Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Reason Magazine: nationalization of resources

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

Reason Magazine: nationalization of resources

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Tue 17 Jul 2007, 14:59:32

It's not that there's not enough oil in the ground, or so says Ronald Bailey, one member of Reason Magazine's editorial cadre, but rather that supply is being restricted by the current trend towards nationalization of resources. And he goes on to suggest that if we only outlast those damn, dirty ay-rabs, the market for oil oil will likely bottom out, forcing nations to once again beg for private investment in oil infrastructure.

I'm not as hopeful, especially since USGS reserve estimates are still mentioned as if they were gospel. It's clear they are not. This TITLE is quite nice, though. :-D
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]The End of Cheap Oil? The new cycle of resource nationalism is bad news by Ronald Bailey | July 17, 2007:
Crude oil prices rose above $74 per barrel this week and Goldman Sachs warned that the world could be facing $95 per barrel oil by this fall. Later this week the National Petroleum Council (NPC), which advises the Secretary of the Department of Energy, will release a new report which will find that conventional oil and gas supplies are not likely to keep up with growing global demand over the next 25 years. Of course, supply and demand must balance, so what the Journal is telling us is that the NPC thinks high oil prices are here to stay.

... Has the peak of world oil production arrived? The IEA report says probably not. The IEA notes that "the concept of peak oil production and its timing are emotive subjects which raise intense debate." Nevertheless, the IEA acknowledges that its new five-year forecast suggests that non-OPEC production "appears, for now, to have reached an effective plateau, rather than a peak."

... The resurgence of resource nationalism bears a good bit of the responsibility for the glum oil supply projections-what I've previously called "political peak oil." Seventy-seven percent of world oil reserves are owned by national oil companies. Unfortunately, national oil companies are located in technologically backward countries without access to world-class production expertise and adequate supplies of capital. As the IEA diplomatically puts it, "Often political and social spending needs grow to the point where oil exploration and development investment is compromised, in turn reducing oil and gas exports." And this is happening. Major oil producers such as Venezuela, Mexico, Russia, and Iran are using oil revenues to bribe their people and not investing enough to maintain future oil production.
...
The IEA report notes that the world has once before experienced a political boom/bust cycle in oil production. The previous bout of resource nationalism in the 1970s spawned high oil prices which, in turn, reduced demand and encouraged exploration for new supplies. Eventually, reduced demand and increased supplies combined to dramatically lower prices and which then cut the revenues flowing to oil state regimes. And the cycle continued as cash-strapped oil state regimes in the 1980s anxiously sought to boost their flagging revenues by inviting international oil companies to come back. The good news is that market forces eventually bring oil nationalists to heel. The bad news is that the process is far from pleasant for the world's economy. ... Reason article
Emphasis mine above. Enjoy that bit of "good news," especially if you're one to believe that the future always reflects the past trends.
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas

Re: Reason Magazine: "Political Peak Oil"

Unread postby Bas » Tue 17 Jul 2007, 19:40:53

these guys are way behind the curve though I like the term "political peak oil" but more for describing the oil crises of the seventies. Also pretty lame that they mention the EIA and USGS estimates of world reserves but not the doubts about OPEC's reserves. A very superficial article, especially for a magazine with a name as pretentious as "reason".
Bas
 

Re: Reason Magazine: "Political Peak Oil"

Unread postby pea-jay » Wed 18 Jul 2007, 03:38:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', 't')hese guys are way behind the curve though I like the term "political peak oil" but more for describing the oil crises of the seventies. Also pretty lame that they mention the EIA and USGS estimates of world reserves but not the doubts about OPEC's reserves. A very superficial article, especially for a magazine with a name as pretentious as "reason".


They're a bunch of libertarians that believe too highly in the free market solution to virtually everything. The market will provide...

Evidence will of course prove them wrong
UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
User avatar
pea-jay
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Sat 17 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: NorCal

Re: Reason Magazine: "Political Peak Oil"

Unread postby MacG » Wed 18 Jul 2007, 04:52:39

<double post - deleted>
Last edited by MacG on Wed 18 Jul 2007, 04:57:41, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MacG
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Reason Magazine: "Political Peak Oil"

Unread postby MacG » Wed 18 Jul 2007, 04:55:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pea-jay', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', 't')hese guys are way behind the curve though I like the term "political peak oil" but more for describing the oil crises of the seventies. Also pretty lame that they mention the EIA and USGS estimates of world reserves but not the doubts about OPEC's reserves. A very superficial article, especially for a magazine with a name as pretentious as "reason".


They're a bunch of libertarians that believe too highly in the free market solution to virtually everything. The market will provide...

Evidence will of course prove them wrong


Spot on! They are a bit of 'closet libertarians' though, at least compared to the Von Mises crowd.

I have a question for all those people who claim that "The Market" will provide:

You use to claim that depletion is not a problem since "The Market" will provide. Some of you say things like "the stone age did not end for lack of stones".

Well, what's the difference between 'political' and geological depletion then? Does "The Market" make a difference depending on WHY oil and gas become restricted? If you people are correct, "The Market" should provide independent of the reason for limited supply. Eh?

Maybe "The Market" is some kind of divine entity which punish mankind as a whole if someone somewhere engage in 'political' depletion?
User avatar
MacG
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Reason Magazine: "Political Peak Oil"

Unread postby Doly » Wed 18 Jul 2007, 06:28:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '
')I have a question for all those people who claim that "The Market" will provide.


I have another question: let's assume an inelastic demand and an inelastic supply. What do the usual supply and demand curves show you?

OK, if you have trouble interpreting graphs I will tell you: volatile high prices. Which is exactly what is happening with oil. Now, can any of the free marketeers explain exactly why this is the best of all possible things that could happen? Wouldn't it be better if price signals remained steady so that people would find it easier to decide what to do? Wouldn't it be even better if price signals went back into time, giving people enough time to deal with the problem, before it's too late?

I mean, it's fairly obvious that the market is not the best of all imaginable systems.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Reason Magazine: "Political Peak Oil"

Unread postby Bas » Wed 18 Jul 2007, 08:57:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '
')I have a question for all those people who claim that "The Market" will provide.


I have another question: let's assume an inelastic demand and an inelastic supply. What do the usual supply and demand curves show you?

OK, if you have trouble interpreting graphs I will tell you: volatile high prices. Which is exactly what is happening with oil. Now, can any of the free marketeers explain exactly why this is the best of all possible things that could happen? Wouldn't it be better if price signals remained steady so that people would find it easier to decide what to do? Wouldn't it be even better if price signals went back into time, giving people enough time to deal with the problem, before it's too late?

I mean, it's fairly obvious that the market is not the best of all imaginable systems.


I don't think we have any Thomas "Stoneage" Friedmans posting here (though they might be lurking)

Indeed though, free markets may be the most efficient in relatively stable times but they can be particularly good at destroying stuff and bringing chaos when they do fail, especially when financial market regulations haven't kept up with the times like the case is now and like it was in the twenties. Markets don't think ahead, they inspire shortsighted greed. Hence I expect a resurgence of keynesian economic thinking and government regulation after black xDay. We'll always need markets for efficient trading though, even if it was only a farmer's market.
Bas
 
Top

Re: Reason Magazine: "Political Peak Oil"

Unread postby SpasticDancer » Wed 18 Jul 2007, 23:27:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'W')ouldn't it be better if price signals remained steady so that people would find it easier to decide what to do?

If you force price signals to remain steady, then you are forcing the price signals to be wrong. The decisions people make based on those signals may then be easier, but they almost certainly won't be better.

If there is a sudden tightening of supply, for instance, and prices aren't allowed to reflect that, then the behavior of producers and consumers will also not reflect it. Producers will not ramp up production or divert supplies from other areas, and consumers will not decrease their consumption levels or switch to substitutes.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'W')ouldn't it be even better if price signals went back into time, giving people enough time to deal with the problem, before it's too late?

Imperfect information does create inefficiencies in a free market system. But keep in mind it also creates much much greater inefficiencies in planned economies, which lack the freedom and fluidity to make corrections as soon as the symptoms of mistaken assumptions appear.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'I') mean, it's fairly obvious that the market is not the best of all imaginable systems.

I can also imagine cars that fly and advancements in medical technology that lets me live for a thousand years. That doesn't mean these are things we can have in the real world. :P

I suppose that's rather beside the point though. The main problem with taking freedom out of markets (or, gods forbid, prohibiting markets altogether) is that it is unjust. If one attempts to forcibly interfere with two people who wish to honestly trade with one another, then one is behaving unethically.
User avatar
SpasticDancer
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu 20 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: OR, USA
Top

Re: Reason Magazine: "Political Peak Oil"

Unread postby 128shot » Wed 18 Jul 2007, 23:46:50

On the flip side, the market, if it was more pure, would make BS auto regulation on small time auto companies able to compete with new and innovative products that the Big companies refuse to produce.

Take the electric car for instance. It would have been a big way for Utility companies and car companies to merge interests about 17 years ago, yet Auto Companies and oil companies decided to step up their lobbying in Washington and California's state capital.
User avatar
128shot
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed 18 Jan 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Reason Magazine: "Political Peak Oil"

Unread postby cube » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 04:08:47

In all fairness lets give this guy credit for at least getting one thing right:
"Seventy-seven percent of world oil reserves are owned by national oil companies."

Unfortunately even MOST Americans do NOT know this. Every time the price of gasoline goes up 50 cents a gallon the restless masses cook up conspiracy theories of Exxon, Shell, and Chevron getting together in a "closed door meeting" to rig the market.

It is truly sad to admit that even this guy (whose is so far off base on many accounts) actually knows more then the average Joe. :roll:
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Reason Magazine: "Political Peak Oil"

Unread postby ClassicSpiderman » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 08:03:58

As the spare capacity dwindles more and more, the talking heads give their own pet theories as to why the supply of oil is being disrupted. But politics, technology and geological constraints have always existed, it was simply easier to pay the cost of doing business on the left side of the curve.

Jerome Corsi blames the oil companies for not embracing the ridiculous abiotic theory and continue drilling for the really really deep oil. Methinks he fails to understand the concept of low-hanging fruit.

Republicans like to blame gasoline taxes.

Democrats like to blame "big oil".

Libertarians (like this guy) blame socialism in the third world.

I see nothing wrong with a free market system to distribute oil resources--the current price for oil is $79 a barrel and that is a fair price, in fact, I agree with Matt Simmons that it should be much higher than that.
User avatar
ClassicSpiderman
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu 16 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Calgary

Re: Reason Magazine: "Political Peak Oil"

Unread postby advancedatheist » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 11:42:37

Two observations:

1. Apart from a few cranks, nobody complained too loudly when favorable geology allowed state-owned oil companies like Pemex and Aramco to deliver the goods. Now that their respective geological conditions have gone bad, ideologues like Bailey blame state ownership for their problems, when private oil companies faced with similar situations couldn't turn things around any way (as we've seen in the North Sea).

2. Back when the Soviet Union existed to annoy Western capitalists, I remember hearing stories about how the tiny private plots allowed to Soviet collective farmers produced a disproportionate amount of the country's fresh produce, eggs and dairy products, at least enough to compensate for the underperformance of the state-owned farms and keep a lid on social unrest about the crappy food supply. Why hasn't private ownership of the minority of the world's remaining oil reserves produced a similar abundance?
"There was a time before reason and science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on <I>Stargate SG-1</i>.
User avatar
advancedatheist
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu 10 Mar 2005, 04:00:00


Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron