[kublikhan]

Let's not forget the average age of the US vehicle fleet is nearly 12 years old. New cars sold today are 70% more efficient than the fleet average. Even in the highly unlikely event that fuel economy improvements cease completely from this point forward, we are still looking at a 70% improvement in fuel economy just from replacing the junkers alone. Add to that some modest downsizing and we could very easily double fuel economy.

[SugarSeam]

Cool. Please explain how using less oil will be possible while also maintaining BAU for a linked global economy.

You mean, like the world did between 1979 and about 1992?

A temporary condition that also led to three global recessions, two of which had growth under -2.0%, and the eventual collapse of the former Soviet Union. Got it.

In any event, I don't think that's really the scenario I'm asking you to describe. Read it again?

Having lived through that entire time period, it didn't look all that difficult. You are aware that in the late 1970's we were told that by the late 1980's we would be RUNNING OUT, right? Not peaking, but running out? So when global peak oil hit in about 1979, it was all quite terrifying for awhile. The internet wasn't around for the 12 true believers to get together and slap each other on the back about how cool it would be, that came with Peak Oil 2.0. Or is it 3.0 now? In any case, I suppose the answer to your question is we'll do the same thing now, that we did back then. 7 years after global peak in 1979, the price crashed in 1986 (sound familiar...peak oil in 2008 or so according to TOD, 7 years later....??? GLUT!) and we had lower prices for nearly a decade and a half.

Help me understand the flippant approach to debating this topic. Has it led to much success for you?

Anyhow, while some people in the 70s misread Hubbert and the Club of Rome's conclusions, that doesn't at all change what they said. You're also equating a man-made peak of the 70s (apples) to a geological/economic one today (oranges). We have a short-term glut due entirely to easy credit and limited storage capacity. And, already, U.S. production has begun the long-predicted nosedive, and most analysts admit it will be extremely difficult to ever lure back those laid-off workers and investment capital, if/when prices return.

If using less (and producing less) is such an "easy game," why didn't we? Does your argument include a passage where you attempt to suggest the oil/gas industry PREFERRED to turn to 3-4x-cost extraction/refinement methods? Probably not - they turned to tight oil production because they HAD TO.

Just admit: It is no longer economical to produce oil past the total that flat conventional production provides. It is also not feasible for the global economy to afford an oil price the industry absolutely needs to maintain positive cash flow. The balance is completely out of whack, and nothing is changing besides the rate of bankruptcies and CAPEX purges.

[AdamB]

Cool. Please explain how using less oil will be possible while also maintaining BAU for a linked global economy.

You mean, like the world did between 1979 and about 1992?

A temporary condition that also led to three global recessions, two of which had growth under -2.0%, and the eventual collapse of the former Soviet Union. Got it.

Global GDP throughout the time period in question. No global recession. Where do you get this stuff, you just say it, and hope that others aren't capable of using google?

Help me understand the flippant approach to debating this topic. Has it led to much success for you?

Far more than claiming global recessions that don't exist.

Anyhow, while some people in the 70s misread Hubbert and the Club of Rome's conclusions, that doesn't at all change what they said. You're also equating a man-made peak of the 70s (apples) to a geological/economic one today (oranges).

It was claimed to be the peak at the time because they ALWAYS are claimed that way. Jimmy Carter telling us about running out was all based on geology, it is only in hindsight that peak ignorance is revealed.A useful piece of historical knowledge, going back before the Model T was invented.

Some education in history comes in handy here, then you wouldn't make such obvious mistakes as confusing your Monday morning quarterback view with the view of the time.

We have a short-term glut due entirely to easy credit and limited storage capacity.

There is normal storage capacity, in the tank of last resort. And then there is what happens when we can't store it any more onshore and need to go store more because of the oversupply situation.

And, already, U.S. production has begun the long-predicted nosedive, and most analysts admit it will be extremely difficult to ever lure back those laid-off workers and investment capital, if/when prices return.

The nose dive is called "price response". As Rockman has pointed out often, guess what happens when it goes the other way? Why, the sine wave form of oil production!

As far as who can lure back what, please. Luring back is what the industry does, because they have seen more of these cycles than peak oils claimed during the past quarter century.

If using less (and producing less) is such an "easy game," why didn't we?

I did. Don't blame me for your lack of resolve.

Does your argument include a passage where you attempt to suggest the oil/gas industry PREFERRED to turn to 3-4x-cost extraction/refinement methods? Probably not - they turned to tight oil production because they HAD TO.

They didn't HAVE TO do anything. They could have chosen to continue producing legacy assets for as long as they lasted. And done nothing else. But there is this thing...called PRICE RESPONSE....that turned bell shaped curves into sine waves lickety split!

Good thing for you and all the other consumers of the world that we have so much oil and gas resources, just as Rystadt recently noted for the US. And don't even get me started on the NEXT sine wave cycles...we've got enough shale and tight that it'll be the next generation of oil workers problem.

Just admit: It is no longer economical to produce oil past the total that flat conventional production provides.

Go gather up all wells drilled in Prudhoe Bay between, say, 1995 and 2000, as a representative example of "conventional" wells. Combine them into a type curve, normalized to start of production, and on average they made about 52,230 barrels a month at their peak in the 2nd month of their first year online. One year later, they made, on average, 22,815 barrels a month, on average.

What school taught you that a +50%/annual decline is flat?

[ralfy]

Given the topic thread, a major increase in efficiency means greater productivity, and thus more opportunities to profit and spend. Hence, greater consumption, which is likely in a world where most countries are still developing.

The catch is that given the need for several earths to meet a growing global middle class (which the current middle class and rich need because that's where they will get their additional income and returns on investment) plus diminishing returns, even 100-pct improvement will not be enough.

Finally, the point to consider when it comes to peak oil is not oil price but production cost, as well as diminishing returns as seen in investments vs. oil production increases.

[SugarSeam]

Global GDP throughout the time period in question. No global recession. Where do you get this stuff, you just say it, and hope that others aren't capable of using google?

Gosh, What's a global recession?

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/04/22/whats-a-global-recession/

Of course, that's by post-2009 definition, acknowledging just two (1982 and 1991). Before that, the <3% GDP definition applied to others. And many analysts see the early 80s as two separate recessions, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

In any event, they absolutely existed, no matter what unlinked source you cite pertaining to steel production. (??)

As to the rest of your response:

I did. Don't blame me for your lack of resolve.

So because you allegedly used less oil, a world expecting BAU obviously can too.

This miss-the-point, irrelevant passage really sums up the disconnect here. I didn't realize I was acknowledging a trollish champion of logical fallacy. Now I do.

[AdamB]

Global GDP throughout the time period in question. No global recession. Where do you get this stuff, you just say it, and hope that others aren't capable of using google?

Gosh, What's a global recession?

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/04/22/whats-a-global-recession/

Gosh, look, the definition of recession as continued growth. Imagine that!! I wonder what MSM mouthpiece decided that a recession doesn't even have to be a recession to be called a recession.

I'll stick with the normal definition of recession thanks, the one that actually has negative growth rather than redefining recession as..you know...yet more growth.

In economics, a recession is a negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters. It is also a business cycle contraction which results in a general slowdown in economic activity.[1][2] Macroeconomic indicators such as GDP (gross domestic product), investment spending, capacity utilization, household income, business profits, and inflation fall, while bankruptcies and the unemployment rate rise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession

In any event, they absolutely existed, no matter what unlinked source you cite pertaining to steel production. (??)

There were no consecutive time periods of negative growth, globally, during the time period in question. The only way to make your claim is to rewrite the definition of recession, as per a blog. I'll stick with the normal economic definition, provided above. But please, feel free to change the definition of anything else you'd like in order to back up a spurious claim. When you can't baffle them with brilliance, dazzle them with BS, right?

As to the rest of your response:

I did. Don't blame me for your lack of resolve.

So because you allegedly used less oil, a world expecting BAU obviously can too.

The world was quite BAU after the global peak in 1979 and 1993 when it finally got back to where it had been. Not even a global recession during that time period. I lived through it fine, are you saying you didn't, what with all the horrors of less oil usage? Do you have any examples of this horror, a life story perhaps? Arm waving, while falling into the "dazzle them with BS" routine?

This miss-the-point, irrelevant passage really sums up the disconnect here. I didn't realize I was acknowledging a trollish champion of logical fallacy. Now I do.

When caught rearranging definitions so as to not acknowledge that you can't even be bothered to check global GDP growth across the time period in question, call the other person names and hope no one notices your screwup. I recommend google next time, so that you don't end up..well...you know.

[AdamB]

Finally, the point to consider when it comes to peak oil is not oil price but production cost, as well as diminishing returns as seen in investments vs. oil production increases.

Fortunate indeed that not just production costs, but development costs, have fallen 40%

http://peakoil.com/production/in-world- ... -deepwater

Right on the front page of this site. Did you miss it?

[Outcast_Searcher]

Let's not forget the average age of the US vehicle fleet is nearly 12 years old. New cars sold today are 70% more efficient than the fleet average. Even in the highly unlikely event that fuel economy improvements cease completely from this point forward, we are still looking at a 70% improvement in fuel economy just from replacing the junkers alone. Add to that some modest downsizing and we could very easily double fuel economy.

Good points, but clearly improvements can be made just by economically forcing people to drive more fuel efficient vehicles, if needed. Hybrids, for not much cost, can increase the mileage of some vehicles by a lot, especially in city driving, for one example. For another, a lot of people driving big trucks, SUV's, etc. for "status" could easily get by with far more efficient vehicles, if economics demanded it. Also, it's not like people can't rent a vehicle on the occasional day or two they actually do need a larger vehicle.

Clearly with the CAFE standards in place, either vehicles will, on average, get 5% better mileage per year as time goes on, or something significant needs to change rather soon, as the rules and reality will rapidly clash otherwise.

Thus far the biggest real world impact I've seen from recent CAFE standards is GM making fun of Ford for using aluminum in their F-x50 series truck beds in certain ads. (Given GM's bankruptcy and (poor) quality reputation one has to admire the daftness and hubris of their marketing department for playing that game). So, I have to believe that we're not close to the limit on meaningful improvements, or we would have heard a LOT more screaming from car makers by now.

And following, say, a decade of improvements from measures like these, we are likely to have enough alternate fuel vehicles on the road and being produced to make a meaningful dent by people switching away from gasoline altogether.

If we weren't already so radically screwed by AGW, I might actually be optimistic about the moderate term overall -- but alas, we are screwed.

[Whatever]

So because you allegedly used less oil, a world expecting BAU obviously can too.

This miss-the-point, irrelevant passage really sums up the disconnect here. I didn't realize I was acknowledging a trollish champion of logical fallacy. Now I do.

Obvious Troll is Obvious.

AdamB is *WAY* over-the-top obnoxious. It is his strategy for driving away good posters. I don't see why the house puts up with this kind of childish stuff. But they do.



---Futilitist

[radon1]

which is likely in a world where most countries are still developing.

They will never develop in the current conditions. In order to develop in the current conditions, they need to service the developed market (the US and the rest of the west to some extent), but the capacity of this developed market to consume is limited.

[SugarSeam]

Gosh, look, the definition of recession as continued growth. Imagine that!! I wonder what MSM mouthpiece decided that a recession doesn't even have to be a recession to be called a recession.

I'll stick with the normal definition of recession thanks, the one that actually has negative growth rather than redefining recession as..you know...yet more growth.

