Saudi Arabia’s Desperation Hits a Peak

35 Comments on "Saudi Arabia’s Desperation Hits a Peak"

Kenz300 on Wed, 11th May 2016 10:51 am 



Even KSA realizes that the internal consumption growth must be slowed and is now reducing subsidies for oil products. The internal growth is not sustainable and will eventually hinder oil income from exports…….

The oil producing countries, companies and the auto companies need to get their collective heads out of the sand and realize that the world is changing with or without them. Climate Change is real….. it will impact all of us…

It is time to move away from fossil fuels and embrace alternative energy sources like wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste. They need to change their business models and move from being OIL companies to ENERGY companies. The auto industry needs to move from just building compliance vehicles to embracing electric vehicles and start putting development and advertising behind them..

The world is moving to embrace alternative energy sources…….. the fossil fuel companies can transform themselves into “energy” companies or they can die a slow death. As Climate Change impacts more people there will be a bigger backlash against fossil fuels.

dave thompson on Wed, 11th May 2016 11:58 am 



Sorry Kenz “It is time to move away from fossil fuels and embrace alternative energy sources like wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste.” Nothing in your list is feasible at scale that will replace the energy density and power of FF industrialized inputs.

Elmer on Wed, 11th May 2016 12:56 pm 



“I think that by 2020, if the oil stops, we’ll be able to live,” Prince Mohammed said. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/world/middleeast/saudi-prince-shares-planto-cut-oil-dependency-and-energize-the-economy.html?_r=0 )

“…if the oil stops”? What does he know that we don’t know? Looks like it’s possible they may be getting very nervous about the true amount of their oil resources. I suppose it’s easier to kick the addiction before the source runs dry.

All will be OK without the benefit of oil within 4 years? Good luck with that!!! Prince Mohammed certainly does not lack optimism. I’m sure he’ll make Saudi Arabia “great again.”

Speculawyer on Wed, 11th May 2016 1:13 pm 



Things are really starting to boil over in KSA. The Bin Laden construction group is laying off some 30,000 to 50,000 workers. Many of them haven’t been paid all their wages such that they rioted and burned buses.

Things might start spinning out of control in the KSA if oil prices continue to remain low.

Speculawyer on Wed, 11th May 2016 1:16 pm 



Dave said “Nothing in your list is feasible at scale that will replace the energy density and power of FF industrialized inputs.”

FFs are not going to be turned off overnight. It is a long transition. And it is more than feasible to completely replace FFs with a combination of onshore wind, solar PV, geothermal, nuclear, biomass, tidal power, offshore wind, hydropower, etc.

This “it can’t possibly be done!” quitter whining is pathetic. You know fossil fuels are finite so you are saying that we will will have a huge crash eventually. No, we can do better than that.

denial on Wed, 11th May 2016 1:52 pm 



what about burning iron ore for energy?

denial on Wed, 11th May 2016 1:54 pm 



Here is a link to a canadian show……its canadian so it has to be good! uf da!

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/quirks-quarks-for-jan-16-2016-1.3405565/alternative-energy-enters-the-iron-age-1.3405891

Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Wed, 11th May 2016 3:04 pm 



KSA is collapsing. Deck chairs. Titanic. For the world it will mean less energy. Tough times are on the way.

dave thompson on Wed, 11th May 2016 4:48 pm 



@Speculawyer, all due respect to the laws of physics, please name one example where FF use has been replaced at scale. Big Ag. runs on FF. None of the listed “transition” energy can replace what FF does. Not at scale able levels. All of your listed “onshore wind, solar PV, geothermal, nuclear, biomass, tidal power, offshore wind, hydropower” rely on FF inputs to exist. Concrete, steel,plastic,rubber,rare earth metals,on and on goes the list are only available because of FF energy. Electric power is about 20% of total industrial energy inputs.The other 80%? FF. Gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, shipping bunker fuel have no known replacement for transportation at scale and being cost effective.

Speculawyer on Wed, 11th May 2016 5:19 pm 



@Dave We haven’t replaced FF because we haven’t had to replace FF. Personally, my house and car run on net electricity produced by my solar PV system.

Gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and bunker fuel all have replacements but some do cost more (but my electric car is much cheaper to drive than the old gasoline one.)

Are you suggesting that mankind will go extinct when we run out of fossil fuels? I think we can do better. I’m glad we have “can do” people solving these problems instead of just quitters like you.

dave thompson on Wed, 11th May 2016 5:31 pm 



Speculawyer,You say “Gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and bunker fuel all have replacements” What are those replacements?

Davy on Wed, 11th May 2016 5:42 pm 



Spec, when we have to replace fossil fuels it will be too late. When we get to the point of needing to replace fossil fuels we will be in crisis. A growth based economy cannot invest in an existential macro crisis and that is what a global energy crisis is. Our modern global civilization can react to problems but not very well but it is helpless to be proactive as witnessed by the climate change parties in Paris as an example. The best we can do is try to hold the fragile ship together as the gale sets in.

There is zero indication of a latent productive spurt of energy somewhere within our global economy that is going to materialize when we most need it. It is quite the opposite. We are falling apart even before things get bad. What does that tell you!

Roger on Wed, 11th May 2016 6:30 pm 



” A few years ago, Citigroup even made the bold prediction that Saudi Arabia may become a net oil importer by 2030.”

I for one say let’s buy every Saudi male (the women can’t drive) a new Tesla! … Save our oil ;).

Speculawyer on Wed, 11th May 2016 10:14 pm 



“Speculawyer,You say “Gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and bunker fuel all have replacements” What are those replacements?”

Gasoline, diesel = batteries, natural gas & biofuels. Light-duty transportation can be handled with EVs. Chevy Bolt & Tesla Model 3 are going to wake some people up.
jet fuel = that is a tough one. Probably biofuels. But regional air travel should be replaced with high-speed trains & hyperloop to reduce aviation needs (thus can be run with electricity).
bunker fuel = nuclear ships, natural gas. Heck, that stuff should be banned right now considering how dirty it is. Replace it with diesel.

But hey, if you want to convince yourself all is lost then go ahead. Why not try to solve problems instead of moan about them?

Speculawyer on Wed, 11th May 2016 10:18 pm 



Davy, I agree that things will go south in due time. That’s all the more reason to get some new technology in place now. That way when things get tough, we will have some options to choose from.

We might need to reduce our lifestyles a bit in a bad case. And we probably should anyway. But we really do have a lot of technology that can get things done and we are not yet in a crisis situation that will force us to work really hard on these issues.

makati1 on Wed, 11th May 2016 10:23 pm 



Spec, tech arrived with the oil age and will die with the end of the oil age. It depends on oil to exist. Denial does not change that. Our “lifestyles” will devolve to that of prehistory, if any of us survives the next few decades. You obviously have no grasp of systems.

Sissyfuss on Wed, 11th May 2016 10:30 pm 



Did Shakespeare say “kill all the speculaywers”? Something like that. Spec, is easier to keep the hopium pipe lit or the crack pipe, because you seem to be indulging on some good sh#t!

Boat on Wed, 11th May 2016 10:39 pm 



mak,

Just watch the expansion of improved tech products over the future even if the economy slows. And pass the popcorn.

dave thompson on Wed, 11th May 2016 11:17 pm 



Speculawyer How are batteries made? Where does natural gas come from? How do we grow massive amounts of bio material for fuel? Along with food? All are FF derivatives. Who is building nuke shipping? How do you build electric train infrastructure? More FF inputs. All EV cars and light trucks are built by burning coal, Nat gas and crude oil. Without FF industrial inputs none would exist. I only am facing the reality for what it is. All wish full, Green washed futuristic BS. Am I being negative or realistic? Does not matter the truth is the truth.

makati1 on Wed, 11th May 2016 11:50 pm 



Dream on Boat, dream on.

Boat on Wed, 11th May 2016 11:55 pm 



dave,

You cant prove a lack of oil so whats the point. There are thousands of products that are more efficient and accomplish certain tasks with fewer btu’s. Oil to your point while extremely important will diminish in volume needed in the future.

makati1 on Thu, 12th May 2016 12:07 am 



More Boat bullshit.

It is not the lack of oil that is taking the system down, it is the lack of ABILITY TO PURCHASE OILY PRODUCTS that is problem. The oceans could turn into oil tonight and it would not change anything. Petroleum as it comes out of the ground is basically useless 99.999% of the time. It has to be transported, refined and trans ported again before it has a useful value. Those steps add costs.

BTW: Show me an airplane that can fly at 500 mph for 15+ hours and carry 50+ tons of passengers snf freight, without oil. At any one time there are thousands of such planes in the air around the globe. THAT will be gone when oil goes.

https://www.flightradar24.com/10.76,164.89/3

Apneaman on Thu, 12th May 2016 12:08 am 



“tech products over the future”

Could you be just a little more vague boat?

makati1 on Thu, 12th May 2016 12:14 am 



I would agree, the stone age had techie improvements. The evolution of the stone axe, spear and arrowhead were all techie advancements. Maybe that is what Boat is thinking of? Surely he cannot be thinking of things that use electric. That energy transition will also fade away as oil fades. It too relies on oil to exist. Boat does not understand total systems, obviously.

Boat on Thu, 12th May 2016 12:18 am 



mak,

Don’t be lazy. I got plenty of money and have all the stuff I need. When oil was at it’s highest I had no problems.

makati1 on Thu, 12th May 2016 1:17 am 



Boat, you have paper that is only worht something as long as the faith in it continues. That is goin to end soon also. Then you can use it to light those oily fires when you burn the plastic to keep warm. lol. Beware! Plastic fumes are poisonous as is every other oily product.

If you put your faith in fiat, you are going to be terribly disappointed. All your ‘stuff’ has a life expectancy of less than 20 years. Most less than 10. What does your fiat paper have to do with tech? Answer: Nothing.

If Asia stops shipping the techie parts, you will not be able to buy any of that ‘cheap’ tech as it will no longer be made. The US makes none of it. All the parts come from my part of the world, Asia.

You rebuttals have all the depth of a desert mirage.

Westexasfanclub on Thu, 12th May 2016 4:05 am 



I think this discussion lacks some imagination. Essentially, it sounds like cornucopian BAU against doomers. Come on, you all can better.

In 2100 there will live two billion people on this planet with much less energy consumption per capita. They are much happier than we are. Tourism and global trade have become obsolete. But cultural, spiritual and intellectual interchange continues – no! HAS FINALLY BEGUN. Young people are obliged to travel around the world to know the whole planet before settling down.

Spaceship Earth is quietly spinning through space with its crew members getting steadily closer to their destiny: Universal enlightenment.

I have a son. I have to think this way.

makati1 on Thu, 12th May 2016 5:16 am 



2100 and 2B survivors? I doubt it! 2M tops, if any.

A son? I have 12 grand kids and 2 greats. I know they will not live my 70+ years. Not even close and those years will be full of chaos and hard living without any of today’s support systems including medical. All you can do for your son is NOT protect him from reality and teach him how to live by his wits and learned skills. You can prep for the future or you can deny it and go the hard way. If you prep and nothing happens, what do you lose? Nothing. If you do not prep and it does happen…

I bet you have home and car insurance and maybe life coverage, but you hope you will never need any of it. Prepping is just another kind of insurance except you benefit either way.

onlooker on Thu, 12th May 2016 5:36 am 



Yes, Mak, I do not foreesee 2billion under any circumstances after collapse whenever that may be. I think if the survivors get lucky maybe 500 million scattered about if not thousands perhaps.. Yes prepping now makes all the sense in the world, even if the environmental consequences hold off awhile, the Economy appears ready to fall. No more Big brother necessarily to help or the support you mentioned. Stay close to a good area, learn especially about medical self help and food/water subsistence.

Davy on Thu, 12th May 2016 6:43 am 



We are always going to have these tensions between those who believe technology with usher in efficiency, substitution, and innovations against those who feel this process of technological evolution is the problem. Many feel technology is at macro limits and diminishing returns. We are asking things of technology today that are not possible or that will not scale economically or in time frames that allow effectiveness for transition. Technology is not transcendence. There has to be more and that more is attitude and lifestyles IOW the underlying social narrative. There is no indication we are capable of changing our destructive social narrative.

We have waste streams effecting climate and the environmental health. Our economy must produce food and offer healthy living or declining food production and health will destroy our social stability. Technology is not capable of mitigating climate change. It is clearly contributing to increased carbon despite all the talk. To transition to the so called green economy will break our carbon budget is a simple example of an environmental trap.

We must remember we are in a time of economic problems. This cannot be discounted and it should be acknowledge the economy is a well-oiled machine that must operate at a minimum level. We must have the global distribution, global economies of scale and funded by global finance. I do not see how we can slow down economically and still progress through efficiency, substitution, and technical advances because these are examples of growth variables not degrowth strategies.

How can you have progress by going backwards at the level of economy and technical progress? I believe we can have a spiritual and existential progress by slowing down and devolving but that is a different level of abstraction. We have had 10 good years and alternatives have not shown an advancement that indicates a transition from fossil fuels. We are talking maybe 10 years until the dead state of oil render our fossil fuel economy impotent. This will be a period of decline how can you grow in decline?

