Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 7, 2017
Thermodynamic model of oil depletion sparks controversy
This is a post by François-Xavier Chevallerau, a Brussels-based public policy professional who is in the process of setting up a new international think tank to support the emergence and promotion of biophysical economics in the public debate and the policy conversation. Here, he comments on the “Hill’s Report” that was also discussed in a previous post on “Cassandra’s Legacy.”
Guest post by François-Xavier Chevallerau
A report on the world’s oil depletion problem published several years ago by an obscure association of anonymous consulting engineers and professional project managers is suddenly coming under fierce criticism.
In December 2013, an ‘association of consulting engineers and professional project managers’ calling themselves ‘The Hill’s Group‘ published a report titled ‘Depletion: A determination for the world’s petroleum reserve’. Depletion, as is well known, is the inevitable consequence of non-renewable resource extraction, and determining how this depletion will affect petroleum production has been a key focus of energy analysts and researchers for a long time.
Arriving at an estimate for the remaining extractable petroleum reserve is usually attempted by adding together the quantity of petroleum believed to be present in each field, a method which is error-prone and imprecise. The Hill’s Group’s study proposed an alternative model of oil extraction and depletion, rooted in thermodynamics – i.e. the branch of physical science that deals with the relations between all forms of energy. This model, called ‘ETP’ (Total Production Energy), is allegedly derived from the fundamental physical properties of petroleum, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and the production history of petroleum.
The methodology used by The Hill’s Group is based on ‘exergy analysis’. Exergy in thermodynamics means ‘the maximum amount of work that can be extracted from a system’. The system being considered, in this case, is a unit of petroleum. The Hill’s Group’s study calculates the maximum amount of work that can be extracted from a unit of petroleum, using the physical properties of the crude oil in question, equations derived from studies of the First and Second Laws of thermodynamics, and the cumulative production history of petroleum. It then uses these these values to construct a mathematical model that it claims can predict the status of the world’s petroleum reserve with a much smaller margin of error than can be provided by the quantity measurement approach.
Optimistic estimates place the world’s total petroleum reserve at 4,300 billion barrels. Of that quantity the model proposed by The Hill’s Group predicts that it will only be possible to extract 1,760.5 billion barrels, or 40.9% of the total reserve. Its model suggests that petroleum’s ability to supply the energy needed to sustain its own production process is declining, that petroleum depletion is further advanced than generally assumed and that oil production will decline or even collapse much faster than commonly anticipated.
From its ETP model the Hill’s Group also derives a petroleum cost curve, which it says maps the price of petroleum since 1960 with a correlation coefficient of 0.965, making it the most accurate oil pricing model ever developed. It also says that the price of oil depends, in addition to production costs, on the amount that the end consumer can afford to pay for it, and derives from its ETP model a Maximum Consumer Price curve, representing the maximum price that the end consumer can pay over time for petroleum. It is based on the observation that the price of a unit of petroleum can not exceed the value of the economic activity that the energy it supplies to the end consumer can generate. According to the Hill’s Group, its model shows that 2012 was the energy half way point for petroleum production, i.e. it was the year when one half of the energy content of the petroleum extracted was required to produce the petroleum and its products. From then on, it says, the price of oil can only be pulled down along the descending Maximum Consumer Price curve, which it says is curtailed at $11.76/ barrel in 2020. At this point petroleum will no longer be acting as a significant energy source for the economy, and its only function will be as an energy carrier for other sources. In other words, the oil industry as we know it will disintegrate, with a myriad of negative consequences for the world economy.
The Hill’s Group’s original report was published over three years ago, and a second version was published in March 2015. It gained significant popularity and was favorably commented on many blogs and websites. All this however seems to have change, and the Hill’s Group’s ETP model is now coming under fierce criticism from various sources:
‘SK’, a professor emeritus in the department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering at a Major U.S. University, delivered a strong critique of the ETP oil extraction model at peakoilbarrel.com. The fact that The Hill’s Group said that a threshold for oil markets was passed in 2012 and that oil prices would tend to go down shortly after seems to give the report a superficial credibility. But according to SK the thermodynamic analysis is incorrect and therefore any calculations and graphs based on this analysis must also be unreliable.
Spanish physicist Antonio Turiel published on his website an analysis of the theoretical basis of the ETP model (in Spanish). Applying the principles of thermodynamics to evaluate the limits of the oil’s capacity to deliver net energy to society makes sense, he says, provided it is done in a proper way. The ETP model, however, is according to him based on an incorrect use of thermodynamic theory, erroneous deductions, definitions that do not make sense from a physics point of view, deficient data processing, and ignorance of the interactions between oil production and the economy as well as other energy sources. Given these important shortcomings, he says, the ETP model cannot be used for a serious discussion of oil depletion, at least not until it is fundamentally revised and rebuilt.
Another Spanish physicist, Carlos de Castro from the University of Valladolid, also published a scathing critique of the Hill’s Group’s report (in Spanish). The physical, technological and economic foundations of the report are erroneous, he says. The Hill’s Group in fact focuses on the loss of thermal energy involved in the oil extraction process (oil moving from a high temperature reservoir to ambient temperature outside), which he says has nothing to do with the energy cost of the oil procurement process for human societies. What matters to society, he says, is not oil’s thermal energy but its chemical energy – even if this chemical energy may then be used to generate heat. The ETP model, he concludes, is not an adequate model to assess the net energy derived form petroleum extraction and its evolution.
Prof. Ugo Bardi from the University of Florence is also taking aim with the Hill’s Group’s work in a recent blog post. The Hill’s Group’s report, he says, is badly flawed. While it is true that the oil industry is in trouble, the calculations by the Hill’s group are, at best, irrelevant and probably simply plain wrong. The problem of diminishing energy returns of oil production is real, Bardi says, but the way to study it is based on the ‘life cycle analysis’ (LCA) of the process. This method takes into account entropy indirectly, in terms of heat losses, without attempting the impossible task of calculating it from textbook thermodynamic principles. By means of this method, we can understand that oil production still provides a reasonable energy return on investment (EROI). It is anyway erroneous, says Bardi, to draw conclusions regarding the economy from net energy analysis. The economy is a complex adaptative system that evolves in ways that cannot be understood in terms of mere energy return considerations.
This controversy surrounding the Hill’s Group’s report reveals some inconvenient truths that the ‘peak oil’ community now has to face. The Group’s work was widely embraced and disseminated in this community, with no or limited critical scrutiny. It indeed has an aura of scientific accuracy that comes from its use of basic thermodynamic principles and of the concept of entropy, correctly understood as the force behind the depletion problem. But behind the thermodynamic terminology, it proposes a series of assumptions, not always explicit, and of complex mathematical calculations that nobody until recently had apparently taken the time to review. As pointed out by Antonio Turiel, the Hill’s Group’s work would probably not have passed a proper peer review process in its current form.
Yet the report was widely accepted and commented in the ‘peak oil’ community. According to Ugo Bardi, this episode shows that “a report that claims to be based on thermodynamics and uses resounding words such as ‘entropy’ plays into the human tendency of believing what one wants to believe“. As many in the ‘peak oil’ community want to believe in imminent collapse and disaster, works like the Hill’s Group’s report that are perceived as providing a serious scientific basis to catastrophism are widely embraced. If the scientific basis is revealed to be not as sound as initially thought, as seems to be the case for the Hill’s Group’s work, then its embrace and dissemination can only be detrimental to the peak oil community and undermine its credibility.
Energy researchers and analysts should probably be particularly cautious and vigilant when using the concept of ‘entropy’. As pointed out by Ugo Bardi, “entropy is an important concept, but it must be correctly understood to be useful. It is no good to use it as an excuse to pander unbridled catastrophism.” The problem being, of course, that entropy cannot be correctly understood so easily. As famous scientist John von Neumann (1903-1957) once advised a colleague: “You should call it entropy (…) nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage.“
FXC
71 Comments on "Thermodynamic model of oil depletion sparks controversy"
forbin on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 9:48 am
when oil stops being an energy source it will still be an energy carrier
true we will be using less but hey , Peak Oil doesn’t care , it has no feelings or agenda
it’s just a mathematical point in time
Forbin
Revi on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 10:38 am
I was looking for something that refuted the ETP theory in this article. It is just a review of those who have problems with it, which is interesting, but we still don’t know what the problems are with the theory, really.
Jerry McManus on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 11:22 am
Just when you thought academics couldn’t get any more idiotic.
Leave it to moronic publicity whores like Ugo Bardi to get their panties in a twist over something as stupid the “correct” application of thermodynamics.
That’s like a bunch of idiots standing around arguing about the “correct” application of gravity even as a large boulder is falling from the sky directly on top of their heads.
Come to think of it, that might not be a bad idea…
Hello on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 11:26 am
That hill’s group dude is quite a character, I must say.
The flaws and issues called out constantly, I would run in shame. Yet the dude simply ignores all critizism and keeps on pounding it home. Nerves of steel, that’s for sure.
The ETP report? Utter bullshit of course, but who cares?
GregT on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 11:30 am
“The economy is a complex adaptative system that evolves in ways that cannot be understood in terms of mere energy return considerations.”
In other words, the eCONomy isn’t bound to the same set of laws that govern every other life system. The eCONomy is therefore either dead, or immortal.
GregT on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 11:40 am
On further thought; The eCONomy is mankind’s latest iteration of divinity.
Thou shalt kneel in wonderment and amazement.
All hail the omnipotent eCONomy! Growth! Growth! Growth!
shortonoil on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 12:00 pm
The empirical data that is supplied by the EIA is more than conclusive evidence that the Etp Model’s projections have to date been been confirmed. If Mr. Bardi wants to attack the EIA we hope that he can bring better critics to bear than what he has been able to supply to date. At least one of them is apparently not aware that negative entropy does not exists. Apparently Mr. Bardi does not either because he endorsed his criticism. Endorsement of such pseudoscience for real scientists and engineers would be at least a little “embarrassing”!
For anyone who wants to see some of the confirming data that the EIA has provided we have posted two charts on refinery yields, and refinery energy use. Both where derived directly from EIA data with no adjustments. Links are also provided to their data.
chart# 207
chart# 209
http://peakoil.com/forums/the-etp-model-q-a-pt-9-t73285-180.html
http://peakoil.com/forums/the-etp-model-q-a-pt-9-t73285-240.html
The IEA is also warning of potential shortfalls in production by 2020.
http://peakoil.com/consumption/iea-warns-of-potential-shortage-of-global-oil-supplies-in-3-years
This projection by the IEA is also confirmed by the Etp Model. The Etp Model states that at present there is an additional 270 Gb of petroleum that can be extracted. Beyond that point the net energy equations become negative for its production. Producers will find that they can no longer generate a profit from the production of petroleum, and its products. Resources will exist in abundance; existing reserves will be gone. The economic carnage that will ensue will be unparallelled in history!
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Cloud9 on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 12:01 pm
As they always say, the proof is in the pudding. We are three years out from 2020. Somewhere in the back of my mind is an image of Peter Schiff running around telling people there was going to be a housing market crash. The experts blew him off and then it went poof. The one thing the Hills Group did not consider is that we can continue to produce oil at a loss for as long as conjured money is accepted as legal tender. Think about it. A simple mouse click and another trillion dollars magically appears on the balance sheet. That reality is sheer insanity but it has worked for more than half a century
marmico on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 12:09 pm
Bozo Bunsen Burner Bedford aka shortonoil aka BW Hill is so full of shit it is breathtaking.
DS on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 12:18 pm
If it costs more energy than it produces, no amount of printed money can keep it going unless an alternate energy source can substitute and allow such to continue.
That is like saying you’re going to keep workers going without food, without cheap energy the economy can’t go on, that doesn’t mean alternate sources won’t come in line by the time they’re needed.
GregT on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 12:23 pm
Short,
When you start receiving death threats, you can be sure you’re on to something of vast importance.
Some things never change.
GregT on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 12:40 pm
marmico,
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer
Sounds like you’re somewhere between the first two stages. Patience son, if Short is indeed correct, you’ll find out soon enough. In the mean time, all of your nasty comments are accomplishing absolutely nothing. A complete waste of yours, and everybody else’s time.
Boat on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 1:14 pm
Short’s conclusions are on the clock. Kinda like our former commenter BC. BC had claimed the world economy would crash by Jan 2016. Doomers cheered him on but then what happened. The world did not have an economic collasp. We are now 1.2 years into a 3 year window where short claimed there would be Cob webs covering drilling rigs and the human race would be in mad max overdrive. He also claims the price of oil would drop along with demand reversing the supply/demand history of hundreds of years. Stay tuned, the clock runs. Demand continues, vehicle demand continues. Oil needed for solar and wind production is really on the rise. Short, when does slowing demand with lower prices start?
Boat on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 1:28 pm
greggiet,
You are not much better than BC when it comes to predicting he economy. Maybe you should drop it from your list of subjects to comment on. Remember your suggestion to get out of stocks? What is the market doing. Yep, drop stock market suggestions while your at it.
Anonymous on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 1:34 pm
Since we’re on the topic of suggestions, here is one for you boatard, I suggest you stop commenting altogether yourself. On any topic, it just make you look like….what is it again?
A retard yes, thats it.
Apneaman on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 1:57 pm
Boat, now that the stock market is at all time highs, (based on product sales right?), y’all have the cash to start paying down your 20 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT right? Oh and y’all can also get to work on that 3.6 TRILLION DOLLAR rotting infrastructure bill (according to the ASCE). Man does your future ever look bright. Oh and all those pensions are just so secure like the Dallas po-lice and thousands of other plans. Don’t forget health care – I’m sure any day now it will stop being the #1 reason for bankruptcy in America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrriKcwvlY
marmico on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 1:57 pm
Shovel your snow GreggieT. Bozo Bunsen Burner Bedford is slowly poisoning himself with those Chesapeake Bay mussels. He imagines that there is no ship traffic unless he sees it. It’s called dementia.
GregT on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 2:19 pm
Boat,
BC called it right on, back at the end of November of 2015.
Ouch. 93% of investors lost money in January
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/01/investing/stocks-markets-january-93-percent-lost/
$3.2 trillion has been wiped off global stock markets so far this year
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/32-trillion-has-been-wiped-off-global-stock-markets-so-far-this-year-2016-01-14
Too bad you’re too stupid to figure it out, you could have actually made some money.
The S&P500 was at 2067 end of Nov 2015, and now stands at 2383. That would be an increase of 1.15%.
The official inflation rate in the US is ~2.5%. Depending on the interest rate that you are paying on the money that you owe to the bank, that you are gambling on the stock market, you have lost somewhere between 3.5 to 5% during that same time period.
Congratulations moron.
GregT on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 2:32 pm
And also Kevin,
The official inflation rate is bogus. According to Shadow Stats, the real inflation rate was closer to 5%.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts
We are witnessing the largest redistribution of wealth in the history of the USD. Your savings are being erased, or in your case, any equity that you had on your bank owned home, and you can’t even figure that out.
Stupid is, as stupid does.
James boags on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 2:48 pm
I’ve never seen a subject stir up so much anger and denial as the etp model. To me it proves short is onto something if you didn’t belive in it wouldn’t you just move along and not spend countless posts trying to discredit it
Hello on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 3:12 pm
James >>>
What about the past predictions where the über moron Hill predicted $300 oil?
What about the underlying wrong paramteric assumption of etp written by idiot Hill?
What about the wrong math of the etp by blabbering Hill?
Nothing makes you think that maybe Hill the shill is just a fucktard?
There’s one thing Hill the retard has me convinced about however. His deciples are even more challenged then he is.
GregT on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 3:22 pm
Sorry,
“The S&P500 was at 2067 end of Nov 2015, and now stands at 2383. That would be an increase of 1.15%.”
Wrong numbers all around. S&P500 YOY 5.94%.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/sandp_500_total_return_annual
With an annual inflation rate ~5%, still losing money.
Apneaman on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 3:27 pm
James boags, kinda reminds one of climate deniers eh? Small monkey minds are trapped by their emotions and cannot grasp that it’s a thermodynamic universe and the humans are just puppets in the Maximum Power Principle show. Same as they refuse to or are unable to acknowledge that the earth is a carbon planet and the carbon cycle is not fixed and can throw the planet into a state that is not friendly to most life. Currently we are in the early stages of greenhouse extinction #11 and mass extinction #6. The greenhouse extinction is on top of all the other recent extinct species and soon to be extinct species of flora and fauna caused by human “development” hunting and other human causes of habitat destruction. In the big picture of life on this planet and the forces of the universe the humans are a speck, yet have convinced themselves they “all that” and it’s all about them.
Pray to your gods little humans, pray.
Carbon Dioxide Could Reach 410 PPM This Month
“A never-ending stream of carbon pollution ensures that each year the world continues to break records for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This year will be no different.
Like a rite of spring, carbon dioxide is poised to cruise pass the previous mark set last year and reach heights unseen in human history. In the coming weeks, carbon dioxide will start to breach the 410 parts per million threshold on a daily basis at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The monthly average for May could come close to topping 410 ppm, too, according to the U.K. Met Office’s inaugural carbon dioxide forecast, released last week.”
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/carbon-dioxide-410-ppm-21223
Daily CO2
March 4, 2017: 407.46 ppm
March 4, 2016: 403.79 ppm
February CO2
February 2017: 406.42 ppm
February 2016: 404.04 ppm
https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
GregT on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 3:47 pm
“Shovel your snow GreggieT.”
On my way out the door right now to do exactly that. Another 4 inches this morning, finally stopped.
That would be 190cm so far this year, or 75 inches. 69 inches more snow than last year, and more on the way.
Fucked up, in a very big way.
________________________________________ on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 6:12 pm
Apneafag is spreading hate again. Why are you so carbonphobic? Is it cause your in the closet all the time? Suffocating on methane? Your theories are just that. Here’s some facts. CO2 warms the planet=good. CO2 puts more o2 into the atmosphere=good. Helps plants grow faster good also. We are still in an ice age you moron. The faster it warms up the better.
Apneaman on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 7:38 pm
Shooting blanks, just because I ass fucked your dad and made him give me a blow job afterwards doesn’t make me a fag – that was just a matter of convenience. Your Daddy’s the submissive fag. He even ask for my number after.
Apneaman on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 7:45 pm
10 of them and this one the humans have triggered makes for #11
CO2 levels and mass extinction events
http://www.johnenglander.net/co2-levels-and-mass-extinction-events/
One thing this guy has wrong is they were not all “mass” extinctions(75% +) some of them only killed off 30% of all life. Only.
Boat on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 7:46 pm
Ape,
You and mak keep me well informed of all US ills. You even track pot holes now. Lol Keep up the good work.
Apneaman on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 7:48 pm
A fine start to the season which actually started in late January this year.
6 dead in Texas, Kansas wildfires
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/us/wildfires-texas-deaths/
GregT on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 8:32 pm
Boat,
“You and mak keep me well informed of all US ills.”
You need Apnea and Makati to keep you up to speed on what’s going on in your own country?
You really should try to get out more Kevin.
Apneaman on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 8:46 pm
Boat, one would need to live on a mountain top with no radio or satellite not to hear about your country’s issues. As a group, no one else comes close to talking about their own shit like Americans do. In addition they have these things called search engines, maybe you have heard of them? They make it easy to find info, Finding out about Houston pothole fiasco took all of typing the words “Houston” & “infrastructure” into this search engine called Google and hitting the enter key. Pretty easy huh? Ever hear of Google Boat? You should try it sometime, but be forewarned, you might see things that burst your “everything is awesome” bubble. Stay away from anything related to “debt” – it may upset you little buddy.
GregT on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 9:40 pm
Boat,
Contrary to popular belief, watching a bunch of overgrown children on TV, fighting over an oblong shaped piece of dead pig’s hide, is not exactly a sign of an advanced culture, and hotdogs, hamburgers, steaks, and pizza, are not exactly what most in the world would consider to be culinary cuisine.
GregT on Tue, 7th Mar 2017 9:43 pm
Sorry Boat, my bad.
The term ‘culinary cuisine’ can roughly be translated into ‘food’.
yoshua on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 12:55 am
“Optimistic estimates place the world’s total petroleum reserve at 4,300 billion barrels. Of that quantity the model proposed by The Hill’s Group predicts that it will only be possible to extract 1,760.5 billion barrels, or 40.9% of the total reserve.”
What is controversial about that statement ? Absolutely nothing.
Cloggie on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 2:16 am
What is controversial about that statement ? Absolutely nothing.
What is controversial is that there is no link between laws of thermodynamic or entropy and the amount of fossil fuel reserves, hidden in the earth’s crust.
Furthermore, in the eyes of the HillBilly Group, alternative forms of energy simply don’t exist. The very forms of alt-energy that now constitute the largest share of new installed capacity.
Finally, the HillBilly Group ignores the possibility of a Third Carbon Age and the fact that the earth’s crust is loaded with carbon stuff that all of a sudden becomes extractable with new or not so new technology.
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/fracking-is-for-amateurs/
Obviously we should leave all this carbon stuff where it is and only use it in the coming 2-3 decades to completely move away from carbon.
The HillBilly Group keeps on peddling this Heinberg story that the world economy is about to collapse because it is running out of fuel.
That mr yoshua is a fantasy.
zleo99 on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 2:31 am
Well done, Short, for ignoring all the naysayers and just keeping plugging on. The proof has been, and will be, in the pudding.
How is it so difficult to understand what entropy is? How is it so difficult to understand that energy is the root of absolutely everything, and especially the human economy?
James boags on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 4:02 am
I’m with you on that zleo99 short obviously knows his stuff and knows the day of reckoning is around the corner so won’t be swayed by the etp denialists
Davy on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 4:09 am
A big problem with the ETP model is the human economy and human nature. BTW, I support the ETP model only diminished. Oil does not have value without an economy. Oil today is especially influenced by globalism and if globalism were to decline significantly so would oil most likely. In this situation oil would still have its BTU qualities and quantity but the ability of humans to apply it to their economic endeavors would be diminished. Price my gyrate all over and even remain out of the ETP designed range. Human nature influences price. Price is an abstract measure of value with multiple components.
ETP is part of the issue. The status of the economy in growth or demand destruction is the other. Price is the weak link in the ETP. It is necessary because of the difficulty of any other variable to match what the ETP is relating. Entropy is still king. Entropy plays a part in the human economy also and the ETP does not acknowledge that. Entropy in the economy is both systematic and physical. The problem with modeling our civilization with equations is modeling complexity. It just does not model well at some point. The ETP overreaches its mandate so to speak. That is my opinion as a non-oil expert. I consider it one of the many other peak oil dynamics.
Cloggie on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 4:55 am
How is it so difficult to understand what entropy is?
It is not difficult to understand entropy. It is difficult to understand the relationship with fossil fuel reserves. Because there isn’t any.
How is it so difficult to understand that energy is the root of absolutely everything, and especially the human economy?
Kicking in a giant open door, aren’t we. Nobody denies that.
The ETP-ers deny that the world is moving on, away from fossil fuel and that the potential for that transition exists without having to go through fossil depletion induced collapse.
(Geopolitical) collapse will occur alright, but for different reasons, namely a shifting power configuration, away from North-America back to Eurasia.
Peak oil will be an insignificant footnote in history and unmasked as the convenient fig leaf it was for North-Americans to blame the immanent collapse of the US global empire upon and portray it as a natural disaster, not as a failure of a century of focused political intentions by the US deep state to subjugate the entire world.
RIP peak oil, RIP American empire.
James boags on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 4:57 am
All good Davy everyone has different opinions but to me the etp model makes more sense than anything else I’ve seen here. And I’ve been here nearly 10 years and seen theory’s and dynamics come and go . And so far the etp model is the only one that can give us a time line not as they usually go some time in the near future
Davy on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 5:17 am
James, I did not say anything does better with oil’s time line. I said that ETP is inadequate for measuring something as complex as our human civilization. A foundational commodity like oil is foundational because humans chose for it to be not because it has some inherent qualities that made human civilization possible. Clog is also right with his point we are moving away from fossil fuels and it is still undetermined how far that impact will be. I don’t agree with his dismissal of the ETP. I respect the ETP and discount the naysayers as having nothing better to offer. I am acknowledging other factors in the decline of the civilization. Oil is only part of it. If that is straddling the fence so be it. I am not the type to take hard sides and that is why people don’t like many of my stances. This site is an extremist site of strong opinions and agendas.
James. Boags on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 5:45 am
Ok I take your point
James Boags on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 5:48 am
Ok I take your point Davy
GregT on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 9:08 am
“The ETP-ers deny that the world is moving on, away from fossil fuel and that the potential for that transition exists without having to go through fossil depletion induced collapse.”
The world is not moving on Cloggie. The world continues to burn more oil, coal, and natural gas, every single year. What the world is really doing, is looking for even more energy on top of the increasing amounts of fossil fuels that we continue to burn, and every single one of those new energy sources requires infrastructure designed, manufactured, transported, and maintained, with fossil fuels.
Short’s ETP model does not imply depletion. There will be plenty of fossil fuels left in the ground. The collapse will be due to the amount of energy available to society, at a price that our economies can afford, not the amount of barrels left in the ground.
Cloggie on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 9:23 am
The world is not moving on Cloggie. The world continues to burn more oil, coal, and natural gas, every single year
Not the world’s vanguard of alt-energy, Europe:
https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/euorpean-union-energy-consumption-by-fuel-2014.png
Europe is showing that you can have the most advanced economy on earth, while replacing fossil fuel with alt-energy.
The rest will follow.
Mitch on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 9:38 am
I think ETP should be considered a well intentioned attempt to model a very complex problem. Ugo Bardi did not dismiss the theoretical basis for the ETP model, he only questioned the use of a first principles methodology. My interpretation of his criticism is that a first principles based model is not calculable in a way that will yield a valid result. Mr. Bardi seems to suggest that an empirically based approach is more likely to yield a useful result. This is not an unreasonable criticism as other areas such as fluid dynamics rely heavily upon empirical approaches since solutions from first principles are, in some cases, incalculable. My strong criticism of the Hill Group regards their apparent reluctance to engage in a meaningful discussion on the subject of the validity of their methodology.
GregT on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 9:56 am
Can you please explain this to me then Cloggie?
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/primary-energy-consumption-by-fuel-non-eu-3#tab-googlechartid_chart_41
“Between 2005 and 2014, primary energy consumption in the EU-28 countries decreased by 12 % due to energy efficiency improvements, the increase of the share of energy from hydro, wind and solar photovoltaics, the economic recession and climate warming.”
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/primary-energy-consumption-by-fuel-6/assessment-1
GregT on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 10:30 am
I get it now.
The first chart is for the geographic areas of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey.
The second is for Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
I would really like to see a breakdown for individual countries. Just like you are breaking down total world energy usage by a similar smaller geographic region. Not all Countries in Europe are on the same page, just like not all of the countries of the world are on the same page.
The sad reality of the matter is, however, we all live on the same planet, and this is a planetary emergency, not just a European, or a Dutch emergency. It would also appear to me that the primary concerns are environmental, and economic. If not for climate change, and the increasing cost and the unavailability of affordable fossil fuels, there would be no good reason for alternate means of generating electricity.
Cloggie on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 11:52 am
I would really like to see a breakdown for individual countries.
I’m doing now the homework you can do yourself, but OK, since you are not Friedman-Friday…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_European_Union
Country breakdown, data from 2014. Sweden doesn’t count since that’s all hydro. Denmark is the real deal. 29% renewable all in (not just electricity). The Netherlands is the bottom of the barrel but there is a lot of offshore wind power in pipeline for the coming years.
EU figure is 18%, 2020 target is 20%. Probably going to be met.
shortonoil on Wed, 8th Mar 2017 12:19 pm
“Mr. Bardi seems to suggest that an empirically based approach is more likely to yield a useful result.”
If Mr. Bardi wants empirical evidence he can find it in our two charts 209 & 207. They are straight from the EIA horse’s mouth.
“US Refinery Energy Use” – Chart# 209
“US Refinery Crude Yields” – Chart # 207
If these are insufficient for, some unimaginable reason, we have several others to be presented.
In science a model is never replaced until a better one becomes available. So far we have only seen unsubstantiated claims, and no functioning model on his part.
“In science, anyone is ultimately measured by how well (or how much better than the current theory) does their idea predict some phenomena, and so far, his track record is zero.”
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/