Never read any such report.

The reason is simple: Such a sentence does not exist in the report.

Now I'm really glad I didn't waste time on even trying to find the report.

Does it say anything about Santa Claus and the reindeer flying and thermodynamics perhaps?

[Baduila]

So, you are aware that you write lies. And you are proud of it.

No questions anymore.

[AdamB]

So, you are aware that you write lies. And you are proud of it.

No questions anymore.

I don't believe your supposition has anything to do with me. My point has always been that reservoir engineering doesn't use the principles you are applying to their calculations. Neither are your claims used by production engineers. You were fed a half assed story by Shorty, and went for it hook, line and sinker. It was discussed at this forum why it didn't work and how easy it was to spot why it didn't work, the idea was laughed out of review by the Royal Academy, it was discredited by reality within a couple years, and Shorty erased the entire website and gave up the domain itself for fear of someone he knew finding it and laughing their ass off over how stupid it was just as some of us have here.

All of that is the truth. As to the particulars of your version of this bad idea, you would have to give me an example where I mentioned there was lying involved, rather than just the misapplication of your favorite equation. I found your core assumptions that were incorrect within about your first 30 posts at this sight, when you were buddying up to the since discredited and welsher Short. Can you find them yourself, or does your belief system run too deep for objective thought and critical analysis? I can certainly point them out if you lack the ability of introspection, some people just can't see their own mistakes, it is why scientists do peer review. It happens to all of us, so there is no onus in it for you.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Both trolls are not able to demonstrate that something like "Drillers should use thermodynamics instead of economics" is written in the HG report. The reason is simple: Such a sentence does not exist in the report.
Both trolls are aware, that they are lying, and they hope, that readers do not recognize that.

Trolls, ever asked if this sentence is written in the safety standards for drilling ?

Trolls, is the sentence "The trolls are payed by an hidden sponsor for writing lies at peakoil.com"
the truth or malicious gossip or a lie ?

Sigh. Well, you asked for it:

If you simply search on "thermodynamics" and "ETP" on this site for the peak oil forums, you'll find plenty of references.

I just did this search and found 796 hits. LOTS of posters claiming thermodynamics are a big deal re limits to oil production, related to ETP theory, clearly.

And on the first page of hits on THIS thread, dated August 19, 2021, I find this quote from YOU talking about that:

The oil price is somewhere between the minimum OPEC can tolerate (dark yellow line) and the maximum the world economy (green line) can tolerate.

Too low for Saudi Arabia and OPEC. Too high for the world economy.

You can see the 2nd law of thermodynamics working. Has any one of the trolls ever succeeded to understand the steady state entropy rate balance for control volumes ? And the consequences for oil production exergy ?

(Red font and red bold underlined font mine, for emphasis.)

Who is the troll now? Who is lying now? Who has no credibility now?

Why not deal with reality, like an adult, and try to be a little honest, instead of lying and twisting things to try to look good?

I never called you a liar until now -- when you accuse others of lying while you're doing it yourself, by the way. I said I think the MANY claims that are associated with ETP that thermodynamics are a key factor limiting oil production are nonsense, re practicality, and that the factor actual oil producers focus on in economics.

And then you go bananas.

[Doly]

Had a look at this thread after being pointed at it by another poster.

As I see it, the fundamental issue with the ETP model is that it attempts to forecast price. And there are lots of factors that can influence price. In fact, since the global economy is affected by oil prices (we saw it the last few times that oil prices spiked), there are many strong players, including central banks, with an interest in using whatever tools they have to change oil price, if they are able to.

If you want to see how EROEI or the second law of thermodynamics may affect oil production, I'd leave all the economic variables aside.

[Pops]

You can see from the charts above, this theory initially came from a misreading of a chart of "actual" (read that nominal) oil prices, which at the point of the initial mistake were trending up quickly after the local peak of conventional and before the refinement of LTO. Add a misplaced dash of "second law" blather and it titivated people who were hoping for proof of peak oil even in the face of an oncoming glut.

If one were to replace the "actual" oil price curve with a correctly inflation adjusted plot, the whole WAG crumbles. In fact, I'm pretty sure the price of oil today is neither $250 as the "predicted" price trend predicts, nor is it roughly $0 as the "maximum affordable" curve predicts.

It was entertaining in 2012 but was soon shown to be just another willfully misread, goat entrail.

All one needs to know about EROEI is energy costs money, long before the cost to produce oil —including energy—exceeds the price of oil on the market, production will stop or decline to the remaining profitable locales. Currently oil companies seem pretty profitable at $75 and consumers are paying less as a portion of discretionary than in most's memory, so, not yet.

This thread is just for killing time.

[Pops]

Which isn't to say I didn't have similar ideas, but they were and still are about cost of production and cost vs utility to the customer
This is about 2010







couple of years later I realised the typical boom/bust cycle would continue as increasingly costly oil production wagged the dog of the economy, so we'd get increasingly large price swings as glut/shortage wobbled back and forth.



Then after the glut

[Baduila]

Sorry Doly,

but thats the wrong sequence: First get a copy of Moran/Shapiro: Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics.

Without understanding the basics and the second law, the price discussion makes no sense.

[AdamB]

Sorry Doly,

but thats the wrong sequence: First get a copy of Moran/Shapiro: Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics.

Without understanding the basics and the second law, the price discussion makes no sense.

Those of us who took those undergrad courses in thermodynamics, yeah, we know the ETP crap makes no sense, nor prices derived from it.

[Doly]

but thats the wrong sequence: First get a copy of Moran/Shapiro: Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics.

Without understanding the basics and the second law, the price discussion makes no sense.

All right. Got a copy. Did a quick search on when it gets into questions of price and it's on the exergy chapter. I was aware of exergy already, though not in detail. I'll read through it and think about it.

Still, I think my point is likely to stand: why get economic variables into the model when it doesn't need them to make useful predictions about peak oil? I mean, I get why people want economic variables into it. It's useful information. But I've tended to put all economic variables as output variables, ie optional. I accept I might be wrong and that some economic variables are self-reinforcing and capable of causing visible real-world changes all on their own. But if that's the case, a very good question is whether that's a good thing to start with. Nobody wants money to make them crash against thermodynamics.