Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

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

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 03 Oct 2017, 20:58:46

pstarr wrote:You should stop insulting people. ralfy posited a simple opposing economic truth, the point of business is business and sales.


I quoted ralfy quite specifically, and you are changing the subject, and paraphrasing what he said. And doing it poorly. And ralfy knows no more about economic truth then you do the difference between shale and pumice. He was peddling peak oil doom based on high prices and low supply the same way that short was (and I'm betting you as well), oh so long ago before it happened (according to you). Had trouble with shortages in your area recently? See what I mean... :-D

pstarr wrote:You come off as a person who was too caught up in doomerism in the past, and is trying to distance yourself from a personal mistake.


Yes...putting all that time into school and not carpentry, what was I thinking, living now in this post peak world (according to you) and ashamed at myself for not owning a monster truck like everyone else because I was so skeered of your peak oil.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 2781
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 03 Oct 2017, 21:05:08

Yoshua wrote:AdamB

I will try to do some critical thinking on the Etp Model...


Throw in some math checking on it while you are at it..the author has screwed up spreadsheets so badly and refuses to have his work checked by the appropriate experts...suspicious to say the least.

Yoshua wrote:If you try to do some critical thinking on the health of US conventional oil production.

Image


I can do that...as soon as you provide me the chemical composition difference between this one type of oil and that other type you are enamored with. Is one missing hydrogen atoms in relation to its carbons, or carbons in relation to its hydrogens? Maybe you can tell me which pump at the local gas station I can go down, take a sample, have it examined in the lab, one refined product from one type of oil being different than the other? A price difference, perhaps? I would like to help encourage proper stewardship of the planet's resources, and I have been told this one type of oil is bad, compared to the other, might you have ANY method that allows me to vote with my dollars, to encourage the production of the one, over the other?

Oh, and your graph is a bit dated, I believe the peak oil in the US (+/-) took place again AFTER your chart runs out of data. Can you imagine that, Hubbert being wrong, decades after being right? Makes me wonder what happens when the rest of the world gets around to being as exceptional at drilling as the US was like a decade ago.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 2781
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 03 Oct 2017, 21:07:36

Cog wrote:Conventional oil doesn't matter. All oil matters. Doomers never get that point.


it is funny when they keep trying though, isn't it? You would think they couldn't LEARN or something, they keep doing it so often. :lol:
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 2781
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 03 Oct 2017, 21:13:10

shortonoil wrote:Jevon's Paradox seems to hold in this instance.


How would you know? You don't know anything about the oilfield, know better than pretend regressions are predictive but do it anyway, and can't even QC your own spreadsheets. The idea that you understand anything about the rebound effect is as likely as a hippo dancing for the Bolshoi company.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 2781
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 03 Oct 2017, 21:17:35

StarvingLion wrote:BW Hill is the greatest Pollyanna of our time. If he actually believed in The Oil Apocalypse like I do, he would be in a total panic like I am.


He was. A decade ago. Blamed it on the Bushes back then, and was waiting for higher prices. Then when it turned out his lack of understanding of resource economics made him look foolish, and he looked around and realized he was standing right there in the middle of an entire gang of suckers, he came up with a scheme to make a few bucks off of you. Or those like you anyway, the folks PT Barnum could spot coming a mile away.

Let me guess, you were a Ruppert/Savinar fan as well? Maybe Simmons?

Remember when you told me money was worthless? And that very same weekend, I went and used some to buy a CAR with it? I thought we had a deal, after I proved you wrong, you would stop posting nonsense?

StarvingLion wrote:
The pensions, the worthless currencies, the hideaway, the phoney jobs, the something that has your back that doesn't exist.....


But not cash, and not in exchange for a car, right Lion? :lol: :lol:
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 2781
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 03 Oct 2017, 22:45:25

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
The ones who "provide those" are increasingly robots in increasingly automated factories. So I'm not sure I see the viability of that point. Also, with car growth now rapid in the third world overall, and oil consumption roughly flat in the first world, despite the doomer meme, there is little real world sign that overall, the affordability is enough of a problem to be preventing meaningful consumption growth.


Oil is needed even for automated manufacturing. Worse, robots don't buy finished goods.

If affordability becomes a problem, then car growth cannot be sustained. In which case, automated manufacturing becomes impractical because fewer people will buy what is produced. In which case, the middle class will face not only more expensive fuel for their cars and lawn mowers but also the lack of cars and lawn mowers.

Oil production prices vary widely based on lots of factors. For many fracking sites, efficient producers continue to drive the price down as they get smarter.


They didn't drive the price down. Rather, commodity indices (including those for oil) fell, but the production cost is still high.


So I'm just not seeing the problem that "oil production cost is high" on some sources. If oil costs stay low, those assets will be stranded, until prices aren't low, or that oil is no longer wanted. That's only a financial problem for the people who invested in the high priced production. Oil is a volatile market and production has risks -- same as it ever was.


Oil costs are not low, but oil price is. The reason for the latter is peak oil, which is why it is more than a financial problem.

Oil price has to go up significantly, but when that happens so too does economic crisis.

Volatility in the past involved recovery, and it involved new sources of cheap, abundant oil. There is none in this case.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4614
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 03 Oct 2017, 22:53:20

The irony is that AdamB actually ended up supporting my argument and countering his own: a competitive advantage leads to more consumption, as competitors open up new markets to sell more goods, engage in planned obsolescence, and create more credit to invest in businesses to produce more goods and services to create even more credit.

It's a waste of time to engage in any debate with him because he ends up shooting himself in the foot each time even as he resorts to personal insults. Better to use the ignore function.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4614
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby Yoshua » Tue 03 Oct 2017, 23:56:22

Image[/img]
Yoshua
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 04 Oct 2017, 00:58:32

This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Top
This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Top
This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Top
This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Top
This post was made by AdamB who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Someone must have bumped into his garbage can, he's restless tonight.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26082
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby asg70 » Wed 04 Oct 2017, 09:13:06

ralfy wrote:Oil costs are not low, but oil price is. The reason for the latter is peak oil


Matt Simmons is spinning in his grave over this perversion of the peak oil term.

ralfy wrote:Oil price has to go up significantly, but when that happens so too does economic crisis.


Doomers just automatically assume that there is no more sweet spot where oil can simultaneously be profitable for oil companies and avoid killing the economy. I think you have to make too many negative assumptions to feel this way, assumptions that overinflate oil industry overhead on the one hand and underestimate the resilience of the economy on the other.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 914
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby shortonoil » Wed 04 Oct 2017, 09:17:58

Would you care to try to back up any of that bull shit with anything that resembles a credible source?


Per capita, the world used 80% more petroleum in 2016 than it did in 1960. 4.59 barrels per person vs 2.55 in the earlier year.


Try the UN population data, and the EIA world production data you retarded moron. The data is very clear, it is your continual attempts at obfuscation that is bull shit!

Petroleum is losing its capacity to do work; its ability to power the economy is going down. Its production energy requirements are going up, which leaves less per unit for the end users. Wells get deeper, viscosity gets worse, yields decline and water cut increases. After 158 years of taking the best that could be found what remains is the dregs.

The world is now using 4.59 barrels per person/ yr to keep the wheels grinding. By 2030 that will be 5.20 barrels per person. By 2030 world production will have to be 114 mb/d to just keep even. With annual production increases now at 0.075% per year that is just not going to happen. The world will be falling short by 12 mb/d.

The world's fields are now being produced at their maximum production rate. The Giants are more than 70 years old on average, and more than 90% depleted. They supply 60% of world production. Once they go into decline the difference will not be able to be made up from other fields. It took Shale 15 years, and several $trillion to produce a mere 3.5 mb/d. When the Giants begin their decline a loss of that size could easily take place in 6 months. There will be no White Knight riding to the rescue.

The Etp Model informs us that oil production can no longer remain a self sustaining process after 2030. It also tells us that the price must go down; most of the world's population can not afford 4.59 barrels a year. Half make less than $2 per day. The energy supplied to the end user is now not worth $60 per barrel. $2 a day doesn't buy much energy at that price.

The end of the oil age is close at hand. Counties dependent on crude production as a significant portion of their income will see increased social disruption as that production continues to fail at meeting their societies needs. What isn't pumped because of the low price will not be pumped because of social instability. The end of this era is more likely to take place rapidly than it is to take place in measured steps. An interconnected global economy was a major oversight. It will allow disruptions in one location to flare across the world.

http://www.thehillsgroup.org
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4970
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby asg70 » Wed 04 Oct 2017, 09:33:32

shortonoil wrote:The Etp Model informs us that oil production can no longer remain a self sustaining process after 2030.


Listen. In the more general terms I think you'll find some agreement with your premise. The EROEI argument is nothing new. What's different is your assertion that more expensive oil = cheaper finished products at the pump rather than more expensive. It's counter-intuitive. I know running counter to conventional wisdom is a great way to earn somebody some attention on the Internet but it's a very hard sell. Your approach to convince people is to start terminating sentences with !, talk about cannibalism, snicker about how Saudi Arabia's pending doom in a racist fashion, and then insult people left and right. All while you do this you expect us to treat you as a representation of a fictitious think-tank which is all about rigorous scientific methodology, not emotionally laced belief-systems. It doesn't wash. Your style is textbook nutcase.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 914
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby shortonoil » Wed 04 Oct 2017, 12:24:23

The EROEI argument is nothing new.


There is not one mention of ERoEI in the post above. Are you hearing those voices again, seeing those strange little critters running around? Definitely off your meds again!
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4970
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 04 Oct 2017, 12:33:09

shortonoil wrote:
The EROEI argument is nothing new.


