INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: A New Way forward  (Read 15647 times)

rjm

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #50 on: November 15, 2009, 11:05:22 pm »

Do you have any critiques for what Lovins has to say and more specifically wrt to his book ?
It's been a while since I studied Lovin's ideas. I jumped to him early in my research because he offers an optimistic outlook but I quickly concluded that he is one of the techno-cornucopia crowd and not grounded in hard science so I no longer follow him. If I recall he believes some combination of conservation via light weight cars and renewable liquid fuels will permit us to continue our current lifestyle. I suspect if you do a search on the Oil Drum you will find lots of info that discounts Lovins.

Quote
How does one test for peak oil ?

Watch total world wide production as the price goes up. If supply is not constrained you would expect it to increase with price.

Quote
You said...

So US GDP and by extension every other would remain flat from 2012 onwards and decline into the future. Going by this list one expects TOTAL global growth to be approaching zero.

So how long to wait till its unambigous, 5 years (2017), 10 years  (2022), later ?
We won't follow a straight line down. I expect brief periods of growth that will push the price of oil up to a level that crashes the economy down to level lower than at the start of the growth cycle. Rinse and repeat for several decades. Throw in a few wars to further complicate the trajectory. But the general trend will be down.

Quote
It would have been more clear if the economic crisis had not occurred as that in itself is already a huge dampner. Already some country's rates in that list are not flat but negative ie UK & S.Korea.
Yes the depression we have just entered has complicated the matter. Some smart people think that the oil price spike last year is at the root of the current economic problems. They think any oil price above $80 will kill growth. I am not sure about this theory. I think debt is at the root of our economic problems. Although I guess you could argue that when energy is expensive the only way to maintain your standard of living is to borrow from future earnings. So perhaps excess debt and high oil prices are related. I'm still trying to figure this out. We've got an interesting experiment on the horizon because oil prices seem ready to cross $80. Will be interesting to see if the stock market crashes shortly thereafter.
Logged

rjm

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #51 on: November 15, 2009, 11:25:42 pm »

How is that possible if more energy is required to grow the economy :)
In the 70's we generated a good chunk of electricity with oil and we heated a lot more buildings with oil. This low hanging fruit was shut down and replaced with natural gas and coal.

The task of reducing oil consumption will be much more difficult today. Best candidates are probably driving less (carpool, take the bus, cancel kids soccer), flying less, and shipping more goods with trains and less with trucks. I see Buffett just made an all in bet on railroads. He's a smart guy. I bet he has figured out the implications of peak oil.
Logged

rjm

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #52 on: November 15, 2009, 11:38:58 pm »

Richard Heinberg has just published a book called Black Out. He argues (after doing considerable research) that peak coal is only 15 years away.

Here are a couple good interviews of Heinberg about his book...

Jim Puplava's Financial Sense Newshour 31-Oct-2009
http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2009-1031-2.mp3

Alex Smith's Radio Ecoshock 6-Nov-2009
http://www.ecoshock.net/eshock09/ES_091106_Show_LoFi.mp3
Logged

rjm

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #53 on: November 19, 2009, 10:23:09 pm »

This is a must listen to interview of Robert Hirsch regarding peak oil:

Jim Puplava's Financial Sense Newshour 14-Nov-2009
http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2009-1114-3a.mp3

Robert Hirsch is perhaps the most respected voice in the peak oil community. You can check out his credentials here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Hirsch

In summary, the clock is ticking and we have very little time left to prepare for what is coming. The geological and economic data suggests we will start to feel the impact of peak oil in the 2011-2013 time frame. A wild card that could accelerate this is human emotion. Once a significant percentage of people figure out what is going on we may see panic behavior.

We can expect declining oil supply to result in:
- declining GDP in all countries worldwide (expect it to end up worse than the 30's depression)
- rising unemployment
- reduced government services
- increased taxes
- possible high inflation (if governments continue to print money)
- much higher fuel prices
- possible fuel shortages and rationing (caused by panic hording and reduced exports from producing nations wishing to retain oil for internal use)
- much higher food prices
- possible short term food shortages (if fuel shortages or economic system disruptions occur)
- declining real estate values
- declining stock markets
- wars (if you believe that history is a good predictor of the future)

Things you can do to prepare include:
- avoid debt (on the assumption that your future income will decline)
- sell investments that will be impacted (before the majority figures out what is going on)
- shed discretionary expenses (so that the transition will be less painful)
- consider trading in your gas guzzler if driving less is not an option
- consider keeping an emergency few week supply of food

In case you are wondering, there is no short term solution, other than consuming less. All options to replace oil with other forms of energy will take decades to implement, assuming we can afford their very high investment costs.
Logged

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #54 on: November 22, 2009, 09:45:12 am »

If I recall he believes some combination of conservation via light weight cars and renewable liquid fuels will permit us to continue our current lifestyle. I suspect if you do a search on the Oil Drum you will find lots of info that discounts Lovins.
This 'minnesotans for sustainablity' article agrees :(


Watch total world wide production as the price goes up. If supply is not constrained you would expect it to increase with price.
Don't you mean to say if it IS constrained rather than not that price will increase.

