[ROCKMAN]

looker - Since the old thread is locked I'll respond to your post here. Honestly I care little to see your critique of the model. Or anyone's else's for that matter. But you've looked at the model so I ask the same simple questions. First, is the model predicting anything? If yes what did it predict for 2017 and when was that prediction made? With the endless arguments about the validity of the model it's becoming rather absurd that no one, pro or con, has been willing to answer such basic questions. I'm starting to see the debate as nothing more then arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

[onlooker]

First, thanks Rock for bringing the discourse back to a more factual basis rather than emotional and also for your thoughtful questions. I must preface that I am not an physics engineer or someone who can interpret the Etp model in the nitty gritty of its technical points. Now to your questions.

Well, I think we can get a little confused by the use of the word predict. If by predict one means asserts that something for sure will happen at some future date, well I do not think that the Etp is doing that. What it tried to do is to take the production history and do some regression analysis and mathematical formulations to assess different correlations and comparisons with regard to the interaction of prices , production and the physical properties of the Oil sources ( API, I believe it is called. ) that were being exploited and then establish projections of the oil price and how the Industry would be expected to fare. Anyway, I know I am over my head but I give it a shot. Specifically, with all the data the the Etp Model accumulated it is then able to formulate a so called MAP, maximum affordable price. This is the price at which the Economy lurches into a tailspin as this price does not allow for sufficient economic activity or net energy to enter into it. According to Short, the actually WTI price has been remarkably faithful to this limitation and has not breached it hardly at all. As for 2017, well perhaps someone else can tell you what the MAP is for the end of this year. Hope that helped. Hey at least I am trying and not hurling insults haha.

[ROCKMAN]

looker - I don't mean to be harsh but you say the model doesn't predict anything and then you say: "...and then establish projections of the oil price...". You have to pick one or the other...they both can't be true. Did it pick a price for 2017 or not. If it did what is the number and when was it calculated?

[onlooker]

the-etp-model-q-a-pt-11-t73460-440.html
The projected MAP for the end of trading Dec 31, 2017 is $54.As for when this projection was made, you would have to ask Short

[Cog]

And it predicts a lower value for Dec 31st, 2018 and so on. What is the predicted value by end of 2018 from the model? That is what Rockman is wanting to know. As well as the rest of us. I know this is has been posted in one of the countless ETP threads somewhere.

I know pstarr at some point said the ETP model would have the price of oil going to zero in a few years. Not that that will happen but just to remind him.

[onlooker]

Rockman, Cog, from that same linked thread. $41 is the projected MAP as of Dec 31, 2018

[vtsnowedin]

If you peak back through the threads you can find at least one version of the MAP curve. On this side of the curve it is actually a straight line sloping down at a dollar a month $55 Dec. 1 2017 $54 Jan1 2018 and on down into the "dead state"
WTI is down almost a buck today to $57.42 as I write this.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ny other questions?

[marmico]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e arrive at their Free Cash Flow by subtracting the Capital Expenditures from the Cash From Operations.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') am surprised that you don't understand CASH FLOW STATEMENTS. The Consolidated Statements of Operations which provide Net Income, do not include CAPITAL EXPENDITURES. To understand how well a company is doing, we must find out their FREE CASH FLOW. We arrive at their Free Cash Flow by subtracting the Capital Expenditures from the Cash From Operations

[Cog]

I do not want our fine website to be overrun with flatearthers, zero point energy schemes, ten things they don't want you to know about scammers, and your charlatans of all types. This place is for those who can express their opinions without hawking their wares like a fish monger or carnival barker.

[jawagord]

We don't understand ETP in Canada just economics, to paraphrase Sarah it's steam baby steam!

Husky Energy approves two new $350-million heavy oil facilities

A year after it committed $1 billion to build three steam-assisted heavy oil extraction plants in western Saskatchewan, one of Canada’s largest energy companies says its board has approved two more of the facilities at a combined cost of $700 million.

Husky Energy Inc.’s decision to green light the plants — to be built at Westhazel, near Mervin, and Edam — is part of its broader strategy to approve two plants per year “for the foreseeable future,” according to a spokesman.

“That can’t continue endlessly, of course, but we do have a good pipeline of projects that we have on the horizon and we have outlined spending plans to bring forward two per year going forward,” Mel Duvall said Monday.

Each of the 10,000-barrels-per-day plants is expected to create between 250 and 300 construction jobs, plus around 30 full-time permanent positions once they begin production, which is expected in 2021, Duvall said.

The Calgary-based company currently has four “thermal” plants under construction — Rush Lake 2, Dee Valley, Spruce Lake North and Spruce Lake Central — plus an additional four operating in the province: Rush Lake, Edam East, Edam West and Vawn.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-new ... c3d0b236c7

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')
I have a great deal of respect for shortonoil,

[ROCKMAN]

looker - I do appreciate your effort but you link didn't open. And as far as all the others who have responded NO ONE seems to answer the basic question: if the model predicts the price of oil as some you say why cannot one of you post a link several years old that shows the model? Seems with all the ETP "experts" here that should be easy. Just saying it predicted $X/bbl is meaningless. If you have a chart from several years back just post the f*cking link. Everyone here is capable of reading a chart...we don't need you to "hold or hand". LOL.

[EdwinSm]

Some figures that have been posted for the ETP model (I am too lazy to look back through 100s of posts so saved the data to my computer, so sorry for no link).

Here is the output for the Maximum Affordability function for WTI by year:

2016...$65.94
2017....54.18
2018....46.16
2019....26.88

and


Year MAP EIA
2010 118.44 87.48
2011 112.14 71.21
2012 104.58 94.05
2013 96.18 97.98
2014 87.36 93.26
2015 77.28 48.67
2016 65.94 43.33
2017 54.18
2018 41.16


- - - -
According to these figures I find that the model was broken in the years 2013 and 2014. When I first pointed this out someone recalculated the MAP for a point around mid-year to make it fit, but it seems to me that an important part of ETP is only taking the end of year price.

To ETP supporters, are the figures I posted correct, and if not please post corrected figures.

ps. I know it is not the end of the year, but it looks like for this year (2017) the EIA average price for the year will be less than $54.18 so the model looks like it will hold for this year.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Yoshua', ' ')
The Etp Model predicts that the oil industry will consume 57% of the energy content in a barrel of crude oil to produce (extract, refine and distribute) the barrel to the economy in 2017.

[Cog]

The only thing shorty needs to predict is how he is going to pay off his wager to VT when he loses on December 31st, 2017. Tick tock man.

[jawagord]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Yoshua', 'A') scientific theory must be predictive. The thermodynamic laws are predictive. The Etp Model is based on the thermodynamic laws. The Etp Model must be predictive. If it isn't, then it is flawed.

The Etp Model predicts that the oil industry will consume 57% of the energy content in a barrel of crude oil to produce (extract, refine and distribute) the barrel to the economy in 2017.

The Etp Model is looking at the full life cycle of oil production.

To fight rising energy costs, the oil industry will cut its energy costs. Exploration and development of new fields will go first. The oil industry will start to cannibalize on its existing reserves until they are exhausted. The cannibalization of the existing infrastructure will continue until it collapses beyond repair...

Human behavior will respond to falling net energy. The economy will respond. The financial system will respond. The problem is just that we are against the laws of physics...it will take freaking magic to beat the laws of physics.

So let's hope and pray that the Etp Model is flawed.

[radon1]

So, with the ETP trash duly thrown out to the trash bin given the oil price dynamics, the trickster is now up with a new "report" to show us the "truly real truth"?

[Cog]

Its new AND improved ETP. Like laundry detergent.