You didn't read the link, huh?

a blog? no, that would be the IMF's definition of what a global recession entails .... you appear to be hitching your wagon the definition of a national recession. ... a common mistake by those who pray to the altar of GDP (which, ridiculously, includes such things as disaster recovery spending as part of "growth")

[onlooker]

Precisely as Sugar states. More sickness, more jails, more lending all these activities in fact dragging the economy down, while reflecting some of social instabilities of this country. Not to mention, I personally do not trust official govt stats. I prefer http://www.shadowstats.com/

[ralfy]

They will never develop in the current conditions. In order to develop in the current conditions, they need to service the developed market (the US and the rest of the west to some extent), but the capacity of this developed market to consume is limited.

They have to service that plus a growing global middle class:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

At the same time, the "developed market" relies on that same growing middle class to increase its own income and ROI.

The catch is limits to growth:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... g-collapse

[AdamB]

They will never develop in the current conditions. In order to develop in the current conditions, they need to service the developed market (the US and the rest of the west to some extent), but the capacity of this developed market to consume is limited.

They have to service that plus a growing global middle class:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

At the same time, the "developed market" relies on that same growing middle class to increase its own income and ROI.

The catch is limits to growth:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... g-collapse

Generalizations and arm waving in a grandiose way is just so...doomerish.

Perhaps you would do better in explaining this if you told us about your personal peak oil doom journey, how has peak oil, since 2000 or 2005 or 2006 or 2008 or whatever your favorite is, affected you?

Has your income dropped as the economy was hammered because of the peak oil caused housing crisis recession of 2008? Do you live in a third world country where your political representatives have kept prices to the consumer high so they can pocket the difference when peak oil caused global prices to crash? Did you lose a job because of lower crude prices caused by the supply glut post peak oil, or did folks in your family? Did you buy a Prius and suddenly when glut pricing showed up, now wish you had kept that monster truck?

It strikes me that much of the conversation around here is all vague and stereotypical, and I wonder if this is because we CAN'T point to peak oil bothering us much, forcing our lifestyles to change, or if we just don't like thinking about how it affected us at the individual level.

[SugarSeam]

So, you're not denying that's from the IMF's definition of a recession, not a random blog's. Good choice.

[AdamB]

So, you're not denying that's from the IMF's definition of a recession, not a random blog's. Good choice.

I don't care what the IMF's version is, if only because it isn't a recession in the root sense of the word, as used by economist. I don't know why GROWTH was recast as recession, but it is amusing.

May I recommend a Abraham Lincoln story?

Man 1 is talking to Man 2. Man 1 says, "see that cow over there?" and Man 2 says "yes". Man 1 says, "how many legs does it have?" and Man 2 says "4". Man 1 says, "if I were to call its tail a leg, how many legs would it have?" and an 2 says, "well, 5". And man 1 says, "Nope, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so".

Sorry, but you, and maybe anyone else, wanting to call growth a recession is just so...non critical thinking. More critical thinking!! Less people falling for the "cow has 5 legs!" gag!

[ennui2]

If you want to criticize someone, criticize the guy who posted the link to your Facebook page because it wasn't AdamB.

Also, while you're at it, please refrain from veiled homicidal threats like you did to me recently in referring to what you'd do to me if I were to show up at your house unannounced. Now that your identity IS known, if you push it too far I will slap a restraining order on your ass.

Any other site with any sort of reasonable moderation would have perma-banned you long ago. The quality of the discussion here would improve tremendously without the open hostility you display to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Since you've now conceded for the second time that you are only here "for the yuks" you've all but admitted to being a troll who only wants to stir the pot who has nothing useful to contribute.

[SugarSeam]

So, you're not denying that's from the IMF's definition of a recession, not a random blog's. Good choice.

I don't care what the IMF's version is,

LOL.... didn't need to read further. Nevermind that you tried to assert it was merely the definition from a blog, not a global monetary body involving 189 nations.

The original definition is the only one that counts, because it's the one you want to count. Got it.

Slow growth is "growth" in the same way that crawling at the start of a marathon is technically moving forward.

Those of us here in reality understand that capitalism requires much higher rates of growth in order to keep the ponzi scheme working.