There is not one mention of ERoEI in the post above. Are you hearing those voices again, seeing those strange little critters running around? Definitely off your meds again!

They are right. You should tone it down.

Of course it's about EROEI
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26082
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby donstewart » Wed 04 Oct 2017, 14:06:24

tone it down?

For what it is worth, I just finished a webinar with Paul Hawken, who edited the book Drawdown, which quantifies different ways to drawdown existing CO2 equivalents in the atmosphere (and from the oceans). In Drawdown, the amount of drawdown from electric vehicles is fairly small, because the assumption is that they will be powered by mostly fossil fueled centralized electricity plants. In answer to a question from the floor, Hawken said something like this:

'I think it is becoming a question of a phase transition. Fossil fuels and internal combustion engines and centralized electricity may all be going the way of the dinosaurs. Even while we were putting our book together, we saw the data changing rapidly. Some major industries may be in deep trouble.'


(You'll have to take my word for it, because it wasn't in writing. And I am old and prone to hear incorrectly. So buyer beware.)

I think we can look at Puerto Rico for some guidance. Do you think that Puerto Rico will be rebuilt with continued reliance on internal combustion engines and centralized fossil fueled electricity plants? My own view is that it will be rebuilt with pretty much BAU. Some people have argued that a decentralized, solar PV based system would have been more resilient. I tend to doubt that, because a bank of PV panels very much resembles a sail, which is not the sort of thing you want to be attached to in a hurricane. So it seems to me that it is more likely that the changing economics that Hawken claims to perceive will hollow out the present industrial structure over time.

How does this relate to the ETP? The ETP implicitly assumes that it is free energy from oil that enables economic growth. Because free energy from oil can be used to power transportation, without which there really isn't any economy. There is some evidence that the economy is decoupling from transportation, but the numbers (so far as I know) are heavily manipulated by governments in love with 'hedonic adjustments'. But the fact that a current smart phone may yield 10X more hedonic benefits than the last generation doesn't mean that people will pay 10X as much for it...and GDP is a measure of economic value, not hedonic value. So far as I can see, there is no real evidence that we have decoupled from fossil fuels...the CO2 at Mauna Loa is rising at record rates.

Which implies that if free energy from oil begins to decline, then economic value produced will decline (although what governments might publish is anyone's guess).

Then we get to the question of the distribution effects. I recently posted a link to a book which describes the long and healthy and contented life in a remote village in China with an average annual income of 20 dollars. One scenario is that a decline in free energy useful for transportation would simply result in more marginal people being forced back into what we might think of as the 'peasant world'. Those who remain in the 'industrial world' might bid up the price of oil. Or we might think that the industrial world is going through its own crisis of debt and things are going to be very tough and people will be forced to cut back on transportation and the price of oil will fall.

At this point, I side with Paul Hawken. We are trying to predict the behavior of complex systems, which we may not fully understand.

I applaud the Hill's Group for posing the question and giving us their conclusion. I am with Hawken on the side of caution. I agree with the Hill's Group that conventional economics has nothing much to contribute.

Don Stewart
donstewart
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 677
Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2016, 03:37:24

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 04 Oct 2017, 16:04:22

shortonoil wrote:The Etp Model informs us that oil production can no longer remain a self sustaining process after 2030.

What? Now I'm confused. Looking at the MAP price curve (Yoshua's recent post in this thread), it looks like economic "doom" is being forecast for oil in 2020 or very shortly thereafter, since that would have crude oil prices completely collapsing.

Unless the game is going to be to set up completely new rules and predictions if the current ETP numbers don't pan out by 2021 or so.

What am I missing? Was that 2030 supposed to be 2020?
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 3870
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 04 Oct 2017, 16:23:34

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
shortonoil wrote:The Etp Model informs us that oil production can no longer remain a self sustaining process after 2030.

What? Now I'm confused. Looking at the MAP price curve (Yoshua's recent post in this thread), it looks like economic "doom" is being forecast for oil in 2020 or very shortly thereafter, since that would have crude oil prices completely collapsing.

Unless the game is going to be to set up completely new rules and predictions if the current ETP numbers don't pan out by 2021 or so.

What am I missing? Was that 2030 supposed to be 2020?

You should not hold your breath waiting for the ETP ers predictions to be consistent or come to pass.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7807
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 04 Oct 2017, 16:36:23

No breath needed
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26082
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby asg70 » Wed 04 Oct 2017, 16:53:24

pstarr wrote:No breath needed


Does that mean doom...is...nigh?
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 914
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 3

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 04 Oct 2017, 17:30:43

asg70 wrote:
pstarr wrote:No breath needed


Does that mean doom...is...nigh?

stay with the conversation, leave your imagination . . . for the sake of the discussion. tnx in advance. :)
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26082
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests