Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Have you been watching oil prices?

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

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby JohnDenver » Fri 27 Mar 2009, 19:56:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', 'M')y point was simply that oil IS GDP.

You countered with - "GDP has other components other than oil."

No, please pay attention. I countered by pointing out cases where oil consumption declined/stagnated, and GDP increased. There are lots of them. Here's another good example, Germany (Sources: BP Stat. Rev. 2008 for oil consumption, IMF for real GDP):

Image

Image

Clearly it is not the case that OIL=GDP because GDP can increase (and frequently has increased) while OIL is decreasing. If OIL=GDP, as you claim, it would be impossible for the German economy to grow while decreasing oil production. However, the Germany economy did just that. Therefore you are flat wrong. OIL≠GDP.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby TheAntiDoomer » Fri 27 Mar 2009, 22:06:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'C')ome on Enya! Really! Oh excuse me. I mean Come on JD. :lol: We've been through this a thousand times.

We export our energy demand to China etc. and import GDP. It has something to do with Empire I believe?


Like the massive German Empire that exist now? :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D Danke! ROTFLMAO
"The human ability to innovate out of a jam is profound.That’s why Darwin will always be right, and Malthus will always be wrong.” -K.R. Sridhar


Do I make you Corny? :)

"expect 8$ gas on 08/08/08" - Prognosticator
User avatar
TheAntiDoomer
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby copious.abundance » Fri 27 Mar 2009, 22:11:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'C')ome on Enya! Really! Oh excuse me. I mean Come on JD. :lol: We've been through this a thousand times.

We export our energy demand to China etc. and import GDP. It has something to do with Empire I believe?

"We" are Germany?

You mean to tell me all those BMW's, Mercedes and Audis are actually made in China?

:roll:
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby JohnDenver » Fri 27 Mar 2009, 22:18:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'C')ome on Enya! Really! Oh excuse me. I mean Come on JD. :lol: We've been through this a thousand times.

We export our energy demand to China etc. and import GDP.


World GDP still grows, without increasing oil consumption/production, and there's no place for the world to export it's oil demand. So your explanation fails.

As I pointed out above, from 1979 to 1989 there was zero net growth in world oil consumption:

1979 64381kbd
1980 61841
1981 59911
1982 58193
1983 57920
1984 59145
1985 59391
1986 61147
1987 62439
1988 64238
1989 65588

The world consumed far less than a plateau condition at 64000kbd. Nevertheless, the world real GDP continued to grow, without missing a beat.

The same point is evident on The Dude's graph. No net growth in oil production for 20 years (1979 to 1998), but real GDP continued to grow:
Image
Clearly, the world could have plateaued at 64mbd for 20 years, and world real GDP still would have grown from 17$Tn to 27$Tn because, in reality, it grew that much with far less oil than a plateau at 64mbd.

This shows that growth in oil production is not necessary for economic growth. It also shows that your point about exporting oil demand is incorrect. The world can't export its oil demand.

A better explanation for growth in GDP without growth in oil is increased efficiency, and growth based on other sources of energy like natural gas and coal. As I said, oil is nice to have, but not essential. The world economy grew for centuries before oil was even discovered.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby JohnDenver » Fri 27 Mar 2009, 22:34:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', 'E')nd of the day, this is what is . . .

OIL=GDP.

As oil production declines, so to will "the GDP derived from oil". Do you prefer that phrasing?

If your counter is that "we can substitute other energy supplies for oil, thereby raising GDP" then I'd say you are incorrect, but that is another argument, and time will show that you incorrect.


Note that "time will show that you are incorrect" is nothing but an opinion, a naked assertion supported by no evidence whatsoever. Where's your proof that "we cannot substitute other energy for oil and raise GDP", Schmuto? You can't expect people to simply take your word for it, especially since common sense suggests that you very much can use other forms of energy to grow GDP.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby Schmuto » Sat 28 Mar 2009, 09:07:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', 'E')nd of the day, this is what is . . .

OIL=GDP.

As oil production declines, so to will "the GDP derived from oil". Do you prefer that phrasing?

If your counter is that "we can substitute other energy supplies for oil, thereby raising GDP" then I'd say you are incorrect, but that is another argument, and time will show that you incorrect.


Note that "time will show that you are incorrect" is nothing but an opinion, a naked assertion supported by no evidence whatsoever. Where's your proof that "we cannot substitute other energy for oil and raise GDP", Schmuto? You can't expect people to simply take your word for it, especially since common sense suggests that you very much can use other forms of energy to grow GDP.


Well, JD, if your contention that my prediction for the future is an opinion, then I agree, and you win today's
badge of obviousness:
:idea:

I really have no interest in arguing with you JD - your entire mindset is based on a failing presumption. You are like an Israeli who must cling to the sorry proposition that they have done nothing to bring their misery on themselves, lest they admit they are in the wrong.

You think, what? Oil will peak in 30 years and we'll all be driving solar powered cars?

Right?

I have no interest in a back and forth with somebody who is starting from that quicksand-based position.


But I'll offer this to our readers:
What JD is trying to do is to cherry pick short sections of time where oil consumption was flat and GDP was increasing in order to rejoin my thesis.

