[asg70]

So this is more or less where we should be:

Dec 31, 2019 = $27

This is where we are:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/oil-mar ... focus.html

$56-61

So the price is currently over TWICE what ETP says it should be. And how much longer before ETPs chart hits zero?

It really would be worth it for what's left of the ETP nuts to really get back to basics with this math and really absorb it because it just seems like they're stuck in their own heads and trying to manufacture synchronicity where there hasn't been any in quite some time.

Even if prices go lower, they're unlikely to ever catch up with the descending ETP chart. Back a couple years ago maybe, but not now or in the future. Even with massive demand destruction from EVs can we really expect to see oil prices drop to $10-20 a barrel again? Doesn't seem likely given that so much of what we do produce is from costly unconventional sources. Once the cheap stuff really starts to peter out, prices will have to go up to cover the cost of extraction even if demand is low.

Does it make sense to state the obvious with true believers stuck in lala land?

[Outcast_Searcher]

Did your realize that the WTI price curve is a fact ? A pure, hard fact ?
The maxima are a hard facts too, total independent of interpretations.
As well as the line connecting them.

Could someone repost the classic ETP chart that says where oil price was supposed to be compared to what it currently is?

Last I checked, ETP decoupled with oil prices what, over a year ago (hence Short's failed bet) and has yet to fall back in sync.

There is a final moment of truth where the ETP chart projects oil is worthless ($0) and that is the final date of doomsday. Isn't that like 2022 or something? So not THAT far away.

First, I don't see how anyone can reasonably call the WTI price chart a "curve". Volatile price charts are quite random over time -- which is why it's so hard to "beat the market".

I don't know how to reliably copy/paste graphics here, and the PDF I have of shorty's ETP paper, V2, published 3/1/2015 has copy/paste disabled.

What I CAN do is eyeball key MAP price prediction numbers and years from his chart you are referring to on page 34 re his "38% magenta line", to give you a good idea of his "Maximum Affordable Price" (or MAP) predictions.

I can also send you a copy of that PDF if you PM me and want one, etc.

Year ......... Predicted MAP of WTI (eyeballed by me from the chart, but close)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 ............... 41
2019 ............... 27
2020 ............... 13
2021 ................ 2
2022 ................ 0

I am extrapolating the magenta curve for the future values, obviously, but given how far they ALREADY are from reality, I'm confident my estimates are plenty close enough.

So let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say the figures are for the end of each year. (I think I remember that claim being made in early discussion, although re the chart it just talks about "years".)

Looking at a WTI chart for 3 years (clicked on 3 years):

https://www.macrotrends.net/2516/wti-cr ... aily-chart

Clearly 2018 where WTI spent all but December between $50+ and $75, the MAP of 41 prediction is already clearly nonsensical.

After Jan, 2019, the average price of $55ish is close enough to DOUBLE the $27 predicted price of the MAP as to make that prediction even more of a shambles for 2019.

Now, if you're not braying constantly about imminent economic DOOM (which he is, as ALWAYS), then clearly the projections for 2020 and on appear to have basically NO resemblance to reality at all.

[asg70]

So we have three more years to endure the death throes of this theory, despite the fact B Hill's website isn't even online anymore (although who knows...it could come back). How many flat-earthers could possibly remain in their pews the whole time?

And even after that, I'm sure you can fabricate some conspiracy theory to explain oil's inability to drop to nothing.

That's the nature of the human mind, always able to rationalize to hold onto a narrative you desperately want to be true even when the data says otherwise.

[Outcast_Searcher]

And even after that, I'm sure you can fabricate some conspiracy theory to explain oil's inability to drop to nothing.

That's the nature of the human mind, always able to rationalize to hold onto a narrative you desperately want to be true even when the data says otherwise.

Given how often the fast crash doomers claim conspiracy re government economic stats that don't say what they want to hear, the MSM which doesn't say what they want it to say, etc. -- yup. Conspiracies sound like a probable refuge. In fact, without digging up quotes, I'm 99% sure that shorty has spent time braying about this or that conspiracy when someone points out what a shamble his various calls for doom are.

And of course, given the behavior of AGW denialists (for one example), this isn't surprising. People no longer listen much to stories about ghosts and goblins, so it's on to "them", and MSU (making shit up).

[asg70]

Here's the thing these people should ask themselves.

If they never heard of ETP in the first place, would they feel motivated to fashion conspiracy theories for why oil isn't dropping to so and so level?

The only reason people do this is to cling to failing narratives.

Of course, people who do this aren't self-analytical enough to realize any of this, and us pointing it out to them won't help.

The right thing to do is abandon the narrative, but that results in damage to the ego, all that sunk investment. We can't have that. It was the case in 2008 where peakers couldn't handle the subsequent glut and it is true now with the few remaining ETPers.

