Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Followup Guardian Article

A forum to either submit your own review of a book, video or audio interview, or to post reviews by others.

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby JustaGirl » Fri 13 Nov 2009, 16:45:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you knew me back in the early 2000s, you would have started to invest heavily in gold. By 2005 you'd have been aware of the impending housing crash. By 2006 you'd have known that the economy was about to crash. And, pray tell, what mechanism would have operated to provided you with such enriching information? Simply, I would have told you. Had you known me.


You were not the only person saying these things. Many people were predicting all these things to happen. Many whom do not believe in peak oil. I do not see your point.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')orse yet, the ASPO does not vociferously acknowledge that their information is, at best, a wild guess. Yes, that's right, a wild guess.



I couldn't disagree with you more there. What are you basing your prediction, that we are falling off a cliff right now, on? You must be privy to some information the ASPO isn't. I find that very suspect.

Anyway, if we are going off the cliff right now. I guess we will know within a year.
Only those who can see the invisible can do the impossible.
JustaGirl
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed 09 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Petoria

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Dr. Ofellati » Fri 13 Nov 2009, 17:12:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustaGirl', ' ')I do not see your point.

. . .
I couldn't disagree with you more there. What are you basing your prediction, that we are falling off a cliff right now, on? You must be privy to some information the ASPO isn't. I find that very suspect.

Anyway, if we are going off the cliff right now. I guess we will know within a year.


My point was that my track record over the last 4 years has been extremely good.

What do you disagree with? That the ASPO is making a wild guess and not admitting it?

What do I base my guess on? It's all over PO.com.
Dr. O
The Mos theorem - Those who do not reach my conclusions after having reviewed the evidence are either deniers, if they reject my conclusion, or conspiracy theorists, if I reject theirs.
User avatar
Dr. Ofellati
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu 22 Oct 2009, 12:26:37

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Velociryx » Fri 13 Nov 2009, 18:23:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat do I base my guess on? It's all over PO.com.


:lol:

Ahh yes...your one-stop shop for fair, balanced, and unbiased reporting. I mean, IT'S ON PO.COM....It MUST be true!

-=Vel=-

(that's EVEN BETTER than only getting your news from Fox!) ;)
User avatar
Velociryx
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu 25 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 13 Nov 2009, 18:33:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Velociryx', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat do I base my guess on? It's all over PO.com.


:lol:

Ahh yes...your one-stop shop for fair, balanced, and unbiased reporting. I mean, IT'S ON PO.COM....It MUST be true!

-=Vel=-

(that's EVEN BETTER than only getting your news from Fox!) ;)



http://peakoil.com/open/bold-predictions-t48365.html
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Dr. Ofellati » Fri 13 Nov 2009, 18:51:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Velociryx', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat do I base my guess on? It's all over PO.com.


:lol:

Ahh yes...your one-stop shop for fair, balanced, and unbiased reporting. I mean, IT'S ON PO.COM....It MUST be true!


I don't trust any single source for my news.

My reference to "it's all over po.com" was a reference to my postings, which enunciate my opinions, which answers the original question.
Dr. O
The Mos theorem - Those who do not reach my conclusions after having reviewed the evidence are either deniers, if they reject my conclusion, or conspiracy theorists, if I reject theirs.
User avatar
Dr. Ofellati
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu 22 Oct 2009, 12:26:37
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Velociryx » Fri 13 Nov 2009, 18:55:28

Heh! Some great reads in there, Ludi! :)

-=Vel=-
User avatar
Velociryx
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu 25 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Velociryx » Fri 13 Nov 2009, 18:57:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't trust any single source for my news.

My reference to "it's all over po.com" was a reference to my postings, which enunciate my opinions, which answers the original question.


Kudos for the former.

As to the latter...you don't have many more posts than I do, and neither of us are exactly "all over po.com" but that's splitting hairs. You say that's what you meant, and I shall accept it.

:)

-=Vel=-
User avatar
Velociryx
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu 25 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby JustaGirl » Fri 13 Nov 2009, 19:29:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dr. Ofellati', '
')
What do you disagree with? That the ASPO is making a wild guess and not admitting it?

What do I base my guess on? It's all over PO.com.


Yes I disagree that they are making a wild guess. The ASPO is filled with former geologists(Colin Campbell), engineers, etc. It's not just some whacko saying, Oh, I think Cantarell will decline 80% this year, and then it goes in their reports. They called 2008 for the peak of all liquids and it was so. In 2008 there was more liquids pumped out in total than the year 2005, making 2008 the peak year. That's a pretty good track record to me. Even theoildrum's megaprojects list suggests we might squeak out a few more years before falling off a cliff. Do you disagree with them as well?

