]$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', '
')There's a difference between economic collapse and civilizational collapse. The latter is the dieoff hypothesis.
PeakOil is You
Improving Peak Oil Credibility
Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility
by Ludi » Sat 10 Apr 2010, 09:55:48
Only in your personal definition of "civilizational collapse."
- Ludi
Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility
by mcgowanjm » Sat 10 Apr 2010, 09:57:20
^
^
l
l__And I had to really hunt for this news.
I almost had to literally type in the exact
article title to get a return:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Bloomberg
Pemex Oil Output Matches Smallest Drop in Two Years (Update1)
April 08, 2010, 2:36 PM EDT
Story Tools
* e-mail this story
* print this story
* digg this
* save to del.icio.us
* add to Business Exchange
(Adds Ku-Maloob-Zaap and Cantarell’s production in fourth paragraph.)
By Carlos Manuel Rodriguez
April 8 (Bloomberg) -- Petroleos Mexicanos’s crude production fell 2 percent last month, matching the smallest decline rate in more than two years in February as Latin America’s largest oil producer seeks to arrest slumping output.
Output at Pemex, as the company is known, dropped to 2.599 million barrels a day from 2.652 million barrels in the year- earlier period, Mexico’s National Hydrocarbons Commission said on its Web site in a report dated April 4.
^
l
l__And I had to really hunt for this news.
I almost had to literally type in the exact
article title to get a return:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Bloomberg
Pemex Oil Output Matches Smallest Drop in Two Years (Update1)
April 08, 2010, 2:36 PM EDT
Story Tools
* e-mail this story
* print this story
* digg this
* save to del.icio.us
* add to Business Exchange
(Adds Ku-Maloob-Zaap and Cantarell’s production in fourth paragraph.)
By Carlos Manuel Rodriguez
April 8 (Bloomberg) -- Petroleos Mexicanos’s crude production fell 2 percent last month, matching the smallest decline rate in more than two years in February as Latin America’s largest oil producer seeks to arrest slumping output.
Output at Pemex, as the company is known, dropped to 2.599 million barrels a day from 2.652 million barrels in the year- earlier period, Mexico’s National Hydrocarbons Commission said on its Web site in a report dated April 4.
- mcgowanjm
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2455
- Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00
Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility
by mcgowanjm » Sat 10 Apr 2010, 10:02:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WestTexas', ' ') As Pitt pointed out, the ELM basically asks a hypothetical question for a hypothetical country (consuming 50% of production at peak production): What happens to net oil exports if production declines at 5% and consumption increases at 2.5%?
The answer is that net exports go to zero in 9 years, and only about 10% of remaining production would be exported. In any case, I suggest that you check out the ELM versus real data in Mexico post that Kkebab did. Also, the UK went from peak exports to zero exports in about six years.
In regard to economics, my premise is, and was, that once net exports started declining, oil prices would rise, generating increasing income for the exporters, even as their net exports fall. This would tend to have the effect, in short term at least, of increasing domestic demand in exporting countries. This is precisely what we saw in 2006. For example, the top five showed a 1.3% decline in production, a 5.5% increase in consumption and a 3.3% reduction in net exports (EIA, Total Liquids from 2005 to 2006).
IMO, almost everyone (Matt Simmons being a notable exception) in the Peak Oil community has been focused on the wrong thing--total production--when what counts is net exports.
The answer is that net exports go to zero in 9 years, and only about 10% of remaining production would be exported. In any case, I suggest that you check out the ELM versus real data in Mexico post that Kkebab did. Also, the UK went from peak exports to zero exports in about six years.
In regard to economics, my premise is, and was, that once net exports started declining, oil prices would rise, generating increasing income for the exporters, even as their net exports fall. This would tend to have the effect, in short term at least, of increasing domestic demand in exporting countries. This is precisely what we saw in 2006. For example, the top five showed a 1.3% decline in production, a 5.5% increase in consumption and a 3.3% reduction in net exports (EIA, Total Liquids from 2005 to 2006).
IMO, almost everyone (Matt Simmons being a notable exception) in the Peak Oil community has been focused on the wrong thing--total production--when what counts is net exports.
- mcgowanjm
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2455
- Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00
Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility
by mcgowanjm » Sat 10 Apr 2010, 10:27:25
And while we're here, Jeff Vails, from March '09:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')oes this mean the Mexican state is finished? The current crack-down by the Mexican military and federal police is, I think, best seen as a last-ditch effort to save the state. But it is also evidence that, by the very existence of this pitched battle, the state retains enough viability to pose a threat, and therefore to be targeted.
In military theory, pitched battles are only consciously joined by both sides when both have an incentive to risk the main body of their force—-either because they think they can win a decisive victory or because they are running out of the political, logistical, or economic ability to sustain their army in the field and must seek a decisive action while they can.
Clearly the drug cartels smell blood—-and tactics like forcing the resignation of the Juarez police chief by killing one or more police officers every 48 hours demonstrate their desire for a decisive engagement. Additionally, the motivation behind a recent truce among rival drug cartels may be to facilitate a joint offensive against the government.
In my opinion, the Mexican government is seeking a pitched battle for the second reason—with their oil hedges only in place through 2009, and with oil production, remittance income, and tourism dollars poised to continue a sharp decline, the state may not have much more than a year of financial viability in which to cripple the drug cartels.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')oes this mean the Mexican state is finished? The current crack-down by the Mexican military and federal police is, I think, best seen as a last-ditch effort to save the state. But it is also evidence that, by the very existence of this pitched battle, the state retains enough viability to pose a threat, and therefore to be targeted.
In military theory, pitched battles are only consciously joined by both sides when both have an incentive to risk the main body of their force—-either because they think they can win a decisive victory or because they are running out of the political, logistical, or economic ability to sustain their army in the field and must seek a decisive action while they can.
Clearly the drug cartels smell blood—-and tactics like forcing the resignation of the Juarez police chief by killing one or more police officers every 48 hours demonstrate their desire for a decisive engagement. Additionally, the motivation behind a recent truce among rival drug cartels may be to facilitate a joint offensive against the government.
In my opinion, the Mexican government is seeking a pitched battle for the second reason—with their oil hedges only in place through 2009, and with oil production, remittance income, and tourism dollars poised to continue a sharp decline, the state may not have much more than a year of financial viability in which to cripple the drug cartels.
Supply their Citizens or Kill them, decisions, decisions...
- mcgowanjm
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2455
- Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00
