# The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Futilitist, Aug 24, 2015.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### FutilitistThis so called forum is a fraud...Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,586
No.

---Futilitist

3. ### Russ_WattersNot a Trump supporter...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,051
So I guess we're rebooting...
I don't think you have the first clue what "entropy" means because you throw it around like a technobabble buzzword, without actually making a connection between it and the topic.

You have IMPLIED that like entropy, the energy/cost of oil always continuously rises, but it doesn't. Here's how it really works:

A barrel of oil that's been sitting in a rock formation for a billion years is static. It isn't "experiencing entropy". It's just sitting there, waiting for someone to pump it out of the ground. What determines whether it gets pumped out of the ground is the profitability of pumping it. For it to become profitable, one of two things can happen:
1. The price to sell it can rise.
2. The price to pump it can drop.

What happened with fracking is that relatively suddenly, the price to pump previously really expensive oil dropped dramatically, opening up vast new reserves to production.

The thing that makes the AVERAGE price of oil rise is depletion of the cheap sources and switching to more expensive sources, not the existing sources magically getting harder to extract. So a barrel of tight oil that is profitable to pump today at 50 will only ever get cheaper, not more expensive. That's why absent short term games by Saudi Arabia, the price of tight oil simply can't go higher than about $75 a gallon. We are likely decades away from the next time oil approaches$150/barrel.

Now, I'm sure Hubbert understood this. And he knew about shale oil, but he didn't include it in his model, because he didn't anticipate fracking would make that oil economically recoverable. I can forgive him for that because it is tough to predict technological advances that are decades away. But now that it has happened, you cannot be forgiven for not recognizing something happening right in front of you.

Last edited: Aug 25, 2015
exchemist likes this.

5. ### Russ_WattersNot a Trump supporter...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,051
Please cite a reliable source the says/explains that. I took engineering thermodynamics and economics and that wasn't in any of the courses.

What it really is is handwaving. You don't have a detailed mechanism for what is happening to that barrel of oil that is sitting in the ground getting more expensive because it is "entropying".
Entropy of what? How much? By what process? Can you show me the calculation for the process?
Not only is that not true, it also has nothing to do with entropy. Once a well is sunk, the cost of the oil coming out is basically constant.
Entropy or not, that does happen: when do you think it will? (or did)

7. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,790
Good! Then you understand that new technologies, processes and materials can increase efficiency of a device or a process without violating the laws of thermodynamics. That's a good start.

8. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,639
Right the big cost of oil production is exploration and sinking the well. The cost of pumping it out of the ground is peanuts. That is why when the price of oil drops the oil companies slow down on drilling but they continue to pump the oil out of existing wells.

Messages:
11,639
oops

10. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,639
Futilitist, here is the deal. Are we going to run out of oil? No, the answer is no, there will always be oil that is still in the ground and untapped. Why because oil will just start getting more and more expensive and the market will move to natural gas, hydrogen, ethanol, electric cars and a greater reliance on mass transportation. Is civilization going to fall apart? No. Will there be changes in society? Yes. Is this all going to occur in the next year? No. Do you seem like Chicken Little? Yes.

11. ### FutilitistThis so called forum is a fraud...Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,586
That is correct. Entropy begins when you begin pumping the oil.

That is completely false. When the price of oil was low, fracking tight oil was not possible at a profit. The price of oil eventually rose enough to make fracking profitable. Now that the price has fallen back below the cost of production, fracking is once again unprofitable. There have been some efficiency improvements, but not nearly enough to make fracking profitable at today's oil price.

Once again, entropy begins when production begins. Oil in the ground does not experience entropy. I certainly never even implied any such thing, so your line of argument here is clearly a straw man.

Sure. Here is the "Entropy Rate Balance Equation for Control Volumes", which is a second law statement.

A control volume permits both energy and mass to flow through its boundaries. The entropy balance for a control volume undergoing a process can be expressed as:

where i and e denote inlet and exit, respectively. The above entropy balance relation states that the entropy change of a control volume undergoing a process equals the sum of the entropy transfer by heat, the net entropy transfer by mass, and the entropy generation in the control volume.

You are wrong. If you want to maintain production at a constant rate, your costs will increase. For example, in order to maintain production of the Ghawar oil field, the Saudi's had to start an extensive sea water flooding program. This is not cheap. Another example would be the Cantarell oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. They added a very expensive nitrogen injection system to slow depletion, but depletion continues to accelerate.

I was talking about a single well in my example and you are asking me about when world oil production will begin to decline. The answer is: I don't know exactly. I think it will begin to decline before the end of this year as the frackers finally go bust. It might take a little longer if there is some sort of federal bailout of the oil companies or their lenders. The government might also try a stimulus program like QE4 or something to keep the economy from collapsing. The effects of these types of measures will only be temporary at best.

16. ### FutilitistThis so called forum is a fraud...Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,586
And then the price of oil dropped, making fracking once again unprofitable. That remains the current situation, even with efficiency gains.

The zero state means that it will take the energy from 1 barrel of oil to produce 1 barrel of oil. It will not be economical to use oil after 2021.

You worry too much.

---Futilitist

17. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
" No. Do your own homework "
hilarious.. this just means you agreed to not knowing what is actually occurring while admitting you have no such basic math skills as you continue to spew the nonsense that you are spewing.
agian, it would be nice if you actually had any knowledge of what you speak of.

18. ### FutilitistThis so called forum is a fraud...Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,586
It would be nice if you did too. Oh well.

---Futilitist

19. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,790
OK, so you can't do math. Let me do it for you:
A barrel of oil provides 6 200 000 kJ of energy. It requires 3 800 kJ to lift it 2400 meters. Thus you recover 1600x the energy you put into lifting it. Everything else (the fracturing, the drilling) can be energy-reduced without thermodynamic consequences.

Thus your claim that "entropy" means you can't economically recover oil from fracked wells is proven false. Understanding the math would help you realize this.
So what will you say come 2022 when people are still using oil?

20. ### brucepValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,098
The sooner the better for this planet.

21. ### krash661[MK6] transitioning scifi to realityValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,973
except along with my PhDs in science and mathematics. i had founded the time to become a series 7 . i also dabble with wallstreet frequently, not to mention my connects from there. if you want, you can get an idea from my linkedin page,

shrugs.
keep in mind that it's old and i have not continued to pursue that site. i became independent, and now just simply make my own money.

22. ### FutilitistThis so called forum is a fraud...Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,586
I understand math just fine, billvon. But you are not doing the right math.

Where did you come up with the 3800 kJ number? It might require 3800 kJ to lift a 160 kilograms 2400 meters in the air, but you are trying to lift oil out of an oil well. You need to account for fractional flow, water cut, and gas oil ratio, among other things, which you did not do. Thus, your claim to even understand what we are talking about is highly suspect.

Your math skills may be okay, but your logic is way off base in all of your posts.

I don't think you really care whether you are right or not. You just want to create the impression that you are.

---Futilitist

Last edited: Aug 25, 2015
23. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,790
Clearly you do not, since you said you couldn't do it - and then refused to try.
Correct.
No, you don't. You can economize on the energy used by the carrier in fractional flow in any of a number of ways. At a very basic level, water goes down and water comes back up. This can be, in an optimized design, close to zero net energy - since the energy in the water is conserved. The one energy you cannot "get around" (i.e. due to those thermodynamic equations you keep harping on) is the energy needed to physically lift the oil out of the well.
Coming from a guy who continually makes predictions, sees them fail to come to pass, and then announces he was right all along and anyone who disagrees is a fool - that is funny indeed.