Demand *never* outstrips supply ... they are always at equilibrium. However, when demand at a certain price increases, and supply at that price stays the same, then the equilibrium price increases, until demand and supply are again perfectly matched.

I'll agree that in terms of production that a peak of sorts has been reached. It can take upto 10 years to bring a new oil well online and that not much investment has been forthcoming by the biggest oil companies but instead its the smaller ones that are doing so.

What's harder to grasp are the reasons behind this lack of investment, especially by the bigger ones  ?

ROI does not explain why the smaller oil companies would be more aggressive at tapping new fields than bigger ones. The big ones say a lot of countries have nationalised their oil production so its harder for them to get in.

The oil countries say, they are meeting demand and don't see the need (yet) to increase production. In the 80s, they invested in increased production only to find the oil price crashed soon after and had to contract as a result. So this time around are they being more careful to make sure they get back what's put in ?

How much does the world believe in AGW ?
If so then the world will cut back on carbon emissions. Does this also entail a lower global demand because countries worldwide are going to have to cut down on emissions across the board. Then is it not better that oil prices continue to rise to compensate for the lower expected demand :)

Thats three factors already, to show for a lack of investment. It does assume that more investment will improve production figures.

However you're saying much more, that not only is there a curent peak in fossil fuels production but there isn't signifcantly enough (in the ground) anymore to gainfully extract. Diminishing EROI.

The oildrum has retired petro-engineers that may be very knowledgeable about existing oil fields, they worked on them but how does that lead to the projection that there isn't much more to be found ?

Read this op-ed by Michael Lynch who happens to be an energy consultant. And its rebuttal.

If you pull back and try to look at the big picture, this has all the makings of a classic environmentalist vs conservative battle brewing here. AGW + Peak Oil both argue for lower carbon consumption which basically means lower growth, less business etc. Part of me still wonders whether this is just yet another political shenanigan one party hoists over the other so they can have something to argue about, implication of course being both debates are more politics than science ;)

But look closer and the environmentalists have it easier as they're not trying to prove a negative. They are making positive assertions
- AGW is ocurring [interesting that Puplava does not agree]
- fossil fuels are diminishing

The conservatives have to show both are not the case :)

For 99.9% of the population knowing whether AGW or Peak Oil is really occuring is impossible. Because you can read just as much pro vs con and still be in the same place where you began. Unless you are a qualified geo-physcist or climatologist its not possible to 'know'. So naturally one tends to gravitate to whatever one's politcal preferences are. But remaining objective is a challenging position to maintain and so I still choose to sit on the fence :)

The other point that Martensen makes about exponentials. If current growth rates are maintained, 3% doubles every 23 years and therefore requires twice as much energy to be consumed as in the present and 46 years on yet another doubling again. Every country growing at the same or faster rate will likewise require more than they presently consume. So there has to come a point when those needs cannot possibly be met.

How does anyone know where the limit is ?

You say economic models work only when there is abundance. But is the hard limit of 2 trillion ever to be found just that ?

We've been on an exponential path since the turn of the 20th century, since the 70s, the peak mantra has gotten more publicity, but upto now something always showed up to make up for the shortfall.

We won't follow a straight line down. I expect brief periods of growth that will push the price of oil up to a level that crashes the economy down to level lower than at the start of the growth cycle. Rinse and repeat for several decades. Throw in a few wars to further complicate the trajectory. But the general trend will be down.
Let's say you're right about peak fossil fuels in the sense we can't find any more in significant quantities that matter. If GDP growth rates remain flat for the next 10 years then your case just got much stronger. The biggest reason i would think for peakers to make the point early is that it increases the chances of awareness and possibly influences future behaviour. But to do that the case being made has to be watertight. I don't know if GDP growth rates are the best metric to use here because other factors can equally influence them and have no connection with energy supply at all. Looking at the economy is better than just looking at production figures as some sort of causal realtionship can be readily inferred.  Unless we see GDP's across the board, below what they were 10 years prior peak energy remains a difficult case to make.

The other factor that will fight against this awareness is widespread panic which leads to hoarding and shortages, further exacerbating the problem. I doubt we will ever hear any govt. admit it but watching thier behaviour in the interim might prove revealing.

Govts come & go depending on whether they can deliver on growth, at least amongst the less corrupt of the lot anyway. If future growth isn't possible then democracy as a the present model could break down and give way to more totalitarian forms of govt, who don't care what ppl want but would be very effective at controlling consumption :(

Yes the depression we have just entered has complicated the matter. Some smart people think that the oil price spike last year is at the root of the current economic problems.

Author of the oildrum article that rebutts Lynch begs to differ on that one.

I'm of the opinion it was borrowers defaulting on loans starting in 2006 and its snowballing since that eventually led to the credit crisis. Bad loans made and when due no repayments were made.


They think any oil price above $80 will kill growth. I am not sure about this theory. I think debt is at the root of our economic problems. Although I guess you could argue that when energy is expensive the only way to maintain your standard of living is to borrow from future earnings. So perhaps excess debt and high oil prices are related. I'm still trying to figure this out. We've got an interesting experiment on the horizon because oil prices seem ready to cross $80.

Debt is bad if it cannot be repaid. How bad an increase in price is depends on its velocity. If its a shock like in the 70s, then it leads to more inflation. Now provided the economy grows thats not a bad thing. If you notice oil has increased in price over the last 100 years but most countries have managed to do ok provided it was gradual.

Oil @$120 for an extended period coming in a short time frame is uncharted territory. Nobody knows how well or badly the economy will respond. When a country cannot grow then inflation kills things off. So the country goes into a recession and consumption comes down. This has happened many times in the past without energy playing a factor at all, financial mismanagement created bubbles which then went bust.

Will be interesting to see if the stock market crashes shortly thereafter.
Why not go with the plural, yes one stock market crash will lead to others being depressed, happens all the time.
Logged

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #55 on: November 22, 2009, 09:47:55 am »

In the 70's we generated a good chunk of electricity with oil and we heated a lot more buildings with oil. This low hanging fruit was shut down and replaced with natural gas and coal.

Also there was a huge increase in energy efficiency both in oil use (CAFE) and electricity use. Appliances got way more efficient. There were minimal standards put into place. I remember reading once, I think it was in the late 80's or early 90's about how basic appliance, like fridges, were so much more efficient in the US than the UK for example.
Becoming more efficient appeared to cut down on consumption and allowed the economy to grow which seems to contradict what Jevons said :)

If Oil gets expensive what about natural gas ?

When that runs short how about clathrate hydrates ?

I see Buffett just made an all in bet on railroads. He's a smart guy. I bet he has figured out the implications of peal oil.
Could this has something to do with it ?
They are for high speed links so mostly dense metro to metro. Got to keep the  Chinese happy, one way or the other :)

Railways in the US only make sense in the north east, everywhere else is not profitable due to low density. Inspite of this the existing train networks connecting DC & Boston hasn't exactly done too well. Perhaps a faster link might make a difference, but i recall they wanted to do just that 10 yrs back but for some reason it got killed prolly due to low oil prices at the time.

Makes me think of the fate of the big oil companies, as they don't seem to be investing in finding more oil, whether they could be the drivers for alternative energy.

Where would they invest windfalls earned as prices continue to rise ?

Would they be the saviours or go away like the whale oil business.

Jim Puplava's Financial Sense Newshour 31-Oct-2009
http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2009-1031-2.mp3
The good news here is at least global warming might not end up catastrophic simply because we'd have less carbon to put out :)

Jim Puplava's Financial Sense Newshour 14-Nov-2009
http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2009-1114-3a.mp3

21:20 - Robert Hirsch discounts the economic viewpoint here, namely when price rises so will supply to match it. He thinks its a very narrow way of thinking and does not work when up against a hard limit. Economists are big sceptics in peak theory.

He states its a big risk if peak oil is right but one has to accept its also equally a big risk in the opposite case as well :)

25:58 - those that agree/disagree about peak oil
- Yay : IAEA, Shell, Chevron, Total, Stat Oil, Hess, Toyota & some 'prominent' geologists.
- Nay : OPEC, Exxon/Mobil, BP & Energy info agency, CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates)

This is the problem, the biggest collection of oil producers + oil companies refuse the assertion even tho they would benefit the most. This post explains why big oil companies might be reluctant but its still debatable. But what is the explanation for OPEC to maintain this position ?
Logged

HiFiTubes

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1123
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #56 on: November 22, 2009, 03:43:48 pm »

the economy grew by 27%

 Our economy grew enormously before the crash....it was a castle made of sand. If market capitalization or GDP are how we choose to measure growth and quality of life, I'm not sure I trust it all.


Quote
If Oil gets expensive what about natural gas ?

When that runs short how about clathrate hydrates

Where is infrastructure, on a mass scale, to support the switch? It is by no means fully in place, and we need to burn oil to do make it happen.




Logged

HiFiTubes

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1123
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #57 on: November 22, 2009, 03:59:41 pm »

Quote
The middle east has proven reserves for at least another 100 years (if not longer).

This is misleading. There is evidence that Saudi has hit their peak. Even assuming they have not hit peak, global consumption is increasing regardless of the ups/downs in price per barrel over the last decade, and the above statement needs to be quantified in numbers with regard to global consumption and production to be relevant.

The Caspian was a flop. I think Peak Oil is the biggest, least discussed issue underling every economic concern brought up in this thread. Take this back to the 1998 when Cheney spent 8 billion to ensure Halliburton would have its hand in every oil  well sunk on the planet Earth.

2001 from National Energy Policy produced by Cheney's NEPDG report (taxpayer funded but he refused to release the records of who was involved - went to the Supreme Court after Cheney wooed Scalia):

Quote
"America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s. Estimates indicate that over the next 20 years, US oil consumption will increase 33 percent, natural gas consumption by well over 50%, and demand for electricity will rise by 45%. US energy consumption is expected to increase by about 32% by 2020."

Another thing to consider when there is suddenly more oil; the "quota wars" of OPEC. They simply engineered a boom by declaring they had more oil - every country but Dubai played this card. Oil was affordable again as OPEC could produce more oil, but only because they cooked the books on their reserves. Do some research on how the USGS cooks its books. Peak oil is the primer mover behind our foreign policy.

Also, from Crossing the Rubicon (emphasis added):

Quote
"First, it is critical to understand that if an oil company reports accurate reserves in a field promptly upon discovery of that field, they have to pay taxes on all of it at once. So they spread the tax burden out over several years - by reporting new finds in old fields. This practice maintains stock prices and investments for oil companies that haven't made any new finds. Oil is the ground is booked as a corporate asset on the balance sheet. Backdating oil discoveries to the date a field was opened is essential to understanding how quickly new discovery is really diminishing."

Logged

rjm

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #58 on: November 22, 2009, 11:24:30 pm »

Don't you mean to say if it IS constrained rather than not that price will increase.
I meant that as price increases you would expect supply to increase somewhat as producers open their valves wider. We did not see this in the last spike which suggests their valves were already wide open.

Quote
What's harder to grasp are the reasons behind this lack of investment, especially by the bigger ones  ?
I think it's simply a matter of scale. A small company can put a new small well into production and make a significant percent difference to its bottom line. A large company needs a big new oil field to make any difference to its shareholders. There are no (or very few) large onshore fields left to find, hence they are curtailing investment. And in some cases they are using their profits to buy back their shares which makes perfect sense if your business is going extinct.

Quote
How much does the world believe in AGW ?
It appears that nothing of substance will be decided in Copenhagen this year. The negative impact to the economy of any policy that seriously addresses AGW is not politically possible given the current economic woes. And given that the economy will continue to worsen as peak oil bites, I conclude that we will never do anything meaningful to address AGW.

Quote
However you're saying much more, that not only is there a current peak in fossil fuels production but there isn't significantly enough (in the ground) anymore to gainfully extract.
No that's not what I am saying. I am saying that production from existing oil fields in aggregate will start to decline at between 6% and 9% per year within 12-36 months. This means that we must find (6% * 85MB/day) of new oil every year just to keep the production rate flat. We will find some more oil, but all of it will go towards partially replacing depleting wells.

Quote
The oildrum has retired petro-engineers that may be very knowledgeable about existing oil fields, they worked on them but how does that lead to the projection that there isn't much more to be found ?
New oil found every year has trended down since about the mid-60's. This is a fact. Wishing it wasn't so doesn't make it so.

Quote
If you pull back and try to look at the big picture, this has all the makings of a classic environmentalist vs conservative battle brewing here.
Perhaps, but it saddens me. This is not a political issue. It is a physics issue with profound implications for believers of every political, religious, and cultural system in the world.

Quote
How does anyone know where the limit is ?
We are already past the limit. We the yeast have overshot our test tube. Check out Kunstler's The Fate of the Yeast People.
http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/11/the-fate-of-the-yeast-people.html

Quote
Let's say you're right about peak fossil fuels in the sense we can't find any more in significant quantities that matter. If GDP growth rates remain flat for the next 10 years then your case just got much stronger. The biggest reason i would think for peakers to make the point early is that it increases the chances of awareness and possibly influences future behaviour.
No that's not my intent. It's already too late to do anything to avoid massive problems. I am sending out a warning to people I care about so that they might take some steps to reduce the pain they and their families will experience.

Quote
I don't know if GDP growth rates are the best metric to use here because other factors can equally influence them and have no connection with energy supply at all. Looking at the economy is better than just looking at production figures as some sort of causal realtionship can be readily inferred.  Unless we see GDP's across the board, below what they were 10 years prior peak energy remains a difficult case to make.
GDP is a dodgy measure at the best of times due to government manipulation to make themselves look good and to control government expenses. So lets forget about GDP and go back to the basics.

I am saying that energy is what makes us mobile and productive at making stuff from natural resources. As energy declines, we will be less mobile and will make less stuff. If you define wealth and happiness by how much you travel and how much stuff you have, then you are going to be much poorer and sadder soon. If on the other hand, you define wealth in other ways then you can be rich and happy going forward.

Quote
If you notice oil has increased in price over the last 100 years but most countries have managed to do ok provided it was gradual.
I think if you normalize oil for inflation you will find that it has not increased much over the last 100 years, until recently.
Logged

KingSparta

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 20048
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #59 on: December 04, 2009, 04:08:22 pm »

In Case You Are Wondering

Our Local Toys R Us Sold $396,200+ On Black Friday

Last Year It Was About $260,000

At My Company We Were Over Plan By $2,200, Plan Was Approx $37,000

Since This Is A Soldier City, Some Of The Increase For Toys R Us Could Be That Solders Are Trying To Make Up For When They Were In Iraq, Or Afghanistan, Or Because They Are About To Deploy To Iraq, Or Afghanistan.

Other Than That Some People Could Feel More Comfortable About The Economy.

This Is However At A NC State Unemployment Rate Of 10.7 (Too High).

Bev Perdue (NC Governor) Has Cut The Budget (Something Almost Unheard Of From A Democrat).  That Can Only Mean More Tax's In The Future For Local Tax payers. Just Like They Did Before "Were Raising The Taxes To 6.2, But We Will Lower It After Two Years" That Did Not Work Out Because Now 5 Years Later It Is 7.75 As Of August.
Logged
Retired Military, Airborne, Air Assault, And Flight Wings.
Model Trains, Internet, Ham Radio
https://MyAAGrapevines.com
Fayetteville, NC, USA

rjm

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #60 on: December 16, 2009, 01:33:00 am »

Would like to bring your attention to a new documentary that became available for download today on many torrent sites. It's titled Collapse and features an in depth interview with Michael Ruppert about the implications of peak oil. I just finished watching it and consider it to be one of the best on the topic. Certainly the most scary and powerful. Highly recommended.

You can read more at the home site http://www.collapsemovie.com/COLLAPSEMOVIE/
Logged

rjm

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #61 on: January 06, 2010, 04:16:55 pm »

The hypothesis of our trap is that we need over $80 oil to justify exploration and development, but oil over $80 will cause a recession and crash the oil price.

Oil just past $80 2 days ago. Let's observe if the hypothesis is supported.

Also, if you are seeking a broader understanding of our predicament, I highly recommend a recent seminar titled "Population Growth and Rising Consumption: What's Sustainable?".

You can get the videos here http://www.populationinstitute.org/external/podcasts/itunes.xml
And the accompanying presentations here http://populationinstitute.org/newsroom/events/view/5
Logged

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #62 on: February 02, 2010, 03:06:20 am »

Oil was affordable again as OPEC could produce more oil, but only because they cooked the books on their reserves. Do some research on how the USGS cooks its books.
It'd be more fun if you tell us how the USGS + OPEC do it.

I think Peak Oil is the biggest, least discussed issue underling every economic concern brought up in this thread.
Yeah, but you got to be patient until the hottest show in town goes out of fashion, curently known as climate change, dunno what they'll call it next but formerly known as  global warming and previously global cooling. At some point we'll figure out we can't affect the planet and do the thing we do best -- adapt.

Doesn't Mike Ruppert think 9/11 was an inside job ?
He's made a lot of predictions over the past few years which did not pan out. Evidently he's quite adept at manipulating ignorance & fear  ::)

Employment, affordable food and energy costs, lower taxes, and someone to blame.
Historically, cities did better than the countryside in times of famine because they had more purchasing power. Times are hard, farmers get the best prices in the city. Higher taxes will ensure those that can't affford them -- the angry ppl, leave faster. Having most essentials in proximity means less energy spent to procure them. A more able police force will handle crime unless you have your own militia to protect you. In fact cities will become more dense and the country will depopulate itself as a result. Property in the city increases in value vs losing value in the country.

All things considered I think cities would be safer than the country ;)

I meant that as price increases you would expect supply to increase somewhat as producers open their valves wider. We did not see this in the last spike which suggests their valves were already wide open.
If 2005 was the peak why has oil production plateaued since. Why did it not drop sooner and how long is a peak supposed to last ?

This low hanging fruit was shut down and replaced with natural gas and coal. The task of reducing oil consumption will be much more difficult today.
You sure about that ?

Currently Europeans pay at the pump as if oil cost $250-$300 a barrel. That means if the price goes up another $100 they still have a cushion, whether their govts would allow it is another matter. So I'd look at Europe today to see what life would be like in the future.

The EU and several other countries set a price floor above equilibirum price during the last crisis ie the 70s and retained it to the present but Reagan removed it in '81. Others forced their economies to adapt to less with a higher than market price. Every time the oil price rises they set a new floor again.

You could argue removing the price floor allowed the US to grow much faster and you'd be right. If oil production does not increase in the future then this will be the first thing the US does. And then we'll just watch the market do its thing. No need for any zero-sum oil wars, just trust the market, its the only way that will allow us to transition away from oil & gas.

There are no (or very few) large onshore fields left to find, hence they are curtailing investment.
And the reason is they are being shutout by nationalised oil companies who now control most of the world's reserves and promising areas. This does not necessarily imply there is less oil in the ground, it just means less opportunities for the oil majors to make the kind of profits in days gone by. This little fact alone gives me reason to suspect peakers do not know where the real peak even is !!

Will this cause a short term peak in production ? quite possibly as these NOC's might not have the best tech or staff. So there'll be a spike in prices but it will also stimulate investment at the same time, because otherwise it will speed up the transtion away from oil, a lesson the oil producers will re-learn to their detriment.

And in some cases they are using their profits to buy back their shares which makes perfect sense if your business is going extinct.
You could say the same thing about mergers too, but aren't mergers a cheaper way of increasing a company's reserves and therefore shareholder value as they currently cannot add to their reserves the usual way.

It appears that nothing of substance will be decided in Copenhagen this year. The negative impact to the economy of any policy that seriously addresses AGW is not politically possible given the current economic woes. And given that the economy will continue to worsen as peak oil bites, I conclude that we will never do anything meaningful to address AGW.
But i'm not sure if thats necessarily a bad thing as the question as to what degree man is influencing climate remains unanswered. Will doing what they want make a difference and is there any way to test it ? --$trillions at stake

We don't have any proof but rather only an inference that c02 is responsible. A correlation that CO2 emissions match recent climate change isn't sufficient causation to conclude cutting down on emissions will affect the climate. How do we even tell whether cutbacks have had the desired effect. How much time do we give it  ?

And if so, could money be better spent dealing with climate change than trying to avert it. What happens if we are unable to avert it after having tried ? We would be in twice as deep with lesser resources at hand :(

One thing for sure is warmers don't believe in peak oil. They see world GDP going up and are only concerned how much C02 it will put out. Just look at the scenarios in this IPCC graph :)

Perhaps, but it saddens me. This is not a political issue. It is a physics issue with profound implications for believers of every political, religious, and cultural system in the world.
If this is about science then what evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong ? 'Real' science can be tested.

I'm not disputing the concept of peak oil ie continuous growth with finite resources. But this statement on its own is useless because it only serves as a backdrop to peddle more 'predictions'. And PO just keeps on changing the dates saying its gonna happen 'real soon' each time as they have no clue how much finite actually is. Why else would they keep getting dates wrong.

We are already past the limit. We the yeast have overshot our test tube. Check out Kunstler's The Fate of the Yeast People.
http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/11/the-fate-of-the-yeast-people.html
This guys a present day Malthusian. Last we heard of them was in the 60s where the issue was we could not feed enough people. In comes the green revolution which these types always overlook as 'cornucopian' and which forces them to quickly became silent. These types only have problems to offer, never solutions amounting to more than, umm, we need to cut down, somehow.

Jevons wrote a book in 1865 about how coal was running out in the UK and created a 'Coal Panic'. A Royal Commision on coal was setup to study about the reserves and found that reserves were not an issue.

Isn't this the same story yet again with Heinberg's book ?

I think if you normalize oil for inflation you will find that it has not increased much over the last 100 years, until recently.
If by 'recently' you mean '71 onwards then yes otherwise no. The graph i posted on the previous page, in real prices (2008) is no different to this graph.

No that's not what I am saying. I am saying that production from existing oil fields in aggregate will start to decline at between 6% and 9% per year within 12-36 months. This means that we must find (6% * 85MB/day) of new oil every year just to keep the production rate flat. We will find some more oil, but all of it will go towards partially replacing depleting wells.
Would you agree with ths estimate ?

Where do you get the data to show 6-9% declines ? Reserves in many countries are closely held secrets and can grow as better tech comes into play. A peak could be 5,10,15 or 20 years ahead.

Quote
How important is energy to the economy as a whole? Energy expenditures were only 7.2 percent of GDP in 2000, and oil expenditures were only 2.1 percent of GDP.
Souce
From here and in today's money
'46 - '73, price was avg $20/b
'86 - '00 price was avg $30/b
'01 - now it looks like we avg $50/b

So it took just over 50 years  ('46-'00) for price to dbl. According to your predictions, upto peak at 2011-2014, oil makes up under 4% of GDP. We seem to be ok for now.

How long till it doubles again to $100 and stays there or close to 8% of GDP ?

A 6-9% decline implies a halving in 7-12 years from 2011-2014, which puts us at 2018 - 2026, or a bit over twenty years on from '00. We've already been there, it corresponds to '80-'85.

How long till it doubles again to $200 or close to 16% of GDP ? Again another 7-12 years or 2025-2038. Europe is already at this point today :)

All this assumes that demand is going to keep on rising but at those prices i seriously doubt it which means it will take longer for the price doublings to occur ;)
Logged

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #63 on: February 02, 2010, 03:07:39 am »

No that's not my intent. It's already too late to do anything to avoid massive problems. I am sending out a warning to people I care about so that they might take some steps to reduce the pain they and their families will experience.

Things you can do to prepare include:
- avoid debt (on the assumption that your future income will decline)
- sell investments that will be impacted (before the majority figures out what is going on)
- shed discretionary expenses (so that the transition will be less painful)
- consider trading in your gas guzzler if driving less is not an option
These steps you indicate are what anyone careful to remain within their means ought to follow even in good times. Realise that the advice you give out comes with a risk. If we are still away from the peak (and i beleive we still are) then ppl will want to know why things did not turn out the way you said.

When peakers try & predict how the economy will behave as a result of these shocks,  they enter a field ie economics which they are not very familiar with. That they treat economists with disdain makes it harder for their 'predictions' to be taken seriously, by people that matter. The causal relationship between oil price & national output is subject to much debate.

Look at the oil price rise over the last 5 years and compare it with inflation in the same period. Oil price going up 3x but inflation at 3%. Not much increase is there. Look at the earlier crisis and inflation is much higher in the 70s compared to the 60s. It appears that even tho oil prices doubled overnight and went even higher, at 7% inflation it would take 10 years for consumer prices to double. This gives a cushion of 10 years before the pain starts to be felt.

If peak happens tomorrow all we need to do is buy more time to transition
- the fed can reduce its effects. See this paper
- as prices rise consumption drops dramatically, putting the peak off for another 10 years.
- we become more efficient
- then the richer countries will outbid poorer countries, maintain thier growth and buy yet more time. An extension of this idea is make as much money as you can and save it for a rainy day.
- in the meantime if decline rates can be slowed to 1%, that gives still more time. In 1980, oil fields were considered depleted at 22%, today that figure is 33%. You think we can't increase that figure ? another thirty years to get to 50% recovery.

Would these steps put the current peak back say another 30 years or enough time to adapt ?

At this point one wonders whether peak will ever have an effect within their lifespan, conclude it wont and live happly every after. Yeah, the cornucopians will find a way around, they've been doing it for centuries now and have a better record at changing the way we live than doomers about predicting disaster. This is not being blindly optimisitic, its about disbelieving in fate & destiny and giving due credit.

If on the other hand, you define wealth in other ways then you can be rich and happy going forward.
You mean we have to live like the Amish  ?
Logged

rjm

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #64 on: May 08, 2010, 12:09:39 am »

Here is a particularly good paper on our predicament:

David Korowicz - Tipping Point
http://www.feasta.org/documents/risk_resilience/Tipping_Point_summary.php

Or if you prefer video, here is a talk given about a year before the paper was published:
http://vimeo.com/5699608
Logged

rjm

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #65 on: May 09, 2010, 02:47:21 pm »

Another superb article. Itís the best summary of our overshoot that I have seen.

The Imminent Collapse of Industrial Society by Peter Goodchild
http://www.countercurrents.org/goodchild090510.htm
Logged

rjm

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #66 on: February 23, 2011, 02:30:37 pm »

oil > $100
got gold?
Logged

bob

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #67 on: February 24, 2011, 10:07:55 am »

oil > $100
got gold?
Sigh, I remember when I told others to get it at $300/oz, about 4 years ago??
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #68 on: February 25, 2011, 02:32:05 pm »

Sigh, I remember when I told others to get it at $300/oz, about 4 years ago??

Precious metals are dangerous investment vehicles over the long term.  The market on them is extremely contrived and supply driven.  Despite the longevity of human infatuation with shiny golden objects, and despite what you might hear on news radio, Gold has relatively little "intrinsic value".

I personally know someone, still alive, who lost a fortune in gold the last time we had a huge run-up on the Gold market in this country (not coincidentally just after the great depression hit).

Another great example is why the cap at the top of the Washington Monument is made out of aluminum.  At the time the monument was built, the cap was the largest piece of aluminum ever cast, and was worth a fortune.  Now, not so much.

Things that truly have intrinsic value are things that you can use.  When "the war comes" or "when the disaster strikes", you can have your gold.  I'm keeping my water and #2 fuel oil.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

bob

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #69 on: February 25, 2011, 02:56:42 pm »

Precious metals are dangerous investment vehicles over the long term.  The market on them is extremely contrived and supply driven.  Despite the longevity of human infatuation with shiny golden objects, and despite what you might hear on news radio, Gold has relatively little "intrinsic value".

I personally know someone, still alive, who lost a fortune in gold the last time we had a huge run-up on the Gold market in this country (not coincidentally just after the great depression hit).

Another great example is why the cap at the top of the Washington Monument is made out of aluminum.  At the time the monument was built, the cap was the largest piece of aluminum ever cast, and was worth a fortune.  Now, not so much.

Things that truly have intrinsic value are things that you can use.  When "the war comes" or "when the disaster strikes", you can have your gold.  I'm keeping my water and #2 fuel oil.
Good points, however, how much intrinsic value does the paper represented by the dollar have? Seems to me people flock to commodities (like gold) when they realize that the paper may be in danger of collapsing. Certainly in the last year, various food items have done very well... One thing you can be sure of, everyone that wants to stay alive has to eat!
Logged

KingSparta

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 20048
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #70 on: February 26, 2011, 04:57:11 pm »

>> when they realize that the paper may be in danger of collapsing.

It Is Hard For Me To Believe That We Do Not Backup Our Money With Gold Or Silver.

Maybe That's Why Our "Dollar" Has Declined So Much In The Past 40 Years.

Hope And Change.
Logged
Retired Military, Airborne, Air Assault, And Flight Wings.
Model Trains, Internet, Ham Radio
https://MyAAGrapevines.com
Fayetteville, NC, USA

rjm

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #71 on: March 18, 2011, 08:39:18 pm »

Heads up. Japan's earthquake is now shaking an unstable world wide economic system. Oil demand will increase to replace lost nuclear energy and to fuel cleanup machinery. World wealth generation will decline due to supply chain disruptions dependent on Japan thus accelerating debt default. Much more money printing already underway and planned to pay for reconstruction. Capital flows changing direction. Europe and US can no longer count on Japan to buy their debt. Not possible to predict exact outcome due to high system complexity but probability is high that something bad will result. Suggest you check risks associated with your investments and consider stocking up on food.
http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/alert-nuclear-economic-meltdown-in-progress
Logged

rjm

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #72 on: April 01, 2011, 12:28:01 pm »

WTI $108 Brent $119
tick, tick, tick, tick ...
Logged

rjm

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2699
Logged

JimH

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 71486
  • Where did I put my teeth?
Re: A New Way forward
« Reply #74 on: April 17, 2011, 07:46:45 am »

In the second article, the author quotes Bloomberg on university endowments, saying the University of Texas has an endowment second only to Harvard.  Wikipedia says it's #4.  Here's their source:
http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2010NCSE_Public_Tables_Endowment_Market_Values_Final.pdf

It's just to say that what you read on the Internet is often incorrect.

In my opinion, the economy in the U.S. is suffering for two primary reasons.

1.  Consumers are afraid.

2.  Mortgages are a mess.

When home mortgage lending becomes more normal, home values will stabilize, and the home construction business will resume.  That will help employment.  Better employment numbers will ease consumer fear.

It's just my opinion.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up