by Outcast_Searcher » Thu 02 Mar 2017, 05:03:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'A')damB, you are always talking about Monte. Who is Monte? A dear friend? An ex-boyfriend? Why your obsession?
Anyway, just to bring things home. This thread is about the ETP model, a measure of the petroleum used-up getting more petroleum. Lots of oil (petroleum) is burned up when the oil companies drill, deliver and refine the oil. ETP measures how much is left for the consumer. It's a nice model.
An crucial implication of this ETP model is that when the oil-production system requires all the oil . . . when there is no oil left to drive around or do anything then people can't buy the oil. The oil companies have no more money to spend. No more oil. Seems reasonable. Any one have nice productive questions? Or objections?
Once again, I object.
When the economy, which (so far) runs largely on hydrocarbons, gets more energy efficient and needs less energy per dollar of GDP every year -- and has for decades, claiming that there is any near term danger that "all the oil" will be needed just to extract oil, with none left over is nonsensical on its face.
On top of that the globe is in an oil glut due to efficient production which is so extreme that it has forced the shutdown of a lot of the production until prices rise enough to make the more difficult oil worth producing.
...
I don't know what a "nice" theory is. A girl or a tree or a house cat can be nice. A theory either works well (given the data and what happens in the real world) or it doesn't. A better adjective for the ETP theory, based on what is actually happening in the oil production and consumption world, would be "nonsensical".
Finally, the more time that passes, the more efficiently non-oil energy can be used to replace oil to extract oil in the highly unlikely event that actually becomes a problem. So, for example, green electricity could be used. But of course when that electricity supplants the bulk of oil burned for transportation, as it surely will in time, then it becomes a moot point.
If enough time passes before that happens, AGW could be a truly huge problem. Inability to economically extract the needed oil, not so much.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.