Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby John_A » Tue 30 Jul 2013, 09:16:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Beery1', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '.')..Regardless of which side of the fence one sits today that fence didn't even exist for most folks just 10 years ago.


That makes me feel pretty good about the fact that I was conversing via email with Colin Campbell back in the 1990s.



Now there is someone who ought to be posting in this thread! He went from peak oil in 1989 to no peak oil problem, there will be peak demand in about 20 years. Not quite a complete reversal but close. Maybe you could email him and ask if he can post his thoughts here to explain why the big change?
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby John_A » Tue 30 Jul 2013, 09:18:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', ' ')Some of the very best drilling engineers I've work with today have never heard the term "peak oil".


What do drilling engineers know about resource depletion? Have a resource scarcity question, ask a resource economist.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby ralfy » Tue 30 Jul 2013, 16:23:55

I would look at peak oil in '79 rather than in '89 given oil production per capita:

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com.au/ ... k-oil.html
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby Alcassin » Tue 13 Aug 2013, 19:51:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alcassin', ' ')It was 2007, and the conclusion I learnt then is still the same:
Earth is finite.


Your narrative, one that many here can perhaps identify with, is exactly the one that I was years ago (somewhat naively) predicting would have the power to persuade a movement. But it hasn't. Which then led me to the conclusion that we need the catalyst of consequences to jump start this.


We will not create a movement, movements are not growing from the observers' rooms or scientific laboratories, they do not begin on an internet board full of intellectuals. Movements start with a sparking idea which moves hearts of the masses who have to feel that the message is inspiring to their actions. There wasn't even one successful movement which has grown out of the darkest visions, early Christianity had to change and Mormons had to change. Doom can be inspiring for a short time but when the prediction doesn't deliver, then it is not sexy anymore. Doom preachers have to adapt or become neophytes like Carlhole.

We are not going to mitigate anything with a plan or a movement. People are irrational in their decision-making, and emotions are really overruling the crucial decisions we make, our brains rationalize. Apparently we cannot process information without feeling and be homo oeconomicus - calculating machines. Without sexy idea which can create additional emotional value while covering the second goal society will not change. The ideas in Europe of "how the society should look like" is slowly shifting to "greener" approach, that's all. So-called First World at least stopped adding to our diversified genotype another mutations, that's also a good part.

I do not think that the message of global warming is in comprehension of an average Joe, and I don't think peak oil or resource shortages will ever be. There will be some witch-hunting, some rationalizations en masse. Great depression in Germany was blamed on France and Jews, not on the economic regime during that time, Bolshevist Russia was born from blaming Tzar and failings of Kierenski's government for losses and exhaustion, not on the generals, logistics, technology and low morale of common soldiers. People need clear understanding of what is good and what is wrong, and when Paris Hilton and other trendsetters will commute by bus and make it an appealing idea then it would make much better impact on society than us building any kind of political movement.

Peak oil emotionally doesn't have good news to sell, it's thought-provoking, intellectually satisfying topic for nerds, geeks and intellectuals looking for some fresh idea. To be honest, it's not enough to win one seat in a communal elections. We don't grasp hot topics - such as fighting unemployment, recovery of middle class, building big things, successes of our entrepreneurs, killing terrorists, competing with China, and the way people should have sex. The message is not 3G (god, gays, guns), and solutions we can propose may have different means. We're not talking about things that are sexy. The last thing people talk on average is "depletion of natural resources", and they won't ever be. If you can talk about environment with your spouse then you should feel really lucky. World is not a story of H.G. Wells, people are ignorant on many topics unless they feel it. Without emotional attachment no idea is good enough, and interest in things is near zero.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')eal mitigation at this point is more about collective will than anything else so this question remains dominant in my mind.


Real mitigation should be 1) real 2) well-timed. That's the problem of all movements built on predictions, if it is well-timed and your response didn't yield expected results, then there is no hope for you. And if it wasn't well-timed, then people will hang you. I can't bet that my solutions will provide good results, and sincerely I'm not a prophet to say "when" with a certainty that a priest has in his belief in invisible beings.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') rational society free of the ideological memes of progress at all costs would want to fix this with the same will that a city invests in sewage treatment plants or the way a corporation streamlines its profitability.


Yes, but it must be appealing, apparently Scandinavians made bike-riding sexy, wind-turbines super-sexy and buses are at least considered to be important. Commuting is fun and healthy and people believe that their behaviour helps their ideas. They are psychically rewarded. Biking and being in shape is cool, sports are very good and trust in people is high enough to provide some space for this kind of thinking. Americans, as I see them, are rather much more individualistic but also prone (as we are all) to manipulation and imitation. If you can show average people having fun of planting trees then it is better marketing than a bunch of intellectuals looking awkward (like druids or cast-aways) working towards ecological success. Show them girls wearing Nike sneakers and handsome guys with sporty outfit recycling stuff and you will faster acquire the goal.

Society will never be free of ideological memes, and for the last several generations we have adopted to the notion of infinite growth as panacea to everything. We are quite good at burning things as our way out, so we will go the pattern that proved so much success. There is no such thing as rational society.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')rigger points. What will they be?


It will be grindy, and there will be no one trigger point. We are at the upper part of the ladder, Africa, Asia and South America are first to feel it. We also have different potentials. US has giant resource base comparing to Europe and with Canada in north it can only be compared to Russia.

The economic crisis is going on in the First World and this may spark few new ideas, but for now it is still more of the same. The ideological spectrum is always opened. One my professors once wrote after studying French Revolution and other uprisings that the society first has to have an intellectual class which doesn't support status quo and the ideas have to be deeply rooted, but the outburst comes at the first occasion when the worst passed. Right now, due to Internet we may experience rather funny consequences as everyone now can be preacher... Revolution with Alex Jones or Glenn Beck alikes would be just hilarious to watch from the other side of the ocean, of course.

Ideas must be appealing, funny, wanted, rewarding, making sense and easy to follow. What we have discussed on this board so far were these: increasing death rate, resource extraction and depletion, overpopulation, emissions of GG and waste coming from one source - mediocrity of our ape brains. There is nothing funny, wanted or rewarding in increasing death rate or talking overpopulation unless you're Pol Pot, and people generally don't like to be compared to other animals, especially when we talk about shortcomings.

@godq3:
I was talking about the huge production drop in Poland after fall of SU, it was huge, and rearrangement of the economy still has victims. Maybe it was just unclear, but it is true that for the last 21 years we had growth of GDP year to year.
Peak oil is only an indication and a premise of limits to growth on a finite planet.
Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
User avatar
Alcassin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed 20 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Poland
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby John_A » Tue 13 Aug 2013, 20:41:16

Certainly the front news page of po.com had a good changing of the views by someone of note.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this guy saying everything that those back in 2005 who didn't fall for peak oilness were saying back then?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10093

To wit:

1) Peak hasn't happened as claimed.
2) Oilfinder2 was right and his buddies have been finding way more of the stuff than Colin Campbell ever suspected was left (otherwise known as "the USGS was right back in 2000" angle).
3) The resource pyramid really is a pyramid, and the more you pay the more you can get.
4) Growth in reserves because of the extraordinary efforts, and profit available at higher prices, has been coming, is still coming, and there is more coming in the future to offset decline.

All of this begs the question of course, how long can we wait before starting this up all over again? Peak in 2015? 2020? Or worse yet, 2037 just as the EIA predicted?
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby ROCKMAN » Tue 13 Aug 2013, 22:42:20

John - you make an excellent case for why I've tried to beat down on the focus on PO timing and volumes in recent times. What matters isn't if global peak happened in 2005 or not until 2035. What's really important isn't if we're increasing oil production or not. What meaningfully affects each and everyone of us is the cost (and thus access to) energy. Two situations have developed in the US in the last few years: oil production has increased and oil prices have risen to an all time high yearly price. What would be better for every US consumer (except for the Rickman and his cohorts): this duality or 3 million bopd less US oil production and oil at $40/bbl? US energy independence and $40/bbl oil is a wonderful wet dream. But it's still a dream. Time for some folks to wake up and smell the expensive coffee. LOL.