What's obviously wrong with that is that GDP does not react instantaneously to any inputs, and particularly not oil. For example, printing money, lowering loan rates, and pumping the economy all have the short term effect of showing a rise in GDP - but that is illusory. The short term pop in GDP must come back down, like it is now, and like it always will. Because energy creates GDP, not bankers. And oil is the meat and bones of energy.

The Dude's graph shows the relationship perfectly.

Energy is life.

Oil is GDP. As Oil is removed from the economy, GDP is removed from the economy. It's as simple as that.

JD and other cornucrapians will try to tell you that we can substitute with coal and this and that.

Of course, that begs the basic question - why haven't we done so already? Why be dependent on something produced by "evil" people? Why not just use coal, instead (we have a 7,000 year supply after all)?

The answer is, of course, that oil is the Cadillac of energy, and other sources fall far short of oil's versatility.

We don't use coal instead of oil because using coal wouldn't be as efficient - that is, would reduce GDP relative to oil.

But, as I said, time will tell.

When we look back in 20 years the drop off in GDP will completely track the drop off in oil consumption.

My best estimate is that oil production in 20 years will be about 25% of what it is now, and I expect world GDP to be down about 75%.

The best part of all of this is that when that happens, or some close approximation, JD will be going on about, despite the correlation, there was some other reason for the drop in GDP.

Why do you even post here?

You're like a beef fanatic posting on a vegan site. Why not just go find some beef site?
Schmuto
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 17 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby mos6507 » Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:03:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', '
')Oil breached 60 when? In 05/06?

The economy has done pretty lousy since then.


It didn't get really lousy untilt he credit crisis hit about a year later.
mos6507
 
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby mos6507 » Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:12:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', '
')The question here is . . .

Evidence . . .
Worst economic news in 3 decades.
High current U.S. stockpile report.
Oil up substantially.


Geology was not the only factor in the runup of oil to $147. Speculation was part of it. Oil is a commodity market. The price does not reflect supply and demand exactly. When speculators cashed out, the price dropped below levels they should have been. So on that basis alone you could say that the rise has been a settling back towards a price less colored by speculation.
mos6507
 
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby mos6507 » Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:13:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')chmuto you will never convince Mos344 of peak oil. It can't happen here. After all, daddy wouldn't allow it. 8)


You don't have to believe peak oil doom is going to happen tomorrow to believe in peak oil. Hubbert didn't even "call" peak in his lifetime.
mos6507
 
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby JohnDenver » Sat 28 Mar 2009, 21:10:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', 'E')nergy is life.

Oil is GDP.


This is the essence of your error, and the primary reason why PO doomers like you will be proven sorely wrong in the long run.
The correct equation is Energy=GDP, not Oil=GDP. Of course, you desperately want the latter to be true so you try to pawn off the fraudulent equality Oil=Energy, but sorry, that just doesn't hold water. Here's the short version that completely cooks your argument in two easy pictures:

US electricity production by source:
Image

World electricity production by source:
Image

Kinda hard to find the oil in those pictures, idn't it? Clearly Oil≠Energy, and while there are likely to be some fairly difficult transport/lifestyle adjustments, oil poses very little threat to the electric grid, and the grid's future growth potential is excellent. Grid parity is quickly approaching, and in 30 years the world is going to be literally carpeted with CSP and PV solar. Nuclear will also be huge.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')D and other cornucrapians will try to tell you that we can substitute with coal and this and that.

Of course, that begs the basic question - why haven't we done so already? Why be dependent on something produced by "evil" people? Why not just use coal, instead (we have a 7,000 year supply after all)?


The US hasn't used the alternatives because oil has been extremely cheap. China has been growing at a breakneck clip on coal power for decades

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he answer is, of course, that oil is the Cadillac of energy, and other sources fall far short of oil's versatility.


No, oil is not the Cadillac of energy. Electricity is the Cadillac of energy. It comes from a very diverse range of sources. It's far more versatile than oil, and much cleaner and more efficient. That's why people are willing to pay a premium for it. You can drive for 2 cents a mile in an EV, while it costs 15 cents a mile in the average ICE fartmobile.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y best estimate is that oil production in 20 years will be about 25% of what it is now, and I expect world GDP to be down about 75%.

The best part of all of this is that when that happens,


That forecast has about as much credibility as the ass you pulled it out of. :lol: You're just an anonymous twit named "Schmuto" on a B-grade internet chatroom. Here's what the PO real experts say...

Jean Laherrere in 2006:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') have access to several technical databases.
Liquids production will significantly decline after a likely bumpy plateau 2010-2020 and likely chaotic oil prices.
30 years from now, production of easy oil will be 35% less than to day but production of all liquids (including from coal and biomass) only 5% less than to day.Link

According to the latest ASPO newsletter, Colin Campbell is forecasting liquids production at roughly 70% of today's level in 2030.

Not an insurmountable problem considering that a massive effort to electrify cars, trucks and scooters is already underway. Vehicles powered by NG, biogas and gassified coal will also play a large role.

(Think about it folks: Who are you gonna believe? "Schmuto"? Or the two most respected geologists in peak oil?)
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby Schmuto » Sun 29 Mar 2009, 11:40:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JD', '
')No, oil is not the Cadillac of energy. Electricity is the Cadillac of energy.


For anybody who's made it this far in the thread, the above quote should let you know that Mr. Cornucopian is completely clueless..

Electricity is not an energy source. Electricity is a mechanism by which we transmit energy.

Electrical systems vary in their efficiency, but you're typically looking at about a 50% reduction in energy from what is burned at the power plant to what is used by the end user.

Anybody who tries to tell you that "electricity" is the Cadillac of energy is suspect.

Electricity is a crappy, inefficient, and expensive way to transport energy.
Schmuto
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 17 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby bencole » Sun 29 Mar 2009, 12:31:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', '
')
Electrical systems vary in their efficiency, but you're typically looking at about a 50% reduction in energy from what is burned at the power plant to what is used by the end user.
.


50% is an ideal case. If we are talking about the conversion factor of thermal to electrical power, losses can be as high as 70%.
bencole
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Thu 26 Feb 2009, 03:29:52
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby Schmuto » Sun 29 Mar 2009, 20:05:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', '
')
Electrical systems vary in their efficiency, but you're typically looking at about a 50% reduction in energy from what is burned at the power plant to what is used by the end user.
.


50% is an ideal case. If we are talking about the conversion factor of thermal to electrical power, losses can be as high as 70%.


Thank you for the correction.

Those who point to coal as the solution to the liquid fuel problem that is about to bury us, I ask only this:

Why is it that with oil at 145 a barrel, nobody was talking about coal as an alternative?

Answer - because substituting coal, through electrical or syncrude, is not competitive at 145 a barrel.

Extrapolate - when we get to the point where we're relying on coal to power vehicles, we're into the 200+ $ per equivalent barrel of oil range.

That range is economic death.
Schmuto
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 17 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby Voice_du_More » Sun 29 Mar 2009, 20:50:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', 'E')nergy is life.

Oil is GDP.


This is the essence of your error, and the primary reason why PO doomers like you will be proven sorely wrong in the long run.
The correct equation is Energy=GDP, not Oil=GDP.


Energy is EROEI and nothing get us to the place cheap oil had us, nothing, not no way, not no how. That is physics 101 intro to intro to thermodynamics. You do not need 30% declines in GDP to bring the world to it's knees. Peak oil is only one of the issues but it is absolutely going to bring modern society to a grinding halt. Help me understand how you are going to get 20 million barrels per day of gassified oil to market at less than $300 per barrel? There are no sustained growth prospects. This discussion has been had so much here I guess I am only responding out of schock that it is still being argued by some folks. There is no energy solution that replaces 50:1 EROEI as $1 (1980) money at 80 million barrels/day, it just does not work out. That means the global economy has hit a wall it cannot get over and it must contract as it is beginning to do already.
User avatar
Voice_du_More
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby Schmuto » Mon 30 Mar 2009, 07:24:07

Like I said - JD has his reasons for being here - not one of them is interesting to me.

He'll argue that PO has not happened or is not impacting society all the way to the point where he is walking along next to us and our draft horses yelling about how diesel is available if we simple used the solar-coal-to diesel method.
Schmuto
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 17 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby TheAntiDoomer » Mon 30 Mar 2009, 08:48:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JD', '
')No, oil is not the Cadillac of energy. Electricity is the Cadillac of energy.


For anybody who's made it this far in the thread, the above quote should let you know that Mr. Cornucopian is completely clueless..

Electricity is not an energy source. Electricity is a mechanism by which we transmit energy.

Electrical systems vary in their efficiency, but you're typically looking at about a 50% reduction in energy from what is burned at the power plant to what is used by the end user.

Anybody who tries to tell you that "electricity" is the Cadillac of energy is suspect.

Electricity is a crappy, inefficient, and expensive way to transport energy.


Schmucko, did you even read JD's post, he never said electricity is a energy source.
"The human ability to innovate out of a jam is profound.That’s why Darwin will always be right, and Malthus will always be wrong.” -K.R. Sridhar


Do I make you Corny? :)

"expect 8$ gas on 08/08/08" - Prognosticator
User avatar
TheAntiDoomer
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby lowem » Thu 02 Apr 2009, 10:38:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'A')ccording to the latest ASPO newsletter, Colin Campbell is forecasting liquids production at roughly 70% of today's level in 2030.


Ah, haven't been following ASPO newsletters for a while.
My bad. I should sign up for the regular subscriptions.

Apparently they have set all-liquids peak to 2008 since around June 2008.
Live quotes - oil/gold/silver
User avatar
lowem
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1901
Joined: Mon 19 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Singapore
Top

Re: Have you been watching oil prices?

Postby lowem » Thu 02 Apr 2009, 10:40:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', 'E')lectricity is not an energy source. Electricity is a mechanism by which we transmit energy.


Whatever happened to quads?
The old-timers had always been talking about quads.
Live quotes - oil/gold/silver
User avatar
lowem
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1901
Joined: Mon 19 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Singapore
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests