[AdamB]

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?

Because
A) Charles Hall couldn't get EROEI to make useful predictions
B) EROEI isn't the independent variable upon which the production of oil and gas depends
C) SEC Rule 156 exists for a reason

and that C) is EXACTLY where peak oilers crash and burn. There are components of tomorrow's oil production that are related to today, but the further from today you get, the more the underlying economic fundamentals of new development applies. And EROEI isn't a fundamental and never has been.

I am willing to be proven wrong of course. Find, in millions of wells drilled, hundreds of thousands of projects, tens of thousands of fields around the globe and hundreds of basins a SINGLE ONE where the decision to develop was based on the 2nd Law. Or an EROEI metric. All it takes is a single one to call into question my statement, and give EROEI at least a chance to be of value.

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.

Unfortunate that you don't recognize it as the independent variable. Here, let me prove it to you (I use this one all the time, it pisses off specialists in all 3 of the scientific specialties involved).

If there is no known oil, the technology to get it is irrelevant, as is price.
If you have known oil but don't have the technology to get it, price is irrelevant.
If you have known oil, and the technology to get it, price is the only thing that matters.

Peak oilers spend all day talking about the size of the oil available, while ignoring changes to the technology that have created Saudi America, while ignoring (as you do) the only variable that matters in the current circumstances.

And then screw the pooch in making peak oil calls through sheer, mind blowing ignorance of WHY they keep getting it wrong.

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.

Good thing there is no conflict between money and thermodynamics. But only one is the independent variable needed to model oil and gas production. The other is no more useful now than it was when Charles Hall demonstrated that there are reasons you don't ask a fisheries ecologist questions related to the physical sciences.

[Baduila]

@Doly,
Which version of „Fundamentals od Engineering Thermodynamics“ do you have ?
In the following, I will give a coarse overview of the thermodynamic analysis. Some approximations are used, but not explained in detail. Much background information is omitted. I use png-images to
simplify my work. In sum it will be 11 images.

[Baduila]

[Baduila]

[Baduila]

[Baduila]

[Baduila]

[Baduila]

[AdamB]

A "Baduila" thermodynamics question.

I have an oven, containing hot rocks. 20 hot rocks to be precise. They are all at the temperature dictated by the oven.

I remove 1 hot rock without disturbing the temperature of the oven, or other hot rocks, in any way.

Does the temperature of the inside of the oven, or any of the remaining 19 hot rocks, change?

[Doly]

Baduila, that's really interesting. I have to read it slowly and think carefully about it. Thanks. I got the eighth edition of Moran.

Adam, under the conditions you propose, the temperature of the oven or the rocks would not change but the amount of heat in the oven would. All of which is totally irrelevant to the question of the amount of energy that might be required to extract the rock, or the amount of energy that would necessarily be wasted in the process of extracting the rock. So, as Baduila said, you do not appear to be able to discuss thermodynamics.

[AdamB]

Adam, under the conditions you propose, the temperature of the oven or the rocks would not change but the amount of heat in the oven would.

The amount of heat (as a specific amount, total BTUs contained within the system) would certainly change with the removal of MASS containing an amount of heat (energy). But not the temperature. Bauduila makes as an underlying assumption that the temperature changes with the removal of oil. Actually, he makes an even worse and total mistake, but I don't believe it is an "on purpose" but more of just a brain fart. He says that the temperature gradient itself decreases with depth. It does not. I will attribute that to a brain fart. Then he pulls a doozy of non brain fart move by demonstrating he doesn't know the difference between energy contained in a system versus it's temperature. He even comes right out and says it explicitly...."Oil production changes the temperature equilibrium". The last time he made this statement I asked him to explain why temperature logs cannot see the difference in temperature from before a field or well begins production and afterwards. I asked him if he had ever even SEEN a temperature log from a produced well before and after, and why he didn't ask someone who had before founding an entire scheme on something that isn't true?

Easy to announce that the other person is a troll rather than explain the empirical evidence that contradicts a poor understanding of physical properties of a system. The ETP system has failed every time it has been used, as has net energy. Charles Hall being the most credible example, Baduila being the 2nd person just on this website that screwed the pooch in public and when accused of bestiality proclaimed that our eyes, they was a lyin'.

All of which is totally irrelevant to the question of the amount of energy that might be required to extract the rock, or the amount of energy that would necessarily be wasted in the process of extracting the rock. So, as Baduila said, you do not appear to be able to discuss thermodynamics.

Oil and gas operations don't extract rock. Unless you are referring to the only unconventional oil production on the planet, tar sands being mined in the Athabasca region of Canada?

If I don't understand thermodynamics, then YOU explain how Baduila gets to claim the temperature changes in the oven with the removal of the rock and therefore knows something about thermodynamics, and I don't.....but you agree with me. Come on Doly, I know you want EROEI stuff to work really badly, but real scientists (presuming you might be one as well), independent or not, don't get to contradict evidence just because we feel like it.

[Baduila]

Normally, i don’t read Adams posts because they are filled with lies and nonsense. I have put him on my list of foes about five years ago. This time i make an exception, because i want to find out if my explanation has typos.
Adam has found one (increases/decreases), so i replace part one with a new version.
The rest of his post is his usual mixture of lies and nonsense. I wrote in part one: „Water from the surface enters the oil reservoir.“ (see below) The water from the surface is cooler than the oil reservoir. For example, fracking requires pumping down millions of gallons of water before the first drop of oil leaves the well. Or in Ghawar, each day about 8 million barrel of water are pumped downwards. Adam seems to have never heard of both. Each person with a functioning brain will know, that the water cools the oil reservoir. Adam does not. And so on and on. His „oven experiment“ would have some relevance to oil production, if he would replace the rock with a liter of water. Why he does not get that ?

Discussing thermodynamics with Adam is like discussing colours with a blind person. It makes no sense at all.

[Baduila]

@Doly
Most of the persons discussing here believe, that the only conclusion of the second law ist, that the disorder in the world increases. They have not understood the importance of this law.

The 2nd is as important as the first law of thermodynamics, which is the conservation of energy. The 2nd law determines all transformations of one form of energy in another one. It is the basis of motor design, of power plant design etc. And it is the law of physics which describes the flow of time.
It is written in formulas, as all other laws of physics. The formulas can be used to determine the outcome of processes. It is always valid and is known for more than 150 years.

Oil production is a process of transforming an input energy (of machines and organisms) into output energy (oil), so the second law is valid for it.

[Doly]

Discussing thermodynamics with Adam is like discussing colours with a blind person. It makes no sense at all.

Probably correct, but discussing thermodynamics with you doesn't look a whole lot better to me. You jump straight from exergy to money.

I'll tell you one interesting thing from Moran: The temperature-entropy diagram in chapter 6 (fig 6.2). The critical point happens at the top, at the phase change. Phase changes can also happen in entropy when it's considered purely as a measure of information. Clearly, information about a number of issues, including by the looks of it peak oil, has gone through a strange change that may be described as a phase change. And at the point of phase change, a lot of correlations break down.

I reckon there really is no money needed to explain peak oil. Whether people get information about peak oil when it would be useful for them to know, that's another matter. But we live in a world where people generally aren't getting the information they need to help themselves through the sort of channels they would normally expect to get them. So I guess that those people who figure out where to get their information from the best sources will be the ones that will better survive any disasters that may be coming.

This time i make an exception, because i want to find out if my explanation has typos.
Adam has found one (increases/decreases), so i replace part one with a new version.

Oh, so increases/decreases is a typo? This reminds me of a weird thing that happened to me last January. I was sleeping very little for a while, I didn't know why at the time, but later on it was traced to a hormonal imbalance. Sleeping little is terrible for your mental state, and at one point I was in such a disturbed state that my partner took me to the hospital. During the trip, I was terribly confused about directions, several times I felt like I was going in the opposite direction I meant to go and I got really obsessed with things looking like they were going the wrong way around. When we arrived in the hospital, there was this sign on the door that started: "If the door opens towards you..." I got very upset by the sign, I kept asking the nurse: "Why does it say TOWARDS YOU? Can the door go both ways? What's going on?" The nurse answered: "It's a typo." Well, that isn't what I call a typo.

[AdamB]

A "Baduila" thermodynamics question.

I have an oven, containing hot rocks. 20 hot rocks to be precise. They are all at the temperature dictated by the oven.

I remove 1 hot rock, and replace it with 1 cold rock without disturbing the temperature of the oven, or other hot rocks, in any way.

Does the cold rock stop the oven from functioning correctly (allowing the cold rock to influence the systems temperature) or somehow interfere with the other 19 rock's ability to remain at the temperature dictated by the oven, or does it warm up to the temperature of the system?

Sorry to the audience in general, but this isn't difficult at all and certainly doesn't need an edition of whatever textbook someone thinks we need to have a copy of to understand. This is Earth Science 101 type stuff and I'm trying real hard to not discuss specific heat, thermal conductivity or inertia, the rate of radioactive heat generation, etc etc.

[Doly]

Does the cold rock stop the oven from functioning correctly (allowing the cold rock to influence the systems temperature) or somehow interfere with the other 19 rock's ability to remain at the temperature dictated by the oven

The heat of the rest of the oven will go into the cold rock, and depending on the characteristics of the oven that might reduce slightly the temperature of the other hot rocks for some time. Your point being?

[AdamB]

Does the cold rock stop the oven from functioning correctly (allowing the cold rock to influence the systems temperature) or somehow interfere with the other 19 rock's ability to remain at the temperature dictated by the oven

The heat of the rest of the oven will go into the cold rock, and depending on the characteristics of the oven that might reduce slightly the temperature of the other hot rocks for some time. Your point being?

The oven temperature is static. Can't have many moving parts in a Baduila type question. So the cold rock can interfere with the operation of the oven by beating it to death before you put it in the oven as a way to get the temperature to change, but not change the temperature otherwise.

The point being that you answer basic thermodynamic questions easily. Baduila seems to suffer from what I call "theory-itis". It isn't the first time I've encountered this, in my experience statiticians can fall victim to it quite heavily, usually because of theoretical underpinnings that don't hold in the example, the Central Limit Thereom being one they blow up on in geologic settings. Baduila is one of those "I like numbers, I like the purity of math, I do my calculations and all is revealed" types. Sure can't be bothered to learn the subject matter prior to applying theory, and underlying assumptions of good working theories are really, really important.

His "removal of oil makes the system colder" idea is the first Baduila thermodynamic question. His "I pump in cold water" idea is the second Baduila thermodynamic question. His perfect theory completely ignores the fact that there is an oven pumping heat into the system, of such thermal mass and conductivity to absolutely dwarf any cooling effect of water injected. I told him this once, when I asked if he had checked out any temperature logs to verify the idea, because I've never seen a reservoir temperature drop because of production or on any injection well I've ever built or managed. Anyone who wants to make absolute statements should have at least tried to back it up with some empirical data I'd think.

You obviously can think, what might the theoretical cooling effect of a bucket of water slopped onto red hot magma coming from a nearby volcano magma headed to the sea? You get it, and I reduced it to a simple practical application example to make it obvious to anyone interested in thinking for a second.

Those who don't even know which way the crustal thermal gradient works before apparently being the exception. .

[Baduila]

@Doly

I have version 7, but i think chapter 6 and diagram 6.2 are the same.

The switch from energy to money and vice versa is an important point. Most people know, that the economy runs on energy, but always speak of the influence of money on the economy, and never mention the energy.
1. Money gets printed by central banks, and is created out of thin air. In theory, infinite amouts of money are available.
2. In contrast, energy is finite. Energy is used to produce energy.
This simple point has the following consequence: As long as a person believes, money explains the economy, they don’t understand the problem with energy:
To 1. If the money required to produce energy gets too high, some more money is to be printed by the central banks, and the problem vanishes.
To 2. In contrast, if the energy required to produce energy gets too high, a crash in the production system will occur.
You might think, this can’t be a problem, but it is. Most economic theories don’t ever mention energy. Only about 1995 Ayres and Kümmel started to include energy in economic theories, but this knowledge has not reached the public. ALL economists (i repeat: ALL) with which i talked were not able to think in energy terms instead of money terms. For them Peak Oil must be a problem of geology:
To 1: All oil available will be extracted, because some of the infinite money for extraction will be available.
But the reality is:
To 2: Oil extraction will experience a crash, when the extraction energy surpasses a limit. (Think of the critical point of diagram 6.2).

If you want to get an idea, what money really is, read David Graebers book „Debt: The first 5000 years.“
I myself use the energy intensity diagram, which is „world GDP“ divided by „world primary energy use“ for switching between money and energy. Money is not the same as energy, but the diagram is useful.

[AdamB]

@Doly

I have version 7, but i think chapter 6 and diagram 6.2 are the same.

Can you point to the textbook that answers the rock and oven question? Alternatively, you could demonstrate that you understand the question yourself...I realize without equations to point at that it might be difficult, but there is no need to be afraid of the practical application aspects of science.

[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

Meanwhile in the real world, as I type this, WTI is trading at $87.30ish, up over 2% today. So much for the past ETPers assertions that the trend is definitely down, lower lows and lower highs from here on as the major trend, etc.

And so much for shorty's contention that WTI would be at roughly $2 by late 2021, headed for ZERO, since "the global economy won't be able to afford to produce any oil". (I paraphrase, but that was the gist of what shorty repeatedly claimed on this site, and in his paper).

But I know. I'm a "troll" for occasionally pointing out how strongly the real world data is confounding the ETPers' contentions, whether they wave their arms about thermodynamics or not.

I'll take being a troll with a clue vs. an ETPer with the economic awareness of the typical house cat.