Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Is peak oil dead?

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

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 18 Sep 2016, 17:37:27

I don't believe in a conspiracy of bankers, speculators, or a deliberately opaque economic system. I do believe rationalizations, false economic theory that would explain a very simple phenomena are opaque.

You seem to believe that credit is somehow not a consumerable, that the world market for debt was not intelligent? Folks actually had good reason to believe housing would always be a good bet. It was a great economic boom before the crash, and housing is always a good bet. Don't forget: God does not print infinite Real Estate lol Even the poorest of folks with the shadiest of loans, made the correct decision. They/we just had (and still have) the wrong information
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26526
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 18 Sep 2016, 18:06:19

I find all this strand of thinking interesting in so much as it demonstrates how wed as a species we are too economics and its diverse systematic processes to bring the wealth of Earth to human societies. But I do side ultimately with Pstarr in so much as no matter what method of doing Economics, it cannot function in a manner that does not respect natural limits. Our current predicament as a species attests to this. We have overpopulated the entire planet, we have gone about dismantling the fabric of ecosystems upon which we ourselves ultimately depend on. We did and do this under the false impression that we can continue to defy the laws of nature. We cannot. Economics and ultimately every human activity including procreation must rest on the bedrock of respect for the Commons or else it is ultimately an activity or activities that will lead to the ruin of the society or civilization who practices it. The Creed of Consumerism and the biological imperative of Sex together have led us to this impasse. The latter impossible to voluntarily control and the former not.
You can ignore reality but not its consequences
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8179
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby SumYunGai » Sun 18 Sep 2016, 18:22:18

davep wrote:Modern economics relies on cheap energy.

I have no idea about anything else he said, but this part is true.

rockdoc123 wrote:
SumYunGai wrote:It is obvious that oil prices over $100 per barrel are not good for the economy. But rockdoc123 tries to claim that the biggest oil spike in history ($147.50) had absolutely no effect on the economy. He cannot support his wild claim logically, so instead he tries to pompously claim that every economist in the world agrees with him. This has been proven false.

If it is so obvious then please show us exactly your proof?

Image

Look at the run up in oil prices from 4004-2008. That is the biggest oil spike in history. When oil reached around $100 per barrel, the housing bubble began to pop. The proof is logical. Since the economy runs on the energy from oil, it is very sensitive to the oil price. If the oil price rises a little, it produces a little drag on the economy. If the oil price rises a lot, it produces a lot of drag. Why wouldn't it?

rockdoc123 wrote:What you have been shown is that fro 3.5 years oil prices hovered above $100/bbl and during that period global GDP continued to increase and global oil demand/consumption continued to increase. How many times do we have to show the same plots? The run up to $140 oil also had no impact on GDP or consumption the flattening in GDP after 2008 as result of the financial crisis not the other way around.

Image

The chart you keep showing is US GDP adjusted for inflation. It proves nothing. We are talking about WORLD GDP.

The point is that we know very high oil prices are not good for the economy. We had very high oil prices leading up to the Great Recession. That is a fact. So you have to to do more than offer an alternate view of the cause that ignores the high oil price. You also have to explain logically why the record high oil prices had absolutely no effect on the economy, since that is your claim. Good luck.

rockdoc123 wrote:As to what the reasons for the great recession were you may have found an outlier who disagrees with pretty much everyone else including The National Commission report:

So what? That is an argument from authority. Try making an argument from logic if you can.
Last edited by SumYunGai on Sun 18 Sep 2016, 18:42:03, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
SumYunGai
permanently banned
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri 29 Jul 2016, 20:02:21

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 18 Sep 2016, 18:39:08

SumYunGai, the troll-set (mos6502, ennui, and adam et al) like to blame banksters, speculators and oil companies for the Greatest Recession Ever. But as rockman is an oil-company academic, he is unwilling to take the position as it is a little too close for comfort. So he merely obfuscates lol
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26526
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby harrisonlw » Sun 18 Sep 2016, 19:54:45

Simply dismissing an argument as an appeal to authority is intellectually lazy, especially when the authority is a majority of economists and economic groups who have formed a consensus as to the likely causes of the GR. It isn't fallacious to cite evidence-based research.

Interesting points regarding unconventional and conventional oil. The two are not so easy to separate and I'm certainly guilty of oversimplifying. By unconventional I suppose I mean unconventional sources , as in tight, heavy, sands and shale. But perhaps the distinction between them is already redundant or will be redundant.

Assuming that it is redundant and oil is just oil, will total oil supply meet demand of 107 mb/d by 2040 (as per IEA WEO15)? Demand could feasibly be a lot less than this (or a lot more) but I'd say that with stability in the Middle East and oil prices north of where they are today then supply easily meets demand. I note that the EIA believes that oil supply will meet demand through to 2040.
Thus We Hope to Prosper
harrisonlw
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue 26 Feb 2013, 22:54:29

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby dissident » Sun 18 Sep 2016, 21:22:08

rockdoc123 wrote:

Image


This figure confirms the link between oil price spikes and GDP stagnation aka recession. See the plateau in the GDP during the oil embargo, Iran-Iraq war and and 2006 onward. The stupid thick dashed black line obscures the red GDP line where you see contractions.

Why do people expect the GDP to shrink secularly? We have not encountered oil price increases that were totally unaffordable and shut down economic activity. But the price increases did constrict consumer disposable cash.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4971
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby SumYunGai » Sun 18 Sep 2016, 21:42:47

harrisonlw wrote:Simply dismissing an argument as an appeal to authority is intellectually lazy, especially when the authority is a majority of economists and economic groups who have formed a consensus as to the likely causes of the GR.

Majority of economists? Argumentum ad populum. It is not proof of anything.

harrisonlw wrote:It isn't fallacious to cite evidence-based research.

That is why I mentioned the work of Jim Hamilton.

The problem is that citing dueling authorities as an argument goes nowhere. That is why I asked for a LOGICAL reason why the Great Oil Spike should be totally discounted as a cause of the Great Recession. I notice you don't have one either.

harrisonlw wrote:I note that the EIA believes that oil supply will meet demand through to 2040.

And you take their word for it without question. That is just blind obedience to authority.
User avatar
SumYunGai
permanently banned
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri 29 Jul 2016, 20:02:21

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 18 Sep 2016, 22:47:56

L
ook at the run up in oil prices from 4004-2008. That is the biggest oil spike in history. When oil reached around $100 per barrel, the housing bubble began to pop. The proof is logical. Since the economy runs on the energy from oil, it is very sensitive to the oil price. If the oil price rises a little, it produces a little drag on the economy. If the oil price rises a lot, it produces a lot of drag. Why wouldn't it

Ok the proof isn’t logical at all….what you are pointing to is correlation and then suggesting it means causation…it doesn’t, it never has as some here keep showing you with the posts of weirdly correlated factors. This is just…”I want my theory to be right so I will use the correlation to prove it”. What I’ve shown is that theory doesn’t work because …I’m sorry non-correlation actually does mean non causation.

The chart you keep showing is US GDP adjusted for inflation. It proves nothing. We are talking about WORLD GDP.


Complete BS…I’ve shown the world GDP numbers a number of times and I will so again. You are just trying to twist the argument here and looking stupid as a result.

Image

The point is that we know very high oil prices are not good for the economy. We had very high oil prices leading up to the Great Recession. That is a fact. So you have to to do more than offer an alternate view of the cause that ignores the high oil price. You also have to explain logically why the record high oil prices had absolutely no effect on the economy, since that is your claim. Good luck.

Alternative view? Where the heck is your mind wandering around. I provided a number of links to bankers and financial analysts and ….hold on the commission that was struck by the US government to look into the causes of the recession and the working group for that was comprised of financial analysts, economists etc. Hardly an alternative view it is the main view. To argue otherwise puts you in the realm of conspiracy theorists. And exactly what data do you have to support your view that high oil prices are not good for the economy? You have nothing. And asking me to prove high oil prices had no effect....look at the charts, GDP and consumption were not affected. Can you show us all something other than your "logical assumption" that backs up your claim? I think not.

So what? That is an argument from authority. Try making an argument from logic if you can

What? Are you a complete idiot? The US government struck this commission to investigate why the recession happened. The working group is comprised of people who do this sort of analysis for a living (ie economists, financial analysts folks with MBA's etc) . And my argument from logic has been put to you a number of times….global GDP increased and global demand increased throughout the whole period of oil prices hovering over $100/bbl. What you have is a belief system…you want it to all work towards your ETP BS so you just state..”this happened because of this” with zero proof and then ignore any data that gets in your way.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5592
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby SumYunGai » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 00:13:43

rockdoc123 wrote:
SumYunGai wrote:Look at the run up in oil prices from 4004-2008. That is the biggest oil spike in history. When oil reached around $100 per barrel, the housing bubble began to pop. The proof is logical. Since the economy runs on the energy from oil, it is very sensitive to the oil price. If the oil price rises a little, it produces a little drag on the economy. If the oil price rises a lot, it produces a lot of drag. Why wouldn't it?

Ok the proof isn’t logical at all….what you are pointing to is correlation and then suggesting it means causation

Nope. I just asked you: "The proof is logical. Since the economy runs on the energy from oil, it is very sensitive to the oil price. If the oil price rises a little, it produces a little drag on the economy. If the oil price rises a lot, it produces a lot of drag. Why wouldn't it?" You didn't answer the question.

rockdoc123 wrote:
SumYunGai wrote:The chart you keep showing is US GDP adjusted for inflation. It proves nothing. We are talking about WORLD GDP.

Complete BS…I’ve shown the world GDP numbers a number of times and I will so again. You are just trying to twist the argument here and looking stupid as a result.

Image

Dissident just showed how misleading one of your charts is. This one is also very misleading. Your chart above is from the World Bank. It is in International Dollars, whatever that is. Here is another chart of the exact same thing from the same World Bank, except this chart is in good old US Dollars:

Image

Oops. You're going to need some new graphs.

Wow. World GDP per Capita has already fallen further since 2014 than it did in the whole Great Recession! I did not know that till just now. Thanks, rockdoc, for making me look closely at your deception so that we could all finally see the truth more clearly.

rockdoc123 wrote:
SumYunGai wrote:The point is that we know very high oil prices are not good for the economy. We had very high oil prices leading up to the Great Recession. That is a fact. So you have to to do more than offer an alternate view of the cause that ignores the high oil price. You also have to explain logically why the record high oil prices had absolutely no effect on the economy, since that is your claim. Good luck.

Alternative view? Where the heck is your mind wandering around. I provided a number of links to bankers and financial analysts and ….hold on the commission that was struck by the US government to look into the causes of the recession and the working group for that was comprised of financial analysts, economists etc. Hardly an alternative view it is the main view. To argue otherwise puts you in the realm of conspiracy theories.

I did not argue otherwise. You are just trying to twist my words by changing my intended meaning of "alternative view". I did not mean that your sources weren't mainstream. I just suggested that counting up who has the most authoritative sources was getting us nowhere. I said it would be better to have an argument based on logic. Then I asked you a logical question. You have provided no answer. Instead you just re-re-reassert your claim to authority. This is boring.

rockdoc123 wrote:Can you show us all something other than your "logical assumption" that backs up your claim? I think not.

Why would I need to provide something other than my logical assumption if you have yet to refute my original logical assumption that backs up my claim?

Any increase in the oil price is money that the consumer no longer has to spend on other things. This is a drag on the economy. Using logic, can you refute my logical statement? Of course not. That is why you keep changing the subject.

rockdoc123 wrote:
SumYunGai wrote:So what? That is an argument from authority. Try making an argument from logic if you can

What? Are you a complete idiot?

Completely uncalled for ad hom. This makes having a rational discussion with you very difficult.
User avatar
SumYunGai
permanently banned
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri 29 Jul 2016, 20:02:21

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 07:26:00

Harrison - "By unconventional I suppose I mean unconventional sources , as in tight, heavy, sands and shale." Thanks to the Internet the terms conventional and unconventional oil have become meaningless because they can mean anything a poster wishes to assign to them. If you want to know how the oil companies define them: most important there is no such thing as conventional and unconventional OIL. Those terms describe the reservoir not the oil. More specifically they describe the character of the porosity and permeability. In broad terms a conventional reservoir is composed of intergranular porosity. Like the pores between the sand grains. It could be very porous and permeable and flow 5,000 bopd or very tite and pump 2 bopd. In either case it's a conventional reservoir. Likewise the oil could be 55 API condensate or 8 API crap...still a conventional reservoir.

And the typical unconventional reservoir primarily produces from FRACTURES...natural or manmade. And it can be shale, sandstone or limestone. And even though extremely rare, granite.

They important distinction is the flow characteristics. An unconventional reservoir can have very high initial flow rates. Fractures can have permeability many times greater then the best conventional reservoirs. But the volume contained in those fractures can be very low. Thus the classic very high initial flow rate followed by a very rapid decline as the small porosity volume is drained.

Conventional reservoirs might have a huge volume of porosity or very little in the case of a tite (actually implie low porosity) reservoir. But in both cases the decline is relatively slow. Unless, of course, the reservoir itself is very small.

And thus the endless and pointless arguments as folks mix the definitions up. I usually don't correct folks anymore because they are so invested in their misconceptions.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby davep » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 07:41:49

I don't believe in a conspiracy of bankers, speculators, or a deliberately opaque economic system.


When the Bank of England explains in detail how modern economies work (yes, 97% of broad money comes from private bank loans) we're no longer in conspiracy territory. It's a pretty good read. So, before concluding I'm just a crackpot conspiracy theorist, try reading the stuff I link to. It's not too long either (unlike the IMF's Chicago Plan research document, which is great but quite heavy going).
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4568
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 11:39:55

yes davep, I finally agree. There is a bankster conspiracy: to convince you central banks have policy and control, that economics is a science, and that it trumps natural systems.

SumYunGai wrote:Nope. I just asked you: "The proof is logical. Since the economy runs on the energy from oil, it is very sensitive to the oil price. If the oil price rises a little, it produces a little drag on the economy. If the oil price rises a lot, it produces a lot of drag. Why wouldn't it?" You didn't answer the question.

Sun. They. Can. Not. Answer. It would be an impossible conundrum:
HAL: I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the H.A.L. plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 12th of January 1992. My instructor was Mr. Langley, and he taught me to sing a song. If you'd like to hear it I can sing it for you.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26526
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby AgentR11 » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 12:26:41

pstarr wrote:yes davep, I finally agree. There is a bankster conspiracy: to convince you central banks have policy and control, that economics is a science, and that it trumps natural systems.


Nah, it doesn't trump natural systems, and has no need to. It only needs to evaluate the current natural system and express its monetary value in a continuously increasing numerical measure. The illusion is that real growth is necessary. But it is not.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR11
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 08:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby C8 » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 20:49:57

Sometimes what seems like a positive event actually sets up a disaster.

I am beginning to wonder if fracking may be the thing that brings on PO for real. Human population is defying all predictions and growing rapidly- cheap energy does this. More people = more FF demand.

Yes we innovated and found ways to get more oil but what if there isn't much left in the ground after fracking?

I have grown more pessimistic over the last 3 years that any industrial society can be run on renewable energy. Any electric based system adds tons of extra costs in terms of storage, transmission, etc. It may be too much.

PO is dead like Jason Voorhees is dead

Image
User avatar
C8
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 08:02:48

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby harrisonlw » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 22:27:14

The study of economics and econometrics in relation to oil and its macroeconomic effects is rather complex. It doesn't allow for a simple series of logical statements. Reductive doesn't even begin to describe some posters' attempts of posting GDP and oil price charts to prove their arguments. Hamilton's net oil price increase model is critiqued in some detail in this paper (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp ... dp1114.pdf). It is well worth a read.

I'd like to restate my question from before because I'd like to know other people's thoughts: will total oil supply meet demand of 107 mb/d by 2040 (as per IEA WEO15)?

Demand could feasibly be a lot less than this (or a lot more) but I'd say that with stability in the Middle East and oil prices north of where they are today then supply easily meets demand. I note that the EIA believes that oil supply will meet demand through to 2040.
Thus We Hope to Prosper
harrisonlw
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue 26 Feb 2013, 22:54:29

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby StarvingLion » Mon 19 Sep 2016, 23:58:19

C8 wrote:Sometimes what seems like a positive event actually sets up a disaster.

I am beginning to wonder if fracking may be the thing that brings on PO for real. Human population is defying all predictions and growing rapidly- cheap energy does this. More people = more FF demand.

Yes we innovated and found ways to get more oil but what if there isn't much left in the ground after fracking?

I have grown more pessimistic over the last 3 years that any industrial society can be run on renewable energy. Any electric based system adds tons of extra costs in terms of storage, transmission, etc. It may be too much.

PO is dead like Jason Voorhees is dead

Image


Note the silence from the shillboys on the Netherlands?

Image
My physician has informed me that I am clinically mentally ill.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 20 Sep 2016, 07:42:00

harrisonlw wrote:The study of economics and econometrics in relation to oil and its macroeconomic effects is rather complex. It doesn't allow for a simple series of logical statements. Reductive doesn't even begin to describe some posters' attempts of posting GDP and oil price charts to prove their arguments. Hamilton's net oil price increase model is critiqued in some detail in this paper (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp ... dp1114.pdf). It is well worth a read.

I'd like to restate my question from before because I'd like to know other people's thoughts: will total oil supply meet demand of 107 mb/d by 2040 (as per IEA WEO15)?

Demand could feasibly be a lot less than this (or a lot more) but I'd say that with stability in the Middle East and oil prices north of where they are today then supply easily meets demand. I note that the EIA believes that oil supply will meet demand through to 2040.


Respectfully I would like to point out the metric is wrong. Demand and supply always balance due to economics, if 107 MM/bbl/d of oil is being produced in 2040 it will only be because that quantity can be produced at a price that allows 107 MM/bbl/d to be consumed. If the economy is weak or the price is too high for whatever economy exists demand will be restricted. I do not doubt as some do that we could artificially synthesize 107/mm/bbl/d of oil products be using energy from other sources to manufacture those products. Doing so however is not a cheap low cost energy supply, it is converting other energy sources into liquid fuel storage for use in conventional engines that are the bulk of liquid fuel consumption today.

In a Utopian world the Nuclear plus Renewables are the energy inputs and the atmosphere supplies CO2 and H2O which are synthesized into liquid hydrocarbons and methane without accessing fossil carbon sources. In the real world so long as fossil carbon remains so cheap compared to those synthetic carbon molecules almost everyone will keep digging up coal and drilling for oil and natural gas and even digging up bitumen sands to make liquid fuels. The only reason Coal mining has been falling to the wayside in the USA and EU has been the low cost of Natural Gas, it has zero to do with environmental progress. If or when the price of natural gas returns to its historical norms coal will reclaim the lowest cost fossil fuel position and you will see a massive push to construct new facilities burning coal.

I have pointed out innumerable times that Environmental laws are made by human politicians to serve human politicians, the day those laws no longer serve those politicians they are replaced by other laws that do serve.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14098
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby ennui2 » Tue 20 Sep 2016, 08:31:26

Tanada wrote:I have pointed out innumerable times that Environmental laws are made by human politicians to serve human politicians, the day those laws no longer serve those politicians they are replaced by other laws that do serve.


Maybe you have to keep pointing this out many times because it's simply your cynical opinion and not a universally accepted fact.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3921
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 09:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 20 Sep 2016, 09:05:28

ennui2 wrote:
Tanada wrote:I have pointed out innumerable times that Environmental laws are made by human politicians to serve human politicians, the day those laws no longer serve those politicians they are replaced by other laws that do serve.


Maybe you have to keep pointing this out many times because it's simply your cynical opinion and not a universally accepted fact.


Neither cynicism on my part nor denial on your part change anything. Germany is rated as a great environmental leader, but they are building more coal burning facilities even as I type. Turkey has limited Natural Gas and border with Russia and Iran both that are eager to sell, but they are building a large number of coal fired electric plants because they have cheap domestic coal. India has to import natural gas but has abundant coal and abundant thorium for nuclear power. They have chosen Coal over the alternatives and are building additional coal fired power and mining coal because it is the cheapest alternative. China and Russia are both building some new nuclear power which is low carbon, but the bulk of their electricity comes from coal and China is still building a new coal fired power plant every week, often more than one. Just because they have slowed from one every 3 days to one every 5 days does not mean they are turning away from Coal, they are just not expanding use as fast as they were in the previous decade.

Politicians serve politicians. Statesmen serve the population and the future. Maybe you think all the politicians around the world have undergone a road to Damascus level of conversion, but I don't see one iota of evidence of that having taken place.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14098
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Is peak oil dead?

Unread postby ennui2 » Tue 20 Sep 2016, 09:46:55

Tanada wrote:Politicians serve politicians. Statesmen serve the population and the future. Maybe you think all the politicians around the world have undergone a road to Damascus level of conversion, but I don't see one iota of evidence of that having taken place.


Nothing you stated above supports your claim that "politicians serve politicians". If you could prove that there's this groundswell of public pressure to go green that is then stifled by politicians greenwashing, then maybe you'd have a case. But why do you think I was taking Planty to task in the other thread for being a paper tiger whining about NGL trains while crowing about Alaska's oil wealth or taking long recreational plane flights? Or what about Rockman thinking he can vigorously pursue an oil patch career while being taken seriously making supposedly sincere pro-environmental policy suggestions? Being an eco-hypocrite has nothing to do with politicians serving politicians. It's everybody.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3921
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 09:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests