by EdwinSm » Sun 12 Jun 2016, 01:54:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Whatever', '
')
And the Etp model continues to perform perfectly.
I don't see how the ETP model can be claimed to perform perfectly, when in the chart above the 50 week average moving price was
above the "Etp Maximum Oil Price Curve"
for about one and a half years.
You told me off in a previous post/thread for not being exact as to the length of time, and I could do that if you published that data behind the chart, but as you have only published the chart as proof of the theory and I have to 'eyeball' it. But clearly the
Actual oil price was above the Maximum Price Curve from about mid-2013 to 2015. Now, I would accept a short spike above the"Maximum Price", but for the limit to be broken for 18 months indicates that much more work needs to be done, and the predictive power of the model has been wrong in the recent past, with oil reaching and staying at a price that was impossible in "thermodynamic theory"
Having said that, I think that there are some good underlying ideas behind the model (similar to a suggestion Pops gave some years ago that the total purchase of oil could not go above a certain % of the GDP). However, you are claiming more accuracy for the model than you are showing in the graphs.
I also realise (on the other graph that was posted) that the missing data from the 1980s might not altered the final figures very much, but leaving out data that does not fit the curve is a very worrying thing in my view point and undermines what the Hill Group is trying to show. To use an analogy from Theology where one of my favourate sayings is "I can prove anything I want from the Bible
provided I can choose which bits I leave out."