[shortonoil]

Did your realize that the WTI price curve is a fact ? A pure, hard fact ?
The maxima are a hard facts too, total independent of interpretations.
As well as the line connecting them.

What is so hilariously funny is that these idiots do not even realize that what is referred to as the MAP, has absolutely nothing to do with the Etp Model. The MAP is referring to an economic determination from the application of technical analysis, while the Etp Model is the equation used by a thermodynamic analysis of state. The MAP was apparently constructed from the MAF (Maximum Affordability Function) which states that the energy delivered from a unit of petroleum has a finite, and maximum economic value. These idiots with their twisted little mini brains somehow manged to confuse them? They probably believe that horse shoes, horse manure, and horses are the same thing?

Whom ever is subsidizing there bird brains sure isn't getting any thing for the effort. It is almost like someone hired a Yankee Stadium full of Harry, Larry, and Moes......

Projection of any asset value in a completely, synthetic central bank controlled environment is an excise in futility; unless one is a central banker. Even then it is rather doubtful that they have a clue as to what they are doing. They appear to be totally crisis orientated, and merely jump from one disaster to the the next. The one thing that we can thank them for, if not by accident rather than design, is that they saved the petroleum industry for a couple more years; the most essential commodity used by mankind. The price of oil has been artificially elevated by their massive printing escapades along with all other asset classes. Without that price boost the petroleum industry would now be shutting its doors all around the world. That result was likely a by product of their attempt to save the stock market, which they deem as the height of success. The fact that it moved wealth from the pockets of the poorest to those of the richest must have been considered a completely insignificant, and secondary effect.

That gigantic wealth transfer is now showing up as public uprisings, and riots all over the world. It saved the economy for just long enough that the rioters could find the matches to burn it down with! We are in the last days of the oil age, and the Good Ship Economy is sailing blindly into the night without a helmsman; steadily losing power, and headed straight for the rocks of depletion. But, as people have a tendency to do, what ever it is that they do, until they can't do it any longer the presses will continue to roll. A thousand year civilization will continue to go up in smoke.

Of course it didn't have to be this way; but we keep tripping over the same obstacle; it's called human nature!

[asg70]

(probably making a mistake unhiding and engaging here)

What is so hilariously funny is that these idiots do not even realize that what is referred to as the MAP, has absolutely nothing to do with the Etp Model...Projection of any asset value in a completely, synthetic central bank controlled environment is an excise in futility

Then why did you place a failed bet on it? Obviously you felt it had predictive value.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Did your realize that the WTI price curve is a fact ? A pure, hard fact ?
The maxima are a hard facts too, total independent of interpretations.
As well as the line connecting them.

What is so hilariously funny is that these idiots do not even realize that what is referred to as the MAP, has absolutely nothing to do with the Etp Model. The MAP is referring to an economic determination from the application of technical analysis, while the Etp Model is the equation used by a thermodynamic analysis of state. The MAP was apparently constructed from the MAF (Maximum Affordability Function) which states that the energy delivered from a unit of petroleum has a finite, and maximum economic value. These idiots with their twisted little mini brains somehow manged to confuse them? They probably believe that horse shoes, horse manure, and horses are the same thing?

If you're always wrong, and someone points it out, instead of acting like a rational adult and admitting you're wrong, act like a 5 year old, engage in name calling, and try to change the subject.

The MAP is clearly derived from your ETP nonsense AND is given in your failed ETP paper, so you claiming it has "nothing to do" with the ETP model shows your usual absolute cluelessness re reality.

Congrats!

[asg70]

When oil prices were falling nicely within the ETP map's predictions, Short was quick to hype its predictive powers, and cite it as a "proof". But now that everything's out of sync, he retroactively disavows its predictive power while still clinging to ETP's validity.



The fact is that ETP (including the chart) was simply a gimmick invented to create existential dread during the fracking glut that followed 2008. Just draw some lines that point further downward and say "there be dragons" (as implausible as it was to suggest that low oil prices rather than high ones = doomsday). Well, we're pretty close to where those lines go over into the abyss and we're seeing a portrait of, more or less--BAU with no end in sight. No extreme highs OR lows (despite the Saudi disruption). And the only time the term "peak oil" shows up in the MSM lately it's about peak oil DEMAND, not dwindling supplies.

[shortonoil]

The MAP is clearly derived from your ETP nonsense AND is given in your failed ETP paper, so you claiming it has "nothing to do" with the ETP model shows your usual absolute cluelessness re reality.

