OPEC Is “Studying” a Proposal for Emergency Meeting

43 Comments on "OPEC Is “Studying” a Proposal for Emergency Meeting"

Makati1 on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 8:34 am 



More diversion for the sheeple. Everyone is pumping all out to pay the bills and will only stop when the wells reach a losing EROEI.

The oil is being sold somewhere. The idea of thousands of tankers sitting full, off the coasts, is a laugh. As is the idea that hundreds of millions of barrels in storage tanks that didn’t exist before the price drop last year.

Am I wrong, short?

BobInget on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 10:11 am 



When “OPEC” is mentioned as a cohesive unit
that’s false. OPEC is as divided as it’s two main
members, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

The Saudi won’t permit any ’emergency’ meeting. OPEC is ‘dead man walking’.

Russian winters won’t permit pipeline diminution.
Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador, US gas and oil, Canadian oil and gas, Nigeria, others, all on the ropes just as demand increases force production
ever higher.

How much more ‘collateral damage’ can the industry sustain before OPEC simply self destructs?

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 10:29 am 



As is the idea that hundreds of millions of barrels in storage tanks that didn’t exist before the price drop last year.

Of course your wrong Mak.Where do you think the glut goes. It is unsold oil. Cushing in Oklahoma went from 18 million barrels to over 400 million the last I read. There is some fear that storage will run out. Google it for an update. This is happening globally. The price of oil didn’t go down because there was a shortage.

Kenz300 on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 10:49 am 



As more production from Iran comes online…….. there is talk about cuts in production….. not likely

The more we diversify away from fossil fuels the better it will be for the planet and for economies….

Electric vehicles, biofuels, hybrid vehicles and bicycles are growing in use every day.

Climate Change is already having an impact…..

shortonoil on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 11:56 am 



“The price of oil didn’t go down because there was a shortage.”

“Between 1960 and 2009 world production grew by 2.51% per year, and no glut appeared. Between 2010 and 2014 it grew by 1.31% per year, and the market is swamped. Now where exactly is all that new growth in oil production, and why isn’t the economy using it? Historically the market is not over supplied, historically it is under supplied. Still, inventories refuse to go down. Oil is now down 55% in price from its all time high, and inventories are still growing.”

The price of oil went down in spite of a shortage. World production growth is the slowest that it has been in a century. With prices down 55% demand should be exploding, it’s not:

[i]”Production is falling (US production down 1.4% EIA), inventories are building (up 7.6 mb API), and the price is down 55% from the January 2014 high. If production is falling, and inventories are growing how do you get that there is an increase in demand?”[/i]

Some people have a propensity to ignore the facts when their favorite personal beliefs are jeopardized. Seems to be what is happening here!

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 12:19 pm 



short,
When economies grow large and mature it takes a lot more growth to equal the same percentage of growth. if you have a dollar and grow 1% you have $1.01. If you have $10 and grow 1% you have $1.10.
You know this. One sided posts may fool some but not me.

[i]”Production is falling (US production down 1.4% EIA), inventories are building (up 7.6 mb API), and the price is down 55% from the January 2014 high. If production is falling, and inventories are growing how do you get that there is an increase in demand?”[/i]

Production is not falling. It is being replaced by foreign oil.Look at the uptick in consumption in the US and around the world.
You know this also. Why you play games with the numbers is the question.

apneaman on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 12:51 pm 



No one can fool the boater with his PVC pipe factory advanced mathematical skills. Boat you are so far out of your league….

Dunning–Kruger effect

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. The bias was first experimentally observed by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University in 1999. Dunning and Kruger attributed the bias to the metacognitive inability of the unskilled to evaluate their own ability level accurately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Davy on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 1:08 pm 



Ape Man, to be fair to the PVC master shouldn’t all of us be in that boat with Boat. We are all generally middle age asswipes that think we are much smarter than we are. That does not even count off the chart asswiping material like the Marmi that inhabit the lower regions of our human character.

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 1:37 pm 



apeman.
What short feeds you doesn’t take smart to disprove. Very simple charts show economic world growth. Very simple charts show world oil production growth. Very simple charts show oil consumption growth. Very simple to read charts show world wide storage capacity at all time highs. What is there not to understand.

shortonoil on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 1:39 pm 



“Production is not falling. It is being replaced by foreign oil.Look at the uptick in consumption in the US and around the world.
You know this also. Why you play games with the numbers is the question.”

Russia, Venezuela, China, Nigeria, US, North Sea, and almost every major field in the world has either peaked, or is in decline. What are you talking about?

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 1:50 pm 



short

do you ignore these charts?

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm

apneaman on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 2:04 pm 



Boat I do not share your faith in EIA methods.

How changing the definition of oil has deceived both policymakers and the public.

“But because natural gas plant liquids production has been growing rather rapidly due to recent intensive drilling for natural gas and because those liquids are misleadingly lumped in with oil supplies, people have been mistakenly given the impression that world oil production continues to grow. Not true! What’s growing is a category called “total liquids” which encompasses oil, natural gas plant liquids, biofuels and some other minor fuels. Total liquids are growing only because of large gains in natural gas plant liquids and minor gains in biofuels. And, this is why it is so important to understand what natural gas plant liquids are.

But first, an important question. Why do government and industry officials, oil analysts, and energy reporters equate total liquids and total oil supply? They claim that these other liquids are essentially interchangeable with oil. (I will discuss some of the not-so-savory motives behind this claim later.) In a recent report the U.S. Energy Information Administration put it this way: “The term ‘liquid fuels’ encompasses petroleum and petroleum products and close substitutes, including crude oil, lease condensate, natural gas plant liquids, biofuels, coal-to-liquids, gas-to-liquids, and refinery processing gains.” Let’s see why the “close substitutes” assumption is demonstrably false when it comes to most natural gas plant liquids and decidedly disingenuous when it comes to biofuels.”

http://resourceinsights.blogspot.ca/2012/07/how-changing-definition-of-oil-has.html

Or their projections

EIA Cuts Recoverable California Shale Estimates By 96%

“The agency now says there are just 600 million barrels of recoverable crude — as much as Bolivia. Previously the agency had said there were up to 13.7 billion recoverable barrels.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/eia-monterey-shale-2014-5

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 2:06 pm 



short, In regards to oil storage

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/03/05/oil_market_update_the_world_is_running_out_of_places_to_store_all_of_its.html

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 2:19 pm 



apeman, You are right to a point. But more oil is being stored now than ever. That points to a major oil glut for what ever reason. Global economies continue to rise on average.
There are thousands of conditions that affect oil. Glut and low prices are common in all commodities. I don’t have an agenda.I would like to see higher oil prices. But that wouldn’t change the facts on the ground so to speak.

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 2:29 pm 



apeman,
you like this chart better?

https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/

apneaman on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 2:40 pm 



Depletion affects oil and all non renewable resources. It also affects renewable resources. A study of dead civilizations reveals a pattern.

Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0R09YzyuCI

Here is another depletion guy with a compelling argument.

http://www.economic-undertow.com/

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 2:55 pm 



apeman,
Of course it does. The higher the price of oil the higher price of a host of things. There is also the dynamic of having less money to spend because of the higher price of all those products. That time will come, it’s just not here yet.

http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/27/solar-thermal-electricity-can-it-replace-coal-gas-and-oil/

GregT on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 3:04 pm 



“Global economies continue to rise on average.”

You’re missing the point Boat. Growth is slowing around the world. In other words, the growth necessary to allow the continuation of BAU is no longer occurring. These high oil prices have caused, and are still causing, our economies to stagnate.

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 3:09 pm 



apeman.

Read this, not earth shattering but one company.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2015/09/12/big-oil-ceo-a-few-people-are-going-to-drown/

Don Stewart on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 3:11 pm 



Dear Folks
I have now tried twice to post this on Ron Patterson’s site, as a partial response to some of the criticisms aimed at BW Hill’s model. Either they don’t want it to appear, or I can’t figure out how to properly post it. So I will try here. It is equally appropriate to some of the concerns expressed on this site.

This will try to address the questions raised about the Hill’s Group forecast that the price of oil will rapidly approach zero over the next few years. Please be advised that I am not a petroleum expert, although I have followed developments for many decades now. I am also not a spokesperson for BW Hill. He doesn’t necessarily agree with anything I am about to say.

There has been a lot of ink expended on ‘theories of value’. I want to suggest an alternative way of thinking about the issues. I will start with a non-fossil fuel example to try to keep things clear. Consider that solar energy, which is enormous and which keeps Earth habitable by preventing it from becoming an ice cube in black outer space, was for a very long time the enabler of a sophisticated economy. That economy was founded on microbes, which are still a dominant life form. Microbes led to plants and animals. As animals, we are still dependent on the microbes to metabolize our food for us. From a human perspective, we can roughly think about a solar economy as a subsistence economy. And we can roughly categorize those human economies as hunting-gathering or as agricultural.

Adrian Bejan is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Duke, and the originator of Constructal Theory. He formulated his theory after listening to Ilya Prigogine describe many designs that we find in nature as simply accidents of evolution. Bejan rejected the notion that so many similar designs could have arisen simply by chance, and, on the airplane home, formulated his Constructal Theory. Briefly, whatever is flowing will evolve in the direction of flowing more easily. In many cases, a tree structure maximizes flow, and so we find lots of trees in nature, from lightning bolts to physical trees, to drainage basins. Using the constructal theory, one can determine mathematically how many tributaries a river should have…without doing a census of rivers.

We can consider the move from Hunting/Gathering to Agriculture as an evolutionary adaptation to the availability of sunlight and plant and microbe photosynthesis. Agriculture uses the solar energy more effectively under historical conditions, and so came to dominate human societies.

If we look at crude oil, we can see that some early applications were for lighting. That is, whale oil and olive oil could be burned to produce light, but petroleum products had certain advantages (such as kerosene lanterns) and came to dominate. Over the next hundred and fifty years there was an enormous evolution of uses of petroleum and the economy which could be supported by the energy in petroleum. There was also evolution in the production and processing of petroleum. Petroleum became cheaper and more valuable, simultaneously, due to the two evolutionary streams. If we want to go a little father afield, we can consider that the information revolution and the computer revolution also increased the value of petroleum. Oil enables Amazon to use information effectively.

Imagine two spheres, one inside the other. The inner sphere is a measure of the energy released by a primary source. On the early Earth, that was the heating from the sun. A little later, microbes and plants learned to use solar energy, and animals learned to use plants, and what we might label the subsistence economy was born. Finally, humans learned to use fossil fuels and the modern economy was born. (I’ll ignore things like nuclear and windmills and waterfalls and modern PV panels). Each of the inner spheres (primary energy) has the capacity to support a larger outer sphere, which is the economy where microbes and plants and animals live. In the modern world, it’s also where Wall Street lives.

If we believe Bejan, then the world should have been evolving to make more efficient use of delivered fossil fuel energy over the last couple of hundred years. So fossil fuels have enabled a vast outer sphere, and we see the results every time we drive to the grocery store.

Enter BW Hill’s study. He claims that the efficiency of the flow of oil from reservoirs to products at the pump is declining. All other things being constant, such an effect alone will require a reduction in the size of the outer sphere.

A second effect in Hill’s study is the declining effectiveness with which our society is actually turning energy into useful work. For example, an internal combustion engine in an automobile is enormously inefficient when measured in terms of moving a 150 pound human from Point A to Point B (as compared to the energy required for a human to walk from Point A to Point B). The Ellen MacArthur Foundation in Europe has issued a series of papers addressing some of the issues surrounding our inefficient modern economies. (The complementary statement is that driving a car from Point A to Point B is using a huge number of energy slaves to carry our sedan chair.) David Korowicz has constructed graphs which show that adding debt to the modern economy no longer produces more GDP, and BW Hill’s graphs show that we are at the point of diminishing returns with oil.

If we combine both of Hill’s claims, and assume that everything else remains the same, then there is no alternative but that the outer sphere will collapse toward a much smaller sphere…or collapse entirely. As the outer sphere collapses, then its ability to pay for the oil in the inner sphere declines. Such a situation is really bad news for oil companies and particularly for those who have legacy investments in oil companies.

Can we find examples in history when a collapse in the outer sphere drove down the price of oil and caused a collapse in the inner sphere? Yes. During the depths of the Depression, a Texas oilman named George Opdyke published a book title Nature Study. He lamented that there was no work for oil people due to the depression, and he decided to write a book about nature.

We can play around with the results of Hill’s model in several ways. We can assume that some wonderful new source of energy arises to displace the fossil fuels (e.g., Hubbert’s drawing of nuclear replacing oil, or the ever popular ‘desk-top fusion’ research). Or we can assume that humans are, after all, sapient, and will change the shape of the economy in fundamental ways so that ‘high grading’ will occur and the lesser valued uses of fossil fuels will be sacrificed in order to keep the outer sphere as large as possible, even as the inner sphere shrinks in size. IF we all started walking tomorrow instead of driving cars, then the world could possibly afford expensive oil for purposes where oil is very efficiently used…of course, we would have to deal with lots of ancillary problems. (Alternatively, we can assume that the Central Banks print money furiously to try to keep Business As Usual alive and well.) We can also assume that we can deploy certain technologies which will extend the life of fossil fuels (and other resources) by reducing the physical amounts we use (which is the Ellen MacArthur strategy).

What is missing from the Economics 101 based discussion is that the relationship between the inner sphere and the outer sphere is not at all about supply and demand curves, in which one sphere substitutes for the other. It is true that we can substitute oil powered tractors for mules, but it is not true that we can substitute bankers for oil. We can, if we choose, substitute Main Street economies for Wall Street Globalized Capitalism economies, but the size of either is going to be dependent on the size of the inner sphere.

What about the argument that oil might be an energy sink, but we will produce it so long as there are other primary energy sources such as wind produced electricity which make the total energy positive? Hill shows that oil is now mostly used for transportation. Bejan’s evolutionary theory is proven correct, and each source of energy has found its best and highest use. The studies I have seen say that the loss of oil as a primary source of energy will require very fundamental changes in our economy. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation is exploring what those fundamental changes might look like. The plethora of people here who discuss EVs are also exploring fundamental change. I won’t bore you with my opinions on change, except to point out that, if Hill if right, we should emphasize the word FUNDAMENTAL.

Don Stewart

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 3:19 pm 



GregT

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/update/01/

The IMF seems to disagree.

GregT on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 4:00 pm 



“Global growth will receive a boost from lower oil prices, which reflect to an important extent higher supply. But this boost is projected to be more than offset by negative factors, including investment weakness as adjustment to diminished expectations about medium-term growth continues in many advanced and emerging market economies.”

What part of this is in disagreement with what I said above Boat? Or what I have been saying all along? Notice how the IMF uses the term “lower oil prices”, and not “low oil prices”?

GregT on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 4:34 pm 



Very good post Don.

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 4:38 pm 



GregT,
We discussed oil at $100 per barrel and the US still recovered, China kept growing, Asia etc the world on average. So if the world can grow at $100 per barrel why do you think it will not grow at 40-50.
That is Davy’s idea anyway and yours. I think the worlds would be fine if it did not grow but shrunk slowly. Especially if we ended immigration and shrunk population at the same time.

Don Stewart on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 4:56 pm 



Expanding on my BW Hill comment. Here is another physicist who is looking through the surface political, military, and monetary issues to find the underlying causes. George Mobus is the author of Principles of Systems Science.
Don Stewart

http://questioneverything.typepad.com/question_everything/2015/09/what-is-really-behind-the-refugee-crisis-in-europe.html#comments

The people were unhappy because they thought that by voting in a new government democratically they would solve their problems (jobs, food, water, fuel, etc.) But it didn’t happen for the simple reason that the resource pie was shrinking faster than any government actions (say attracting some kind of investment in the country) could counter. Things got worse and people once again took to the streets. Today, two years later, things have gotten considerably worse under the military regime that kicked out Morsi and took over. As I claimed then and reiterate, it is a matter of plain and simple physics, not politics. You cannot legislate resources into existence.

apneaman on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 5:05 pm 



Don, I didn’t think it was possible to expand on that last one;)

Mobus good. Boat read Mobus, but just the whole site.

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 5:05 pm 



GregT,
As I expected you are a cut and paste dude. You obviously didn’t read the chart at the bottom that projects world growth at 3.5 for 2015 and 3.7 for 2016. This is up from 3.3 from 2004.
Whats funny is Davy claims you if you have 3% grown that is the benchmark for a healthy global economy. The world growth has been bigger than that for over 3 years but he still claims it is shrinking. These are the web sites the world uses. I don’t know there is such mass denial among the doomers but it exists.

GregT on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 5:16 pm 



Only copied the summary Boat, which echoes exactly what I have been saying.

At a sustained growth rate of 3.5% per annum, the entire economy doubles every ~20 years. Not only is this unsustainable, it is impossible for this to last forever on a finite planet. It is you that is in denial Boat. Leaders around the world cannot figure out how to keep our economies afloat, without austerity, zero% interests rates, and mountains of un-payable debt. We have already reached limits to growth, and we are now on a downward trend to a much lower standard of living. It is happening all around you Boat, even in your own country. You cannot see it, because you refuse to look.

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 5:31 pm 



Don,
If you have time I have a couple questions.

He claims that the efficiency of the flow of oil from reservoirs to products at the pump is declining. All other things being constant, such an effect alone will require a reduction in the size of the outer sphere

1, Part of that efficiency is damaged by us humans that require healthcare if we wanna work in an oil field. The US has many regulations that drive up the cost/efficient to get oil to the pump. Like double hulls on rail cars. And on and on. But are the gains like a longer life taken into account.

CHP systems distribute massive quantities of electricity to refineries to process the oil. This used to come from coal or the oil itself. One causing serious health hazards/waste etc Now most of the energy from the oil is turned into product and the CHP tech uses nat gas that is cheaper and cleaner for the massive energy spent. When calculations are made are all these inputs used? Is the estimated 6% electricity loss accounted for in transit while CHP is distributed energy so does not need much transit.
Another CHP advantage is the electricity it produces from waste heat. Coal/oil in old plants run around 40-60% efficient. CHP runs closer to 75-96% efficient.

Now this is just one example. The solar project in Omen would be another where solar in huge quantities will create steam to get oil. The Omans claim the solar will be cleaner and cheaper. Is this type of improvement factored in when calculating delivery of FF to the pump.

Energy Investor on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 5:33 pm 



Don,

The Chicago School of economists believe you can. They prove this through the use of increases to GDP that arise solely from credit formation and money printing. Such rampant debt creation can only work if you reduce interest rates to zero and “hey presto!” you have growth without using any more resources…lol

Anyone who believes the published growth stats is a fool because they are a figment of an economist’s and central banker’s immagination.

The reference to Joseph Tainter’s book above is very apt because what we are seeing is rapid increases in the real cost of extracting resources for our use and societal complexity also increasing. Just as the many civilisations since 5,000BC have failed before, we are on course to follow.

Davy on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 5:33 pm 



Boat, what is growth? Is Chinese industrial over capacity, Chinese ghost cities, large unprofitable American strip malls, unneeded sports stadiums, and unprofitable shale development real growth or is it in reality just bad debt. That was a very short list of a huge global list of bad debt. This bad debt is held on the books as real assets when in reality it is non preforming assets. Bad debt is not growth bad debt is the anti-matter of growth. Resources were wasted and pissed away and all that is left is salvage “maybe”.

What is growth Boat and how accurate are these statistics the “web sites the world are using?”. Obviously there is demand destruction and deflation going on. You can’t deny that boat. Obviously the Fed is struggling to normalize and can’t. China is in an economic nose dive as are all the other Brics. Europe is a dead man walking with huge sovereign debt issues and shrinking economies and high unemployment. These are all things discussed on this site on regular basis. Does it go in one ear and out the other Boat?

So I say to you Boat do you believe everything the powers to be are tell you? At some point you have to call into question a laundry list of issues that don’t add up. Issues that don’t add up mathematically and with common sense. They only add up with finely crafted adverts and policy talk and sold as the truth. We are in an age of deception at all level including within ourselves.

Doomers are calling all this into question. We are saying Boat de Corn please show us the beef. Where is the reality of “REAL” growth? We don’t want your friggen happy face bull shit. We want reality and the truth. You act like we do not want happiness but that is not true we want real happiness not lies. I have a feeling you are under the spell of cognitive dissonance. Why else would a devout corn be on a doom site constantly? I have a feeling you are feeling the doom

apneaman on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 5:35 pm 



Boat doesn’t the world use the OECD web site too? Do you just go to a couple of web sites run by the masters of the universe and take everything at face value boat? What website was the world using before the 2008 crash? Dot com? Did you believe Colin Powell when he held up that vial of Tang drink crystals and said it was uranium? Do you believe the official 9/11 story(I don’t, but I’m not a truther). Your 58 and you still haven’t figured out that anytime TPTB tell you something there is a good chance it could be a lie and the only thing you can do is dig like a mother fucker and try and find the truth? Have you not noticed an increase in official lying in the last couple of decades? Did you not notice how most growth is matched and bested by debt levels? Subprime lending and the rest of the junk – take it away and how much growth do you have? The infrastructure is falling apart and there is no money to fix it and Detroit and some mid size cities went bankrupt, 48 million on food stamps, over a trillion in student loan debt and many can’t find jobs, payday loans all over,6-8 year terms for auto loans and a bunch of other cities are on the brink and even whole states like Illinois, look at Chicago, Philadelphia and on and on and on and yet because you found a couple of charts that looked good none of that counts – everything is awesome cause a few charts on a web site said so. Happy charts trump reality. Who in in denial?

Global Economic Growth 2015: US, UK, China Slowdown Expected, Organization For Economic Cooperation and Development Says

http://www.ibtimes.com/global-economic-growth-2015-us-uk-china-slowdown-expected-organization-economic-2086646

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 5:40 pm 



GregT,
Your moving the goal post in the discussion again.I prove you can’t read a chart or that your wrong but your to stubborn to admit it.

At a sustained growth rate of 3.5% per annum, the entire economy doubles every ~20 years. Not only is this unsustainable, it is impossible for this to last forever on a finite planet. It is you that is in denial Boat.

That is absolutely wrong Greg. I don’t argue one word against that. Never have. But that is not what we were talking about.

apneaman on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 5:43 pm 



Here boat, take a look at the growth in Illinois. See whats growing.

Apocalypse Illinois: IOUs Projected to Hit $10.5 Billion, $163 Billion Total Accumulated Liabilities

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.ca/2015/09/apocalypse-illinois-ious-projected-to.html

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 5:47 pm 



LOL Apeman
I find that logic, childish. Stamp your foot and cuss now.

apneaman on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 5:55 pm 



What’s childish is your reverting to name calling every single time you are presented with evidence. Show me some evidence that anyone of the things I mentioned is not real. You can’t cause they are, but they are not in the growth charts – like you they don’t count that shit. You cannot fathom the possibility that it’s almost over and that, like everyone else you’re fucked. Grow up – deal with it.

GregT on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 6:05 pm 



Boat,

Did you even bother to read the IMF report that you linked, or are you simply mesmerized by the chart?

“At 3.5 and 3.7 percent, respectively, global growth projections for 2015–16 have been marked down by 0.3 percent relative to the October 2014 WEO (Table 1).”

(US) Growth is projected to exceed 3 percent in 2015–16, with domestic demand supported by lower oil prices, more moderate fiscal adjustment, and continued support from an accommodative monetary policy stance, despite the projected gradual rise in interest rates.”

“In the euro area, growth in the third quarter of 2014 was modestly weaker than expected, largely on account of weak investment, and inflation and inflation expectations continued to decline.”

“In Japan, the economy fell into technical recession in the third quarter of 2014.”

“In emerging market and developing economies, growth is projected to remain broadly stable at 4.3 percent in 2015 and to increase to 4.7 percent in 2016—a weaker pace than forecast in the October 2014 WEO.”

“Lower growth in China and its implications for emerging Asia: Investment growth in China declined in the third quarter of 2014, and leading indicators point to a further slowdown. ”

“A much weaker outlook in Russia: The projection reflects the economic impact of sharply lower oil prices and increased geopolitical tensions, both through direct and confidence effects.”

“Downward revisions to potential growth in commodity exporters: In many emerging and developing commodity exporters, the projected rebound in growth is weaker or delayed compared with the October 2014 projections, as the impact of lower oil and other commodity prices on the terms of trade and real incomes is now projected to take a heavier toll on medium-term growth. “

GregT on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 6:11 pm 



Boat said: “We discussed oil at $100 per barrel and the US still recovered, China kept growing, Asia etc the world on average.”

“The US has not recovered. If the US had of recovered, they wouldn’t still be talking about a recovery, now would they?

China has declined from a 10% growth rate, to a 4% growth rate. (depending on who you listen to) Some are saying that China’s real growth rate is actually negative.

The world on average is in economic turmoil Boat. Many economies have already collapsed, some have entered depression, and many more are still in recession and are being artificially propped up by monetary policy.

Boat on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 7:10 pm 



GregT,
In spite of all the negative stuff the world economy is still growing even after the downgrade to 3.2 and 3.4. This is world growth Greg. There is no global recession.
My other point is oil consumption continues to grow to support that growth. Nony, Plant and I have tried to show ya’ll these simple charts but you still refuse to acknowledge them. And there is a oil glut and storage is still at a high regardless what ya’ll say.

GregT on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 7:26 pm 



Boat,

World economic growth is slowing. If you can’t figure out by now what that means, there is no point in trying to explain it to you. There is no global recession Boat. Different countries are in different states of economic crisis. The global financial crisis has not ended. Oil consumption continues to grow, but not at the rate that it has in the past, due to economic contraction. If economies were healthy, and oil prices were affordable, all of that excess oil would be used by economies to continue to increase growth. Exactly what everyone wants, and exactly what is not occurring.

Nony and yourself are being willfully ignorant, for whatever reasons. planter is in a category all by herself. I have looked at your simple charts, and I acknowledge them as being exactly that, simple. Using simple charts to try to explain the dynamics of complex systems, is one of the reasons why all 3 of you simply do not get it.

apneaman on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 7:33 pm 



Simple charts for the simple minded?

apneaman on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 7:52 pm 



Greg, it’s (conservatism) actually part biological, although apes of all sorts do not want to admit such things. The ego likes it when it thinks we are in control – were not.

Scientists Are Beginning to Figure Out Why Conservatives Are…Conservative
Ten years ago, it was wildly controversial to talk about psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. Today, it’s becoming hard not to

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/biology-ideology-john-hibbing-negativity-bias

Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology

Abstract
Disputes between those holding differing political views are ubiquitous and deep-seated, and they often follow common, recognizable lines. The supporters of tradition and stability, sometimes referred to as conservatives, do battle with the supporters of innovation and reform, sometimes referred to as liberals. Understanding the correlates of those distinct political orientations is probably a prerequisite for managing political disputes, which are a source of social conflict that can lead to frustration and even bloodshed. A rapidly growing body of empirical evidence documents a multitude of ways in which liberals and conservatives differ from each other in purviews of life with little direct connection to politics, from tastes in art to desire for closure and from disgust sensitivity to the tendency to pursue new information, but the central theme of the differences is a matter of debate. In this article, we argue that one organizing element of the many differences between liberals and conservatives is the nature of their physiological and psychological responses to features of the environment that are negative. Compared with liberals, conservatives tend to register greater physiological responses to such stimuli and also to devote more psychological resources to them. Operating from this point of departure, we suggest approaches for refining understanding of the broad relationship between political views and response to the negative. We conclude with a discussion of normative implications, stressing that identifying differences across ideological groups is not tantamount to declaring one ideology superior to another.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9292100

Still waiting for the paper on deterministic Doomerism

Makati1 on Sun, 13th Sep 2015 8:19 pm 



As I said at the start … prove that the oil (petroleum) being pumped is not being sold somewhere in the world.

If world wide energy consumption is growing at, say, 1%/yr instead of 3%/yr, it is still consuming 1% more energy than before. And with lies being the current method of discussion in all things financial or economical, who do you believe. Me, I believe no one. I prepare for the day the lies will be exposed and the world will spin into total destruction. Do you?