We have destabilized our economic system with debt. If this debt would have been good debt this might not have been so bad but this period of debt expansion was not good debt it was bad. We have huge amounts of unneeded development, excess capacity, zombie companies, and a damaged social fabric. Debt has caused a wealth transfer and a change in the way wealth is applied to produce wealth. No longer do we have savings that can earn a return and fund development. Today saving is penalized and we have low cost abstract debt driven money chasing yields. This has created systemic mal-investment IOW macro bad debt IOW a huge bubble ready to pop. It has created a class of rich getting richer and the rest poorer. How is this going to dovetail with progress and growth some say is ahead? All the optimist have to stand on is the meme of the supreme ability of technology and innovation to lift us out of entropic decay. This is a finite world sooner or later technology will fail.

The biggest issue is population. Population must drop but a dropping population is not supportive of growth. More deaths than births is destabilizing and expensive. The amount of deaths required to get us closer to a realistic carrying capacity is mind numbing. The number is near 500MIL to 1BIL. Population changes are a process so let’s say we need to be at 3BIL in 20 years. The equation is like a 100MIL a year reduction yearly and when you include continued births you need to double the deaths. We are adding 80MIL a year now so you see the clash of the numbers. It is basically a brick wall.

These kind of numbers and macro processes of transformation of our modern civilization are a juxtaposition of multiple incongruous states IOW an existential catch 22. We are trapped at multiple levels. We need to degrowth to have growth and progress. That does not appear to represent a reality the optimist say will be transformative. How can having death to have life be transformative?

The biggest issue for optimist is the transcendence process will require destructive change meaning pain, loss, and chaos. Destructive change does not happen smoothly. If you enter a period of degrowth and destructive change you are entering a period of uncertainty and randomness. How are we going to progress in a required period of degrowth and destructive change? No one knows because you can’t plan it.

It is possible once the process is over and some kind of growth phase will be renewed then we can have growth and progress. Yet, our modern civilization is so complex and interconnected if you break that connectivity chain it can’t continue. Throw in all the damage and waste stream and you have a picture of civilization lost and never recovered. I am not saying what may come down the road might not be better after all the pain and suffering but it won’t resemble what we have now.

Westexasfanclub on Thu, 12th May 2016 1:40 pm 



The total fertility rate in the world is now very close to the global replacement rate, which is estimated at 2.33 (due to infertility, different sexual orientations and especially premature child deaths in the 3rd world).

The US-fertility rate in the tough 30ties went down to 2.0 before rising in the golden 50ties to 3.8. Under the actual economic pressure on the wold population, a TFR of 2.0 or lower is already very close.

No doomish armageddon is needed to reduce the world population to 2 billion or less until the year 2100, even if we reach a staggering 9 billion at 2050 – the children born then will certainly not desire to give birth to even more progeny. Following the trend, they will have a TRF of maybe 1.0.

Growing energy efficiency together with renewables and above all a change in lifestyle could guide humanity to a sustainable existence within this century – and without a cataclysm.

Anyhow, there will probably be tough and catastrophic events like wars, economic crises, famines and diseases. But they are not absolutely necessary nor have they to be predominant to reach the goal of a sustainable society.

Prepping is certainly not a bad thing to learn, but so are social skills for the very necessary cooperation at a local level – cooperation, that might not be paid for as money might become something very abstract in everyday’s life.

Apneaman on Thu, 12th May 2016 2:05 pm 



Westexasfanclub, where’s the water coming from? Techno industrial civilization needs enormous amounts of water. The world over, the people who manage our water resources have been giving ever more dire warnings that it’s running out. Are they a part of the doomer “hoax” too? The majority of human water use goes to industry.

Westexasfanclub on Fri, 13th May 2016 5:30 am 



Apneaman, water is certainly an important part of the equation. I certainly don’t deny that there must be a change in lifestyle and that a population reduction must take place. All I say is that it CAN be done in an ordered, non-violent way without any cataclysm with people who can enjoy their existence in their lifespan. In don’t say it will happen that way – but the possibility existes. I think this is very important to go forward.

As with oil and other resources, the consumption of water can be optimized and therefore be reduced significantly. There’s still a lot of leeway in this process. In my vision, those 2 billion people in 2100 could life with 1/7th of our water use (1/2 per capita for 1/3,5 of today’s world population – or even less. Given that they will chose places with vast water resources, their consumption should not pose any thread to sustainability.

Sissyfuss on Fri, 13th May 2016 9:47 pm 



Dear Westexasfanclub, aka WTF! Your particular construct of reality is so rational as to be otherworldly. I think a nice vacation in someplace warm and tropical might help you open your eyes to other interpretations of this world, say Venezuela.

makati1 on Fri, 13th May 2016 10:02 pm 



Sissyfuss … WELL DONE! ^_^