So you "are" a complete total idiot that can not differentiate between an economic analysis, and a thermodynamic one. Considering every thing else that you state that will not come as a surprise to most readers. Of course, if you state the same absurdities a billion times, yes, there is someone who will believe you. That still doesn't make your opinion worth its weight in dried camel dun.

Baduila's presentation is a technical analysis of existing data. Technical analysis is used by the most successful prop desks on Wall Street, and various forms to it have been used for over a century. The stock market is a very efficient mechanism for weeding out losers, which is probably why The Outcast doesn't work there. Baduila's graph displays the same time frame that can be calculated for when the debt formation rate becomes equal to the currency in circulation. With the central banks no longer able to manipulate asset prices, and the economy in total collapse, $10 oil is likely to become a nasty reality. If anyone is still using $.

When that happens the world of oil will be back to where it started in 1859; at $10 a barrel.

The Etp model isn't an analysis of anything, its own author apparently making sure no one can find it anymore, the laughter must have achieved quite a crescendo in my absence.

This bird's mother tried to dry it off in the microwave as a baby. It fried its brain. Considering its linage it probably didn't have much to work with from the start. It still just mumbles along repeating itself constantly. As someone's pet orangutan it might be quit the success at parties.

Could someone repost the classic ETP chart that says where oil price was supposed to be compared to what it currently is?

No! There never was an Etp chart that projected oil prices. There is only one Etp chart, and that gives Total Production Energy vs Time.

Perhaps you are referring to the MAF, the Maximum Affordability Function that worked with a very high correlation for 59 years until the CB began dumping ten's of $trillions of artificial money into the monetary system. It no longer works because money is no longer representative of goods and services produced. Petroleum belongs in the asset class. Money is now representative of only what that the CB want to it to appear to be. The free market system has nothing to do with it. Because the existence of money is nothing more than a number on a credit/ debit balance sheet its demise is a simple concept to grasp.

Baduila's point is that even though pricing is now the exclusive domain of the CB, the inflection points are still significant. In essence what he is saying is that even though the CB control pricing they can not change the form of the curve. The form of the curve is controlled by physical reality, and that is beyond the control of the banks. Only the dumb monkeys can be trained to believe that 2+2 = 5. The rest of reality will continue to move along on its original schedule of the last 14.5 billion years.

[asg70]

This bird's mother tried to dry it off in the microwave as a baby. It fried its brain. Considering its linage it probably didn't have much to work with from the start. It still just mumbles along repeating itself constantly. As someone's pet orangutan it might be quit the success at parties.

Ad homs. That's all you've got left, man.

No! There never was an Etp chart that projected oil prices.

Is that the same alternate reality where you claim you made no bet?

It no longer works because money is no longer representative of goods and services produced.

Which is a separate theory you have failed to prove.

[AdamB]

The MAP is clearly derived from your ETP nonsense AND is given in your failed ETP paper, so you claiming it has "nothing to do" with the ETP model shows your usual absolute cluelessness re reality.

So you "are" a complete total idiot that can not differentiate between an economic analysis, and a thermodynamic one.

Oh...I think you are mistaken on who didn't do a thermodynamic analysis, and then confused it with an economic one.

Can we please have a reference to the published paper on either?

[Baduila]

@Adam

Can we please have a reference to the published paper on either?

You have been attacking the ETP model for several years. So i assume, you have both documents available ?
1. The Hills Group study
2. Moran/Shapiros "Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics"

On the first ten pages of the study, how often is the Dollar mentioned ? How often is entropy mentioned ?

[AdamB]

@Adam

Can we please have a reference to the published paper on either?

You have been attacking the ETP model for several years. So i assume, you have both documents available ?

I have the website provided website paper, not the peer reviewed version cleared by the Royal Society or whomever finally published the paper. The reason why the published (as opposed to self published) version is important is that someone else put their name on the quality of the work and ideas.

Anyone can self-certify their work as perfectly okay, but a publishing organization will not risk it's integrity on someone without due diligence. In addition, and as I was informed upon publishing my first article in the last century, what you write down and is published will be with you forever, so make sure you do it right.

As we have been shown by Shorty, hiding the evidence of a monumental screwup is quite easy when it can just be removed from the internet. I have previously detailed shortcomings in Short's work literally within the first few pages, claims that any peer review would have noted and required additional work on. I want the corrected and peer reviewed work, not the stuff where some unknown blogger proclaims the end of the world, and then runs and hides when it turns out their work is revealed as a sham.

1. The Hills Group study
2. Moran/Shapiros "Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics"

On the first ten pages of the study, how often is the Dollar mentioned ? How often is entropy mentioned ?

A footnote referencing its publication in any reasonable journal will suffice.

[Baduila]

In a distorted way, you have recognized why no peer-reviewed publication of ETP exists:
If position, reputation and earnings of the peer-reviewers can get endangered by a yes or no to the publication, how will they decide ?

[rockdoc123]

If position, reputation and earnings of the peer-reviewers can get endangered by a yes or no to the publication, how will they decide ?

peer review doesn't work that way. I've been on the reviewer's list for a couple of journals in the past. The directives are clear....you look for typical editorial issues, check to make sure there is consistent internal consistency between evidence and conclusions, identify any issues around logic failure, identify calculation errors, identify referencing errors or point to papers that are particularly relevant but not referenced. You are particularly admonished from sharing your own opinions unless they are backed up by the submitted manuscript. This is done specifically to avoid journals becoming sounding boards for any one particular group. As with most things, there are the occasional exceptions, usually when a particular assistant editor is a hothead or very opinionated but it isn't common and not across all journals which is why particularly controversial papers may end up going to a few journals before their work is published. All of us have had at least one article refused somewhere for some reason. In the end the process isn't perfect but it does work. If the authors attempted to get the work published and were unsuccessful it tells me it did not deserve publication.

[AdamB]

In a distorted way, you have recognized why no peer-reviewed publication of ETP exists:

I willing admit that there are reasons why no reputable organization would want anything to with publishing Short's work. I have enumerated several.

If position, reputation and earnings of the peer-reviewers can get endangered by a yes or no to the publication, how will they decide ?

I have never felt my position, reputation or earnings threatened by doing peer review. I know of no technical peer review person who has EVER had their position, reputation and earnings CHANGED, let alone ENDANGERED, for doing this critical part of the scientific publication process.

Is your experience in peer review for technical publications and organizations different than mine?

[shortonoil]

In a distorted way, you have recognized why no peer-reviewed publication of ETP exists:

The Etp Model is an engineering report. Engineering reports are NOT peer reviewed. There is no new science embedded in an engineering report, they are just practicable applications of existing established knowledge. They are either used by other engineers, or they aren't.

Engineers do not use the same methodology that is used by scientists. If we did humanity would still be trying to figure out how to climb down out of its tree. Engineers figure out how to make things work; scientists try to figure out the laws of nature to explain why they do. Science tells us that F = ma, engineers then take that knowledge, and build every thing that moves. Scientists, and everyone else then ride around in what we built.

Engineers are interested in what works; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The Etp Model ain't broke. It is still giving good approximations for an observable, measurable phenomenon. The depletion of petroleum.

[AdamB]

In a distorted way, you have recognized why no peer-reviewed publication of ETP exists:

The Etp Model is an engineering report.

Sent to the Royal Society as an engineering report, or paper for review prior to publication?

Engineering reports are NOT peer reviewed.

Mine are. Of course, they are also published after that review.

There is no new science embedded in an engineering report, they are just practicable applications of existing established knowledge.

True, to some extent. That extent being, when using engineering principles to dismantle a scientific process or method published elsewhere, it behooves a scientist to publish the how, when, where and why. The reasons for the internet disappearance of the spurious relationship engineering (not) report have been pointed our extensively here. I believe my comments on its shortcomings, and precognitive proof of its ultimate failure, date back 2 years or more.

They are either used by other engineers, or they aren't.

Mine are used by scientists.

Engineers do not use the same methodology that is used by scientists.

As an engineer, using the same methodology published by the scientists, I can say we certainly do.

If we did humanity would still be trying to figure out how to climb down out of its tree. Engineers figure out how to make things work; scientists try to figure out the laws of nature to explain why they do.

And engineers who are scientists meld the best of both worlds together...allowing us to spot spurious relationship reports with great acuity.

Science tells us that F = ma, engineers then take that knowledge, and build every thing that moves. Scientists, and everyone else then ride around in what we built.

Based on what you "built", it appears obvious you must have missed science learnin' the day they taught it in engineering school.

Engineers are interested in what works; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The Etp Model ain't broke. It is still giving good approximations for an observable, measurable phenomenon. The depletion of petroleum.

The etp model was a wonderful spurious relationship creator, I'll give you that. I can't imagine the amount of effort that went into knowing what information to cherry pick, which equations to bring in from unrelated specialties in order to create the answer you wanted. Wouldn't it have been easier to just make a simple nonsense thing, like maybe a bell shaped curve with 2 peaks instead of one or something, and then did what you wanted....declare doom...and then do some REAL engineering?

[marmico]

The Etp Model ain't broke. It is still giving good approximations for an observable, measurable phenomenon.

The ETP Model is an EROI study, not an engineering study. It purports to measure EROI at the point of use (pou) with the doomer narrative that EROIpou reached 2:1 in 2012 ("inflection point") and is declining. It's GIGO.