What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
by yesplease » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 21:14:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'Y')esplease,
It also occured to me your not taking into consideration the Rule of 72. For example, you state that in the 70's oil crisis the US system didn't collapse and demand shrank about 4% for 4 years.
No I didn't.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')he U.S. "system" used about 5-6% less oil per year for nearly four years, yet somehow we're all still here.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'T')his isn't the same as yearly production dropping by 6% each year for four years. If production drops by 6% each year for 4 years, would oil production would drop by about a third in four years, which is far different than demand dropping by 4% for a 4 year period.
That depends on your reference. For example the decline rates the IEA talks about, 6% per year, are based on the total of the previous year (as seen by the curve bottoming out), whereas I was using a static reference, ~19mbpd.
In other words, in terms of the IEA's metric for measuring decline, the U.S. was a wee bit under 6%/year, and assuming a static 6% of 19mbpd, the U.S. was a wee bit over 5%, so I just used 5-6% to cover both.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'T')his means demand for oil will have to drop with oil production, which means, demand for oil will also have to drop by a third in those 4 years - not a mere 4%.
Whoosawhatsa? Lets go back over the arithmetic. You said demand for oil would have to drop by a third over four years, but even at a 6% static rate, that's only a 24% drop over four years, not even a quarter, much less a third, and using the recursive definition the IEA uses, it's less than 24% compared to the maximal amount.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'T')he world has never had to deal with a 6% yearly drop in world oil production. I do not see how the world global economic system could withstand such a shock.
I doubt the world would have to deal w/ a 6% decline rate in terms of production that isn't brought on by simply using less, but even if it did, considering it's take a 4% decline rate over a few years well,I doubt it would be TEOTWAWKI. Would it be more painful? That's definitely a possibility, but the global economic system would almost certainly survive, albeit w/ the possibility for proportionally less activity.