Which is why I push the POD conversation. "PO" is so 2005ish. Time to get over it and move on to what's really important. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby ralfy » Tue 13 Aug 2013, 23:11:21

I think everyone was too late, as oil production per capita peaked back in 1979:

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201 ... k-oil.html

The IEA states in its 2010 report that conventional oil production took place in 2005, and in order to deal with that and global warming the following have to take place:

1. Oil demand increase must be cut to 0.7 pct a year (from 2 pct a year for the last few decades) through high prices and government intervention.

2. Make sure that oil producers maximize production, even if it means reaching the maximum depletion rate and fully utilizing URR at all costs. Hopefully, the high prices will lead to that.

3. Governments must engage in stronger intervention and cooperate and coordinate with each other to make sure that more renewable energy is utilized to make up for the drop in oil demand. At the same time, lower oil consumption and greater use of renewable energy will not allow carbon emissions to continue rising, thus allowing the world to avoid the effects of global warming.

Thus, the IEA argued that energy production from all oil and gas sources worldwide will not peak by 2037 only if these conditions are met. Most mistakenly thought that the IEA forecast will take place easily and automatically, or that more reserves discovered will automatically translate to higher production rates.

The reality is that oil consumption has been rising and not falling even with more renewable energy use. That is because we are in a global capitalist economy driven by competition, with much of manufacturing and food production heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Even components for renewable energy require oil, especially petrochemicals. There is also a large and growing global middle class that is spending on more goods and services. More important, governments rely on more spending and consumption to earn more revenues. Forcing economies to cut down on oil use works against them. Most important, banks and other financial institutions, benefit primarily through increased production and consumption of goods and services, as that is the ultimate source of returns on investment. In which case, a drop in oil consumption works against them as well.

Second, oil producers do not normally reach the maximum depletion rate or exhaust much of resources. More important, high prices do not necessarily lead to significant increases in production, as seen in the last decade, as we are forced to use unconventional production even with a tripling of prices. Worse, higher oil prices increases the costs of many other things, including food, and that works against not just consumers and manufacturers (even of renewable energy) but even oil producers.

Finally, governments for many decades have not been able to cooperate or coordinate with each other, preferring instead to engage in trade agreements which require more extraction of resources or more production of goods and services, if not use military forces for economic or strategic advantages.

With that, one should expect for the long term more of what has been happening the last few years: high oil prices contributing to high food prices and in general higher costs for various goods and services, these worsened by the effects of floods, droughts, and heat waves, continued carbon emission increases as resource consumption worldwide grows even with higher prices, as various needs (such as food and medicine, not to mention fresh water) need to be met, the consequences of higher prices on economies, which include more social unrest, austerity measures, and unemployment, and more conflict resulting from these crises.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby John_A » Wed 14 Aug 2013, 00:39:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'J')ohn - you make an excellent case for why I've tried to beat down on the focus on PO timing and volumes in recent times.


As best I can tell, an astute position. Unfortunate for those who bought in early without really understanding the issues involved, their lack of experience in even petroleum geology 101 came back to bite them but good. Adios muchachos.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-tic ... its-doors/

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rockman', '
')What matters isn't if global peak happened in 2005 or not until 2035. What's really important isn't if we're increasing oil production or not. What meaningfully affects each and everyone of us is the cost (and thus access to) energy. Two situations have developed in the US in the last few years: oil production has increased and oil prices have risen to an all time high yearly price.


Sure, but for some reason it hasn't been near as traumatic as the highest prices in 2008, nor the oil crisis where people actually took away our gasoline and wouldn't let us have it. Now we can have it, if we want it, it just costs more than it once did.

A reasonable result I suppose, once someone understands how the resource pyramid works.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rockman', '
') What would be better for every US consumer (except for the Rickman and his cohorts): this duality or 3 million bopd less US oil production and oil at $40/bbl?


Consumers mostly go for less expensive. But ask yourself this, what is better, cheaper gasoline, or paying less for the gasoline you use to do the same things you normally do? Given a choice between driving 10,000 miles a year on $2/gal gasoline at 10mpg and driving the same miles on $4/gal gasoline at 30 mpg, the answer is, give me expensive gasoline and better fuel mileage! Just depends on perspective I guess, and it is somewhat unfortunate that prices can't stay high enough, for long enough (including this year of highest average price) to cause the wholesale driving habit s change America needs so badly.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rockman', '
') US energy independence and $40/bbl oil is a wonderful wet dream. But it's still a dream. Time for some folks to wake up and smell the expensive coffee. LOL.


Absolutely. Obviously some have, but $100/bbl can't even get Americans to kick the habit. And what with how your industry is revving up new production, we probably aren't going to get the $200/bbl we really need.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby AirlinePilot » Wed 14 Aug 2013, 01:00:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'A')bsolutely. Obviously some have, but $100/bbl can't even get Americans to kick the habit. And what with how your industry is revving up new production, we probably aren't going to get the $200/bbl we really need.


I think that the jury is still out on this. Surely with oil above 125$ there IS a limit for economic growth. 200$/bbl??
I doubt we see that too, but given any number of geopolitical Black Swans and I daresay that it just might be possible for that to happen. We need to get down the road a piece to really grasp what decline will be and how that plays out before we rule out 200$ Oil.

Think back not too long ago and acknowledge what folks thought about 100$+/bbl oil!
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby peripato » Wed 14 Aug 2013, 03:45:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'A')bsolutely. Obviously some have, but $100/bbl can't even get Americans to kick the habit. And what with how your industry is revving up new production, we probably aren't going to get the $200/bbl we really need.


I think that the jury is still out on this. Surely with oil above 125$ there IS a limit for economic growth. 200$/bbl??
I doubt we see that too, but given any number of geopolitical Black Swans and I daresay that it just might be possible for that to happen. We need to get down the road a piece to really grasp what decline will be and how that plays out before we rule out 200$ Oil.

Think back not too long ago and acknowledge what folks thought about 100$+/bbl oil!

I think $100 or so nowadays is a deal-breaker for the world economy. Look at all the growth revisions to the downside in Europe, the US, Australia, China etc this past year, all in the face of $100 oil.
"Don’t panic, Wall St. is safe!"
User avatar
peripato
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Tue 03 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Reality
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby MD » Wed 14 Aug 2013, 04:26:05

My views on the topic have changed hardly a bit in five years. I studied the topic in depth for the two and half years prior to January 2008 when a barely noticed comment from Saudi Arabia confirmed my conclusions.

Since then I have sitting back watching it spin.

:)
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4953
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: On the ball
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby Graeme » Wed 14 Aug 2013, 05:54:24

Good topic. I like this summary.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby John_A » Wed 14 Aug 2013, 10:00:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') Think back not too long ago and acknowledge what folks thought about 100$+/bbl oil!


When the experts doing oil reserve and project reports were predicting $100 oil in 1979, or do you mean the more recent times when it actually happened?
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby John_A » Wed 14 Aug 2013, 10:09:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'G')ood topic. I like this summary.


Suspect source, Richard's honorarium income to sell a meme certainly might be taking a hit in light of industry efforts and accompanying volumetric success. It might be very difficult for Richard to understand when his income depends on him not understanding.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby ralfy » Wed 14 Aug 2013, 15:40:53

This should help:

"Peak oil isn’t dead; it just smells that way"

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/pe ... at-way/963

Also, oil production per capita:

"Peak oil? What peak oil?"

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201 ... k-oil.html
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby John_A » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 11:48:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'T')his should help:

"Peak oil isn’t dead; it just smells that way"

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/pe ... at-way/963

Also, oil production per capita:

"Peak oil? What peak oil?"

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201 ... k-oil.html


So what do those links have to do with changing views on peak oil over the past 5 years? Did either of those websites even exist 5 years ago to have an opinion back when it was supposed to be happening?
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby ralfy » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 14:31:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'T')his should help:

"Peak oil isn’t dead; it just smells that way"

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/pe ... at-way/963

Also, oil production per capita:

"Peak oil? What peak oil?"

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201 ... k-oil.html


So what do those links have to do with changing views on peak oil over the past 5 years? Did either of those websites even exist 5 years ago to have an opinion back when it was supposed to be happening?