No real reason to go back and forth, we both seem to agree in the future there will be less oil. No iffs, ands, or buts.
Only those who can see the invisible can do the impossible.
JustaGirl
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed 09 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Petoria
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 13 Nov 2009, 20:05:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Velociryx', '
')As to the latter...you don't have many more posts than I do



He's had previous incarnations, apparently. :|
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Dr. Ofellati » Sat 14 Nov 2009, 09:26:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustaGirl', '
')
Yes I disagree that they are making a wild guess. The ASPO is filled with former geologists(Colin Campbell), engineers, etc. It's not just some whacko saying, Oh, I think Cantarell will decline 80% this year, and then it goes in their reports. They called 2008 for the peak of all liquids and it was so. In 2008 there was more liquids pumped out in total than the year 2005, making 2008 the peak year. That's a pretty good track record to me. Even theoildrum's megaprojects list suggests we might squeak out a few more years before falling off a cliff. Do you disagree with them as well?

No real reason to go back and forth, we both seem to agree in the future there will be less oil. No iffs, ands, or buts.


Sure there's a reason to post more. Hundreds of people will read this thread, and some will be swayed - one way or another.

It's got nothing to do with Whacko.

Ask any ASPO member - who's the most important oil producer in the world?
They'll confidently tell you the KSA.
Then ask them - what percent of exports of the world are KSA exports?
They'll confidently tell you about 20-25%.
Then ask them if KSA production is critical to world oil prices.
They'll guffaw and tell you, "of course! Nothing is more true."

Then ask them to show you the technical reports that detail the production from each well head of Ghawar over the last 10 years. Ask them to show you the % water cut on each well head. Ask them to show you the seismic and other data that support the projected new oil field development for all of their public announcements.

They will look at you quite bemused, stammer a bet, and, if they're honest, acknowledge that they, alas, do not have the data you request.

Then ask them - well, how can you even begin to estimate overall production decline rate when you don't even know the figures for the most important producer in the world?

They may stumble and offer that the KSA, itself, is saying things are such and such.

Cut them off. Ask them why on earth would it be sensible to believe the KSA when the KSA has 100 solid reasons to lie through their teeth about what their oil production future holds. Here's one - as soon as it's clear to the 7 million or so young men in the Kingdom that the Kingdom's oil production is in steep and permanent decline, you are talking months, not years, until the revolution begins. The lies push the date of reckoning inside the Kingdom back, which is desired.

Think about that for a second. The KSA announces, "we're in 8% decline with no hope of improving that number." Within 12 months a revolution is underway.

Consequence for the world? Start of the MMS (Mad Max Scenario). 25% of exports can disappear like this -


SNAP


MMS in effect as oil goes through 200, trading is stopped in the U.S., and so on.

This is not a black swan event. The KSA doesn't have a large military for a very definite reason - without a large military, they are not at risk of a military junta. The U.S. can stop any invasion, if needed. The revolution in the KSA will happen, the only question is when.

So getting back to the good stuff . . .

The ASPO makes the critical mistake of believing that they have a reasonable number for the KSA. They don't. They're walking around blind in a dark room trying to tell you what color is on the walls based on the untrustworthy proclamations of a Saud family clinging to control of the country.

Given that the royal family has every reason, like the IEA, to lie about the near term and push conflagration as far into the future as possible, the best conclusion is that the ASPO estimates are wildly optimistic because they are based on the wildly optimistic lies of the KSA.

It's really quite simple.

The ASPO is warm pillow. I am a cold rock.

Who chooses a cold rock over a warm pillow?
Dr. O
The Mos theorem - Those who do not reach my conclusions after having reviewed the evidence are either deniers, if they reject my conclusion, or conspiracy theorists, if I reject theirs.
User avatar
Dr. Ofellati
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu 22 Oct 2009, 12:26:37
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby larlin » Sat 14 Nov 2009, 19:29:25

What I think you all miss is that this report as I read it at least is not meant to be a complete new analysis. They don't say that they know what will happen in KSA. All they do is to look at what the numbers that IEA have publish would mean. In this case they say that the production rates in the IEA report would translate into a higher depletion rate on new fields then on any old field produced to date. So all they do is to put the depletion rate into historical more correct values.

There argument for this is that the IEA should make a very strong argument about why it did this. This they don't instead they just put it in there and don't explain it in any way. So it all boils down to do you think new fields will have a radical higher depletion rate then old fields or not.

So this is a good evidence for bad science at work at the IEA. As the difference between what IEA suggests and the North Sea is about 5% or almost double it's makes a big difference.

There are some more points in the report but the one discussed above makes the big difference.

I may be biased due to being from Sweden. =)
User avatar
larlin
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat 05 Jan 2008, 04:00:00

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby JustaGirl » Sat 14 Nov 2009, 20:21:56

Mr O, really ASPO is the warm fuzzy pillow? Mr. Campbell's(founder of ASPO i'm sure you know?) has in the past very much been the hard rock. You can look up all his very pessimistic predictions and see for yourself, starting in 1989. So you still are making little sense. You know about as much, probably much less, about Saudi's situation as the ASPO. You sound exactly like Stuart Staniford in 2006, Saudi is going off a cliff RIGHT NOW. Well, no, not yet. :roll:

larlin - The ASPO does put out analysis of their own and it is pretty much the same as this report.
Only those who can see the invisible can do the impossible.
JustaGirl
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed 09 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Petoria

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Dr. Ofellati » Sat 14 Nov 2009, 21:42:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustaGirl', 'M')r O,

Um, excuse me, it's Dr. O. I didn't go to pretend Internet medical school for 4 years to be called "Mr.".


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')really ASPO is the warm fuzzy pillow?

Yes. It's where you lay your head every night.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')r. Campbell's(founder of ASPO i'm sure you know?) has in the past very much been the hard rock. You can look up all his very pessimistic predictions and see for yourself, starting in 1989. So you still are making little sense.

My sense makes perfect.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou know about as much, probably much less, about Saudi's situation as the ASPO.

To the crux then? and into the breach once again my dear?
This is entirely the point.
I know as much about the KSA as ASPO, but, unlike the ASPO, I acknowledge that I have very little workable data from which to project future production.
The ASPO, by its very nature, is obliged to provide estimates. Saying, "we don't know because the KSA is so opaque, so we can't make any meaningful predictions," would obviate the organization.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou sound exactly like Stuart Staniford in 2006, Saudi is going off a cliff RIGHT NOW. Well, no, not yet. :roll:
Except, in 2006, I wasn't saying that. :) I'm saying it now.
In 2006 I was saying that peak was just passed or was imminent and I was busy buying long contracts.

Since 2006, BTW, at three important warnings have been seen.

1. OPEC in general, and the KSA in particular, did not substantially raise production as prices spiked over 2 years to 145.

2. KSA oil production had been 9-9.5 for four years leading up to the summer 2008 145 high. It had been fairly level over this period. It DID NOT increase above about 9.5 during the run up. Immediately after the run up, KSA production dropped a dramatic 1.5mbd and has flat lined around that level.

3. Exports to the U.S. dropped in 09 to many decade lows.

I could throw in the Yemeni "rebel" issue, but that's still developing. The more you hear about Yemeni Shia, the more it means that the KSA has shot its load.

The big question is, why didn't KSA production increase as prices went 8 fold, and why did it quickly drop almost 20% after the price reached peak and started falling?

What does the ASPO say about that?

What Dr. O says is that 1 and 2 for sure, and likely 3 as well, all support the thought that the KSA was pumping full bore and just barely hanging on during the run up in 08, and, as soon as prices started coming down in the fall of 08, and the pressure to pump was off, they gratefully shut down tenuous production.

Pretty easy, really.

So you're telling me the ASPO is saying 70mbd by 2030?

That really means business as usual for two more decades. Sure, price will go up, but not uncontrollably. The poor countries will just get none, and we'll pay 2 or 3 times the amount here in the west, but it will still be plenty of oil.

If the ASPO is really saying 70 in 2030, then they are cornucopians.
Dr. O
The Mos theorem - Those who do not reach my conclusions after having reviewed the evidence are either deniers, if they reject my conclusion, or conspiracy theorists, if I reject theirs.
User avatar
Dr. Ofellati
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu 22 Oct 2009, 12:26:37
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby JustaGirl » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 00:39:17

OK Dr O :-D

Do you not see, how with ever frantic prediction that does not come true, you lessen the peak oil message? This is why places like the oil drum, have talked about not even referring to peak oil and finding a new name, because too many bad predictions in the past have dampened the peak oil movement and a lot of J6p's now think it's just a lot of chicken little's.

75 mbd ALL liquids, something around 50 mdb oil, iirc. The US is doing something in the ballpark to that right now, <5 mbd oil but over 8 mbd liquids. I do not see the ASPO prediction as being impossible, only the IEA's. But I'm not making any predictions either. I'm just here for the ride.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat really means business as usual for two more decades. Sure, price will go up, but not uncontrollably. The poor countries will just get none, and we'll pay 2 or 3 times the amount here in the west, but it will still be plenty of oil.


Surely you jest? BAU with the US paying 3x the price? I think not. That would most likely cause a severe depression., unless you think a severe depression is BAU :roll: If your only viewpoints are Mad Max OR BAU, the future is sure to disappoint you.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he big question is, why didn't KSA production increase as prices went 8 fold, and why did it quickly drop almost 20% after the price reached peak and started falling?


The most simple answer is it is much harder & takes longer to bring production online then to idle it. The KSA has probably peaked, I will give you that, but that is much different than saying they will fall off a cliff witih severe declines RIGHT NOW.
Only those who can see the invisible can do the impossible.
JustaGirl
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed 09 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Petoria
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Dr. Ofellati » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 08:53:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustaGirl', '
')Do you not see, how with ever frantic prediction that does not come true, you lessen the peak oil message?

If you yell across the field to an empty space, are you sending a message?
There is no Peak Oil "message." We are not the Climate Change Cult. The forces arrayed against Peak Oil ever being in the public discussion are too numerous to overcome (right wing idiots, left wing techtopians, corporate interests, oil interests).
But I do agree with your general principle that having lots of missed calls makes future calls seem less veritable.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is why places like the oil drum, have talked about not even referring to peak oil and finding a new name, because too many bad predictions in the past have dampened the peak oil movement and a lot of J6p's now think it's just a lot of chicken little's.

the Joe six packs, and their wives the Sally Stupids, are never going to get it. When production is reduced by a quarter, they'll still be stuffing double cheezeburgers in their fat faces wondering why gas costs 15 bucks a gallon.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '7')5 mbd ALL liquids, something around 50 mdb oil, iirc.

I don't know what iirc is.
OK, so 75mbd total liquids. At TOD, some minority voices often point out that the total liquid number is a flawed number because it includes double dips like tar sands and ethanol.
In any case, a drop of only about 20% in the next 20 years is cornucopian.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')urely you jest? BAU with the US paying 3x the price? I think not.

We disagree. If we have 20 years and total liquids drop only 1% a year, then it's essentially BAU with no hard shocks to the system. 20 years from now everybody is driving 60 or 70 MPG little death boxes or scooters, like the one I own, and the net effect of 3 fold prices is mitigated. Sure, most will be poorer, house thermostats will be set on 55 in the winter, and trips to that sh-thole disney world will drop, as well as air travel, but it won't be endless bread lines and 50% unemployment.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Just A Girl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dr. O', 'T')he big question is, why didn't KSA production increase as prices went 8 fold, and why did it quickly drop almost 20% after the price reached peak and started falling?


The most simple answer is it is much harder & takes longer to bring production online then to idle it. The KSA has probably peaked, I will give you that, but that is much different than saying they will fall off a cliff witih severe declines RIGHT NOW.

It's not the simplest answer, it's the head-in-the-sand cornucopian answer.
As late as 2002 oil was at about 20 bucks a barrel. By 2007, we were pushing over 60 bucks a barrel and rising, which was the first significant rise in oil in 20 years.

The KSA has claimed for a long time that they have millions of barrels of spare production capacity.

Yet, in the several year run-up to mid 08 highs, they produced no more than they had for several years.

That does not compute.

Unless you believed that they simply didn't want to make several multiples of their profit, then you have to believe that they were unable to produce more.

If they were unable to produce more given a several year run up in price, then they clearly don't have any spare capacity that can be produced within a several year time frame.

If they don't have any spare capacity, then they were pumping full bore during the run up, which is what you'd expect with profits so abnormally sky high.

If they were pumping full bore during the run up, then the sudden drop of 1.5 a day makes perfect sense. It's like riding a horse full speed to get away from wolves, and then when it's clear that the wolves are out of range, you back off the heels and let the horse jog instead of sprint.

If you want to maintain the cornucopian fantasy that the KSA has plenty of oil to give, then you must answer, with a reasonable answer, the question:

Why over a several year span when prices were going through the roof did the KSA fail to increase production?


If your answer is, "they couldn't turn on production that quickly," then you are acknowledging that the KSA has been blatantly lying about the reserve capacity for quite a few years. Clearly, reserve capacity that can't be turned on over a three year period is not reserve capacity at all - it's future hoped-for capacity. That alone makes every pronouncement they've made about future production untrustworthy.

The only other options I can think of that explain the KSA failure to produce more are:

1. Conspiracy of traders to drive up price included KSA complicity.
2. KSA decided to keep oil in ground for future generations for the first time ever. :P (see Syriana)

My scenario is an 8-10% a year drop in crude production. "total liquids" are going to be irrelevant.
If the drop is occurring right now (say started within last 4 months), then you are looking at 50% production in 7-10 years.

That means that gasoline won't be available to most Americans by 2020.

That's MMS.
Dr. O
The Mos theorem - Those who do not reach my conclusions after having reviewed the evidence are either deniers, if they reject my conclusion, or conspiracy theorists, if I reject theirs.
User avatar
Dr. Ofellati
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu 22 Oct 2009, 12:26:37
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Velociryx » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 12:35:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is no Peak Oil "message." We are not the Climate Change Cult. The forces arrayed against Peak Oil ever being in the public discussion are too numerous to overcome (right wing idiots, left wing techtopians, corporate interests, oil interests).

But I do agree with your general principle that having lots of missed calls makes future calls seem less veritable.


Oh, come now, doc, you sell yourself short!

No, you're nowhere near as mainstream as the climate change cult, and you prolly won't be in your lifetime, but don't pretend you don't have a message! That's just not fair to your fellow doomers!

I do agree with that last bit though...after a few score failed predictions by the August Elders of the PO Cult, yes...it gets a mite silly, and increasingly difficult to take you even the least bit seriously. But...if we get creative, we can find ways to blame all the failed predictions of the Elders on those vast, conspiratorial forces arrayed against you. ;)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he Joe six packs, and their wives the Sally Stupids


is this the new "sheeple"? The term we use to make ourselves feel better at our superiority and secret knowledge that the world's about to end? (I'm just updating my PO Lingo, and am making notes!)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't know what iirc is.


Internet Lingo = If I Recall Correctly.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n any case, a drop of only about 20% in the next 20 years is cornucopian.


And the population of the US is going to be a mere 22.6 million by 1999 (per the imminent neo-Malthusian, Paul Erlich). Oh wait...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's not the simplest answer, it's the head-in-the-sand cornucopian answer...etc.

Of course, it is possible that the Saudis remember what happened the last time they tried to cash in on artifically high prices. Sure, make big bucks for six months, and then suffer ten years with oil at ten bucks a barrel.

That's a losing proposition and they know it.

Sounds like they were being fairly prudent, but that's just me. :)

-=Vel=-
User avatar
Velociryx
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu 25 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 16:16:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dr. Ofellati', 'I')f you want to maintain the cornucopian fantasy that the KSA has plenty of oil to give, then you must answer, with a reasonable answer, the question:

Why over a several year span when prices were going through the roof did the KSA fail to increase production?

I keep pointing this out to you, and you keep ignoring it. How convenient. :roll:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dr. Ofellati', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')Except that . . . they did. From 8.5 million bpd to over 9.5 million bpd


Oh tut-tut! Shame on you.

Any fool, including me, can see that production already was 9.5 million when the run up began in 06, or even earlier. They actually produced less for the first part of the run and then only got back to prior levels at the height of the run.

Stop needing it so much OF.

The price run-up stalled in mid-2006 to early-2007 . . . which, not so coincidentally, is about the same time period Saudi oil production stalled. Then when the price started going back up in early 2007, Saudi production soon followed suit.

Image
LINK

Image

Amazing - even the Saudis respond to price signals! :shock:
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: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 16:27:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dr. Ofellati', 'T')hat does not compute.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe - just maybe - they've never had sufficient customers to pump out 10 million bpd or whatever it is you think they should pump out?

Think about it: Price goes up, people don't want to pay the extra price, so they slow down their demand. With demand low, there is a relative lack of customers for the (over-priced) product. With a lack of additional customers it makes no sense to produce additional product, even if it would be nice to reap the extra $$ from the additional production.
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: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Dr. Ofellati » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 19:51:08

V and OF - play with each other instead of yourselves for a nice change. 8)
Dr. O
The Mos theorem - Those who do not reach my conclusions after having reviewed the evidence are either deniers, if they reject my conclusion, or conspiracy theorists, if I reject theirs.
User avatar
Dr. Ofellati
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu 22 Oct 2009, 12:26:37

PreviousNext

Return to Book/Media Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests