[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xyricolev', 'B')ecause....supply is only half the equation?

[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('meemoe_uk', 'O')ne of my favorite writers at WUWT, Willis Eschenbach has written a piece on peak oil. It's nice to read that he's got pretty much the same criticism I have about non \ conventional oil. Every year oil technology improves, so previous years conventions are gradually replaced in the industry. So this idea of drawing a line in the sand to say what constitutes conventional and non-con is meaningless when weighing up peak oil.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/02/c ... more-78653

[Xyricolev]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xyricolev', 'B')ecause....supply is only half the equation?

Seriously, if you have to ask the question, you prolly ought not be participating in the discussion.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xyricolev', '
')Price is determined by the interaction of supply (one half of the equation) and demand

[Xyricolev]

prices are higher because there is a new demand floor...that is to say that despite the demand destruction that has occured in recent years, there are also populous, new players demanding more and more oil.

What this does is that it creates a situation where supply has (obviously) increased, and demand has increased (yes...demand may have dropped during the recession in the west, but China is essentially a command economy with trappings of capitalism laid over the top of it - as such, it was somewhat less sensitive to the market movements that drive the west).

The real irony here is that I SHOULD BE a natural ally for the "doomers."

I'm an avid conservationalist (of the hippie stripe, not the doomer stripe). I absolutley agree with the eventuality of peak oil (a finite resource, if used at ANY level will, as a natural course, be consumed).

The ONLY thing I don't subscribe to is the apolacyptic scenarios that are part of what it means to be a "doomer."

For that reason, I'm branded a "cornie" and obviously an enemy. And that's cool. Bring it.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xyricolev', 'p')rices are higher because there is a new demand floor

[Xyricolev]

No, no, no! Supply and demand acting together determine price. Supply has increased. That's how/why there's a new record high production.

Demand has ALSO increased. Even as demand recovers in western economies, post recession, demand has been growing relentlessly on account of China and India (thus redrawing the demand line and establishing a new baseline for demand).

Any time oil is SOLD (at any price) there will be those who cannot afford oil at that price. What you're describing there (when you say, "in other words, people cannot afford oil" is a function of oil being sold vs. given away. Pick any price point. There will be some who can't afford it. That's not new, or even news. Why even bring it up?

when you say "people don't get what they demand, they get what they can afford to pay" you miss the point.

It's not called the supply and what people can afford to pay curve, right?

It's called the supply and demand curve. Supply increases when more (insert stuff name here) is mined or produced. Demand increases when people demand more stuff (given that the stuff is being SOLD, it is understood that only those that can afford it will actually receive it...that's kinda the point, right?)

And yes. Total production has broken (another) new record. That means that supply has increased (kinda by definition, right?)

As to the rest...if you're blind to the two major poles that make up the debate, I'm sorry that I lack the patience to help further. You'll either get there or you won't I guess.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xyricolev', ' ') Supply has increased. That's how/why there's a new record high production.

[Xyricolev]

Never mind, dormlin...you're right. Supply hasn't increased at all. It's a lie. an illusion brought to you by the big oil/big gubmint global conspiracy cabal.

global demand is down, but the supply has fallen further, and that's why prices are higher.

we're doomed.

that's what you want to hear, is it not?

Look...the best data we've got available says that production's higher than it ever has been.

The only way that price can POSSIBLY increase is if demand increases faster. that's how the market WORKS (econ 101).

You seem to have an issue not so much with me, but with the way markets function. Not sure there's a fix for that. What about the above do you not understand, exactly?

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xyricolev', ' ')Supply hasn't increased at all. It's a lie. an illusion brought to you by the big oil/big gubmint global conspiracy cabal.

[Xyricolev]

D, in your universe, what's causing price to increase? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so you tell me.

Why is price up?

And yes...indirectly, it seems you did reference a conspiracy. If you disagree that production is up (breaking a new record), or even if you agree, but ascribe it to "burning food" then the only way the data can be published and globally accepted is if there's collusion on a global scale (ie, a conspiracy of some fashion)...but again...I don't want to put words in your mouth...if that's not what you meant to imply, by all means...explain away!

[Xyricolev]

PS: I assume by "burning food" you mean ethanol production.

2012 ethanol production (total) was 82.5B liters (converting to barrels that's just over half a million barrels of oil for the year...43m barrels per month and change...in the context of global barrels of oil per year, that's a barely visible sliver, and certainly insufficient to explain the increase we see between 2011 and 2012, but...meh.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xyricolev', 'I') just don't see a zombie apocalypse at the end, and for that, I must be branded "teh enemy!!!" right? cos that's what your programming dictates, don't it?

The ONLY thing I don't subscribe to is the apolacyptic scenarios that are part of what it means to be a "doomer."

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Xyricolev', 'P')S: I assume by "burning food" you mean ethanol production.

2012 ethanol production (total) was 82.5B liters (converting to barrels that's just over half a million barrels of oil for the year...43m barrels per month and change...in the context of global barrels of oil per year, that's a barely visible sliver, and certainly insufficient to explain the increase we see between 2011 and 2012, but...meh.

[Xyricolev]

@Kubli - thanks for posting that, and yes...I was here in the 2005-2008 timeframe...as the post you referenced pointed out, that absolutely shaded my thinking.

If it has genuinely changed, then kudos to all who have had a hand in making that happen! I'm not sure I understand how the "slow crash" paradigm differs from fast crash (except that obviously it happens in slow motion, by comparison), but if your endpoint is fundamentally the same (just taking longer to get there), I can't really say that's "better" just...different.

Still, more than willing to look and listen.

As I said before, I SHOULD BE a natural ally to the doom crowd. Conservation is hugely important to me, as are sustainable, resilient communities (local, sustainable power generation, locally sourced food and manufacturing, etc)....those are big things for me. And as I've said before...I'm on board with the idea that if you have a limited amount of a thing, and you use it (at any rate), the day's gonna come when the limited resource isn't there any more (I'm not really sure who would disagree with this, but maybe some fruitcake somewhere would...I don't pretend to know).

Where I seem to differ from the doomers (or peakers, or whatever they're calling themselves these days) is in what that MEANS in terms of life in the world.

Again, kudos to you guys for moving away from the zombie apocalypse...depending on what you're moving TOWARD, we might not be all that far apart.

re: ethanol...I basically agree. Not great policy, however...dormlin was trying to say that the reason for the record production this year was because we're "burning food."

Based on the difference between total production last year and this, and comparing that to the piddling total production of ethanol (*the food that is being burned), the math does not support the contention...of course, I expect he'll be along shortly to tell me I'm lying, but...there ya go.

[Xyricolev]

actually...been reading that thread...it would seem (to me) that opinions are about evenly divided based on the comments there...sure, there are more voices of moderation than there WERE (and your'e one of those...thank you for that!), but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the fast crashers are dead and gone...at least based on that thread, they're not.