They put into question several claims that you make here:

changing-views-about-peak-oil-over-the-last-5-years-t68526-40.html#p1158158

Also, points about the IEA forecast are addressed here:

changing-views-about-peak-oil-over-the-last-5-years-t68526-40.html#p1158170
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby John_A » Thu 15 Aug 2013, 16:32:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')So what do those links have to do with changing views on peak oil over the past 5 years? Did either of those websites even exist 5 years ago to have an opinion back when it was supposed to be happening?


They put into question several claims that you make here:


Cool. But you using the viewpoints of others to try and refute the reality contained in mine isn't the topic. Where these other sites even around 5 years ago to have their own changing view? Or you yours?
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby ralfy » Fri 16 Aug 2013, 00:09:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
Cool. But you using the viewpoints of others to try and refute the reality contained in mine isn't the topic. Where these other sites even around 5 years ago to have their own changing view? Or you yours?


What, you're going to claim that your viewpoints are original and are yours? :roll:

As I explained to you in my previous message, the links counter the points you raised earlier. Since you replied "cool" and offer no other reply, then you implicitly acknowledge them. Thus, peak oil not only happened as claimed, on a per capita basis it happened decades ago.

The point about "finding new stuff" is right and "growth in reserves", but the problem is production rate, something that for some reason you cannot or will not understand. Read the first link for details.

The third point makes absolutely no sense at all given producers resorting to unconventional production.

Finally, I will stop here because these points were explained to you many times in various threads. You ended up abandoning each discussion and then repeating the same wrong points in new threads.

With that, I don't think views about peak oil change, except by those who gave extreme views on both sides (i.e., either the price exceeding $200 or plummeting to $20 a barrel), changed. Put simply, we've seen a tripling of prices and more reliance on unconventional production. But that's not just the only point to consider. You will find more in the "cool" links I shared earlier.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Postby ralfy » Fri 16 Aug 2013, 00:26:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
As best I can tell, an astute position. Unfortunate for those who bought in early without really understanding the issues involved, their lack of experience in even petroleum geology 101 came back to bite them but good. Adios muchachos.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-tic ... its-doors/



The actual reason for the closure is given here:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10095

And given high oil prices and other problems remaining, "adios muchachos" will mean something else.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Sure, but for some reason it hasn't been near as traumatic as the highest prices in 2008, nor the oil crisis where people actually took away our gasoline and wouldn't let us have it. Now we can have it, if we want it, it just costs more than it once did.

A reasonable result I suppose, once someone understands how the resource pyramid works.


The 2008 high prices were likely driven by financial speculation. Some argued that that was the only reason why oil prices went up (and not peak oil). And yet oil prices remain high. and the same are taking its toll on the global economy. Reasons can be found here:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... ned-future

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Consumers mostly go for less expensive. But ask yourself this, what is better, cheaper gasoline, or paying less for the gasoline you use to do the same things you normally do? Given a choice between driving 10,000 miles a year on $2/gal gasoline at 10mpg and driving the same miles on $4/gal gasoline at 30 mpg, the answer is, give me expensive gasoline and better fuel mileage! Just depends on perspective I guess, and it is somewhat unfortunate that prices can't stay high enough, for long enough (including this year of highest average price) to cause the wholesale driving habit s change America needs so badly.



High oil prices increases the prices of various goods and services, including food, as much of manufacturing and food production worldwide are heavily dependent on the use of oil. Even various components used in renewable energy are dependent on oil, not to mention a global JIT system with large volumes of goods sent via cargo ships, trucks, etc.

Also, better mileage doesn't lower consumption as the oil that is not used is sold to others who will use them. This is due to the fact that the global population has a very high demand for various resources.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rockman', '
') US energy independence and $40/bbl oil is a wonderful wet dream. But it's still a dream. Time for some folks to wake up and smell the expensive coffee. LOL.


Absolutely. Obviously some have, but $100/bbl can't even get Americans to kick the habit. And what with how your industry is revving up new production, we probably aren't going to get the $200/bbl we really need.[/quote]

The U.S. economy is heavily dependent on consumer spending, esp. given 70 pct of the work force in the service industry, and the presence of a reserve currency. The only way for the U.S. to continue operating is not to "kick the habit" but to maintain, if not increase, consumption, which is already high.

And $200 is definitely something that we don't need, given oil needed for much of manufacturing and food production worldwide.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 223 guests