Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Economics vs. ETP

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby dirtyharry » Wed 20 Dec 2017, 16:47:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Yoshua', '[')img]http://www.usfunds.com/media/images/investor-alert/_2016/2016-09-23/COMM-Time-Major-Economies-Boost-Public-Infrastructure-Spending-09232016-LG.png[/img]


Yes, the question is where is the surplus nett energy to do this ? Where is the money to do this? The world is drowning in debt ,and you want more of it . Get real ^ The music is playing but the party is over ^ . Puerto Rico is not coming back and neither is Houston . Wake up .
dirtyharry
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri 07 Apr 2017, 10:53:43

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby shortonoil » Wed 20 Dec 2017, 18:41:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es, the question is where is the surplus nett energy to do this ? Where is the money to do this? The world is drowning in debt ,and you want more of it . Get real ^ The music is playing but the party is over ^ . Puerto Rico is not coming back and neither is Houston . Wake up.


Historically, the price of oil is now very high. The total cost of crude as a percentage of GDP since 1960 has averaged 2.48%. It is presently 2.64%. According to the graph of Total Cost of Crude/ GDP is should now be 1.64%, or about $37/ barrel. The world has very few funds available for other investments beyond the cost of producing petroleum, and its products. The world has $250 trillion, or more in debt that must be serviced.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Wed 20 Dec 2017, 18:51:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', '&')quot;The unnecessary bells and whistles ironically comes from economics. Put simply, we have an economic system measured in terms of money but dependent on energy and material resources. The first keeps growing through financial speculation while the latter becomes less available due to EROEI. The title thread implies that by creating more money we can reverse a downward trend in EROEI. That's not going to happen."
BRAVO!
As for being a Believer, well you all seem to easily believe the Mainstream authorities and Media. You also BELIEVE, the Etp is wrong as you are not able to interpret its more technical/mathematical formulations nor have you offered any disqualifying evidence beyond references again to the Mainstream communiques.
Then you try to convince us that Economics trumps physicis and biophysical conditions. Sorry it does not. Ultimately, economics is simply a way to measure what is happening related to resources and to allocate and distribute them in pre-planned ways. The Etp has tried to transcend this limited economic perspective and get at the status of the resource involved in this case OIL.


A major shortcoming of the ETP analysis is that it looks at only a single energy source- oil.

For an economy to operate it clearly needs energy, but to claim the economy will be "shorton energy", we would need to look at all energy sources, not just a single source of energy.

Oil is a very convenient form of energy relative to coal an natural gas and would be valuable even if it was only an energy carrier and only had an EROEI of 1. As long as other forms of energy (natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind and solar) have a combined EROEI that is high enough for the economy to function, the physics works out fine.

The economic system simply allocates the resources so that they are used as efficiently as possible to provide for the needs of the population again all of this run onthe basis of a market system with some measure of government regulation for externalities, public goods, and natural monopolies.

The system is far from perfect, we just have not found something better.
dcoyne78
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Wed 20 Dec 2017, 19:16:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es, the question is where is the surplus nett energy to do this ? Where is the money to do this? The world is drowning in debt ,and you want more of it . Get real ^ The music is playing but the party is over ^ . Puerto Rico is not coming back and neither is Houston . Wake up.


Historically, the price of oil is now very high. The total cost of crude as a percentage of GDP since 1960 has averaged 2.48%. It is presently 2.64%. According to the graph of Total Cost of Crude/ GDP is should now be 1.64%, or about $37/ barrel. The world has very few funds available for other investments beyond the cost of producing petroleum, and its products. The world has $250 trillion, or more in debt that must be serviced.


If we add up the total spent on C+C from 1960 to 2015 it is 40.69 trillion dollars (nominal dollars), the total nominal World GDP over the 1960-2015 period was 1408.97 trillion dollars.
So the average spending on crude was 40.69/1408.97=2.89%. In 2015 $1.54T was spent on crude and World GDP was $74.29T and 1.54/74.29=2.07%, so less expensive than the average from 1960 to 2015.

Price data from BP workbook at link below

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

World C+C from EIA (International Petroleum table 11.1b) link below

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/index.php

World debt has increased mostly due to increased debt in emerging economies as they have gained better access to financial markets as they have become more developed.

See Bank for International settlements statistics at link below.

https://www.bis.org/statistics/totcredit.htm?m=6%7C380%7C669
dcoyne78
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby onlooker » Wed 20 Dec 2017, 19:43:56

A major shortcoming of the ETP analysis is that it looks at only a single energy source- oil.
Yes that is a fair assessment Dcoyne.
I too think that could be the weak point in the Etp. It remains to be seen how societies will fare if Oil/energy decreases dramatically and if societies can have some sort of substitutes online to cushion the blow from this eventuality. I tend though to be bearish about the outcome.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 20 Dec 2017, 20:50:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', '
')On the contrary, I endeavor to stand on the firm ground of reality and truth. :)


But first....you must simply BELIEVE!!!! I wonder what other gang of folks that sounds like, claiming the reality and truth routine AFTER they tell you that what matters is they BELIEVE!!!!

Image
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 11018
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 20 Dec 2017, 20:57:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dcoyne78', '
')A major shortcoming of the ETP analysis is that it looks at only a single energy source- oil.


Design feature...if your goal is to replace the dispatched bell shaped curve with a different religious symbol, one that you can use to proclaim gloom and doom..AGAIN...and even better...sell to such gullible people and make a few $$!!

Peak oilers only care about oil, the entire energy charade is just that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dcoyne78', '
')For an economy to operate it clearly needs energy, but to claim the economy will be "shorton energy", we would need to look at all energy sources, not just a single source of energy.


How dare you use logic when discussing energy and the etp! That is one of the first things you have to forget about, if you want it to make sense.

Image
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 11018
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby onlooker » Wed 20 Dec 2017, 21:06:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', '
')On the contrary, I endeavor to stand on the firm ground of reality and truth. :)


But first....you must simply BELIEVE!!!! I wonder what other gang of folks that sounds like, claiming the reality and truth routine AFTER they tell you that what matters is they BELIEVE!!!!

Image

I believe Science can discern truths and reality. I believe if I jump off a 30 story building, I probably will die. Belief=Discernment. I believe you have no idea what I am talking about. Carry on
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby asg70 » Wed 20 Dec 2017, 21:19:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', '
')I believe if I jump off a 30 story building, I probably will die.


That's just what THEY want you to believe.

Image

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 08:59:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'A') major shortcoming of the ETP analysis is that it looks at only a single energy source- oil.
Yes that is a fair assessment Dcoyne.
I too think that could be the weak point in the Etp. It remains to be seen how societies will fare if Oil/energy decreases dramatically and if societies can have some sort of substitutes online to cushion the blow from this eventuality. I tend though to be bearish about the outcome.


Hi onlooker,

It is far from clear that oil output will fall off a cliff, it is more likely that when resources become scarce, prices will increase and the decline in output will be gradual. Oil is mostly used for transportation and can easily be used more efficiently with hybrids, plugin hybrids, EVs, increased light rail and buses on overhead wires, as well as rail and electrified rail.

These are not problems without solutions, higher oil prices (where price is determined by supply and demand rather than exergy) are likely to make it happen. Though when the peak arrives there may well be economic disruption as society adapts to the new reality (declining World C+C output).
dcoyne78
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby shortonoil » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 10:15:19

Image

The cost of oil as a percentage of world GDP has been following a sinusoidal function over the last 58 years. Green squares are decade averages, red dots yearly points. The graph which was constructed from World Bank, and EIA data shows the relative ability of the economy to pay for the oil that it uses. The graph has a periodicity of 12.94 years. The graph indicates that the economy's ability to support crude production is now at $37/ barrel. The dollar denomination of crude in $/barrel is only relative in relationship to the economy's ability to pay for it.

Chart 203 supports the conclusion of the Maximum Affordability function which is solely derived from deliverable energy calculations, and the World Bank and EIA value per BTU term.

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm

The graph also indicates that the leverage from the price of crude to the economy is closer to 40:1, as opposed the commonly applied value of 15:1. The well being of the economy appears to be much more dependent on petroleum than previously assumed.

http://www.thehillsgroup.org
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Yoshua » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 10:17:12

Dcoyne

When the EROI of petroleum falls to 1:1 and petroleum counts for 1/3 of the energy mix, then 1/3 of the remaining energy mix would be needed as an energy source to produce petroleum.

If the EROI of the remaining energy mix falls to 2:1 then the entire energy mix would be needed as an energy source to produce petroleum.

We do need high EROI energy sources to maintain petroleum production at today's level when the EROI of petroleum falls to 1:1 or find ways to use less petroleum.

It would have been easier to make that shift a long time ago.
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 06:45:42

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby marmico » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 10:32:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')hart 203 supports the conclusion of the Maximum Affordability function which is solely derived from deliverable energy calculations, and the World Bank and EIA value per BTU term.


Bull shit. It demonstrates, if anything, the exact opposite of the ETP MAP. The oil market underwent two bull markets and one bear market between 1960 and 2014. 2015 onwards is an open question.
marmico
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 14:46:35
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby shortonoil » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 10:55:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e do need high EROI energy sources to maintain petroleum production at today's level when the EROI of petroleum falls to 1:1 or find ways to use less petroleum.


There is very little high ERoEI oil remaining. Even a very small decline in deliverable energy resulting from the continuing ERoEI decline will have a dramatic effect on the economy. That is appearing as massive debt formation. With a leverage of 40:1 (see post above) every dollar spent on oil is removing $40 from the non oil producing sector of the economy. That is appearing as debt formation. With the world already in debt $250 trillion, and debt service cost already 14 to 16% of total GDP there remains very little room for further decline in oil's ERoEI before the system will cease to function.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Revi » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 12:00:08

Wow! I wonder if that's what's driving the cryptocurrencies?
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby GHung » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 12:14:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'W')ow! I wonder if that's what's driving the cryptocurrencies?


HOPIUM
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 12:32:18

IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Yoshua » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 12:50:20

Image[/img]
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 06:45:42

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 14:02:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Yoshua', 'D')coyne

When the EROI of petroleum falls to 1:1 and petroleum counts for 1/3 of the energy mix, then 1/3 of the remaining energy mix would be needed as an energy source to produce petroleum.

If the EROI of the remaining energy mix falls to 2:1 then the entire energy mix would be needed as an energy source to produce petroleum.

We do need high EROI energy sources to maintain petroleum production at today's level when the EROI of petroleum falls to 1:1 or find ways to use less petroleum.

It would have been easier to make that shift a long time ago.


Hi Yoshua,

As the price of crude increases it will become a smaller part of the overall energy mix as we use it more efficiently and find substitutes. The main point is that other sources of energy with higher EROEI can provide the net energy needed to run the economy. Petroleum production will not continue at today's level it will eventually peak and decline and we will use other sources of energy. Eventually all fossil fuels will peak and decline as they deplete and their prices will rise making them less competitive, over time they will be replaced by wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear(fission) energy.

Starting sooner would make the transition easier, but eventually it will be done out of necessity with many bumps in the road with bigger bumps the longer we wait to act.
dcoyne78
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Thu 21 Dec 2017, 14:36:33

Hi Shortonoil,

The World economy was doing fine when oil prices were over $100/b for 2011-2014, oil prices fell simply because there was an oversupply of oil. Your sinusoid is interesting, but without any theory for why there should be a 12-13 year cycle, it means very little. There are times when the market is undersupplied and prices increase and times when it is oversupplied and prices decrease and it is fairly random.

For the World as a whole (rather than just the US) there has not been any study that has shown with statistical significance that economic output will correlate well with the percentage of income spent on crude oil.

When we consider World GDP annual growth rate vs % of World GDP spent on oil from 1961 to 2015 there is little correlation, R squared is 0.0025. I would also note your sinusoid chart leaves off several data points where the % of GDP spent on crude was about 5% to 8% from 1979 to 1983. That does not really match your sine curve very well, where the maximum on the chart is about 4%.
gdp and oil2.gif
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by dcoyne78 on Thu 21 Dec 2017, 14:51:00, edited 1 time in total.
dcoyne78
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron