Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 21, 2016
Mexico, China and Beyond
This is a guest post by David Archibald. The opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily represent those of Dennis Coyne or Ron Patterson
Mexico, China and Beyond
Ron Patterson’s post asking if China’s oil production has peaked reminded me of Mexico
which also produces mainly from supergiant fields. Mexico’s oil production peaked in 2004 and has averaged a 3.5 percent per annum decline rate since, with a peak yearly decline rate of 9 percent in 2008. China’s oil production has fallen 10% from its peak in 2015. Part of that is oil price-related as the Daqing oil field has an operating cost of $46 per barrel and could reverse as the oil price rises. The comparison of China and Mexico with a projection to 2023 is shown in the following figure:
The production histories tracked each other from 1965 until they parted ways in 2005. Themainstay of Mexican production had been the Cantarell field as shown by this graph from The Economist with data up to 2011:
Cantarell production had been pumped up with nitrogen injection until sudden collapse in2005. Part of the decline from Cantarell was offset by increased production from Ku-Maloob-Zaap. Mexico is now producing slightly more oil than it consumes. In the absence of successful privately funded oil exploration from here, Mexico will become an importer of both oil and food.
A good description of the Chinese oil production industry is provided by a paper by Aleklett, from the University of Uppsala, et al from 2010 using data up to 2007. One field, Daqing discovered in 1959, had been producing about a million barrels per day for close to 30 years:
Table 2 from that paper is reproduced following. It shows that only one of the Chinese giant oilfields would not have entered decline by 2015:
In our modelling we have assumed that Chinese oil production decline will by 4 percent per annum from 2016. That will help tighten the market but the big question is what will US shale oil production do? An outlook for the Bakken is provided by Figure 4 following:
This figure ignores the wells drilled prior to 2009 and is based on production started from January in the following year and thus has a lower peak production than a chart using monthly data. It is an attempt to develop a projection using a correct decline curve for the Bakken. The data for 2016 and beyond assumes that 600 wells are drilled each year. This is also about the rate that would keep production nearly flat until well locations run out. Figure 5 shows what the whole US shale oil industry looks like:
The methodology is the same as for Figure 4. The data for 2016 and beyond assumes that 4,000 wells are drilled each year. This rate of drilling would keep US shale oil production flat on the proviso that well quality does not deteriorate.
US conventional oil production has been declining at about 2 percent per annum for decades as shown by Figure 6. Presently that decline rate is just over 100,000 barrels per day per year. If US shale oil production stabilizes due to drilling of about 4,000 wells per year, total production will still decline.
If China has now tipped over into a decline emulating that of Mexico, the three biggest sources of oil production decline are now lower US oil shale drilling, ongoing Mexican decline and Chinese decline. On top of all that is the damage done to the upstream oil industry around the world over the last two years dues to low oil prices. The ability of the U shale oil industry to come roaring back may be determined by the quantity and number of drilling locations at various oil prices. Civil wars in a number of Middle Eastern countries is another hard-to- quantify factor, though positive.
David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance.
Peak Oil Barrel by Ron Patterson
43 Comments on "Mexico, China and Beyond"
makati1 on Wed, 21st Sep 2016 7:38 pm
“IF” … “MAYBE” … “WHEN” … “HARD TO QUANTIFY” …
Missed the word “HOPE” in there, but another worthless piece of propaganda for the oily industry. Gotta keep the rats on the good ship Petrotanic as it careens off the first contrationberg with a huge financial hole torn in its belly.
makati1 on Wed, 21st Sep 2016 7:39 pm
… contractionberg…
Plantagenet on Wed, 21st Sep 2016 9:29 pm
Its too early to say if China has peaked because they are just starting to drill all the submarine territory they have seized from surrounding countries in the westernmost Pacific.
Cheers!
Boat on Wed, 21st Sep 2016 9:58 pm
Lol Plant.
Btw, Bush Sr is voting for Clinton. Kinda strange bedfellows, ya think?
Plantagenet on Wed, 21st Sep 2016 10:08 pm
@Boat
I wasn’t surprised that George Bush Sr. is for Hillary—neocons and neoliberals have very similar views on most things.
Cheers!
Cloggie on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 2:00 am
The graphs above represent the conventional peak oil story, except for the upward dent in US oil production due to fracking. There is a lot of potential for fracking elsewhere. And then there are the enormous reserves of coal that also can be utilized in an unconventional way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_coal_gasification
@boat – when is it finally going to sink in that Reps and Dems are two branches of the same polit cartel, the “government party”, both controlled by, let’s say, financial circles in Wallstreet. Dems and Reps are there to give you the illusion that there is democracy in America, just because you can walk to the voting booth and vote for one of the system certified candidates, the empty suit du jour.
Until finally somebody shows up with money of his own…
http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2015/12/03/trump-to-jewish-donors-i-dont-want-your-money/
… and every system loyalist, like these Reps Bush clowns, get in a state of panic and stop pretending they belong to the other party and “defect” to the Dems, where in reality they show their true colors and defend The System against intruders.
Survivalist on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 3:18 am
Once Mexico flops from oil exporter to oil importer we’ll see them collapse even further. The drug production and drug transportation business will become even more entrenched. When Indonesia flipped from oil exporter to importer they fell back on other options, like clearing jungle for oil palms, agriculture and forestry. Mexico has no such options. They will fall back on the drug business. Mexico will soon be a failed state just like their neighbors to the south; Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala. USA is in for some trouble from the south. A wall won’t stop it.
Davy on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 6:49 am
Clog, your “potential” is very much unsupported these days. Coal and oil are in a major slump. Renewables are not even making a dent in the scale of what is needed in the time frame needed. Nuclear is turning out to be a nightmare with hundreds of aging plants that will needed expensive upgrades or decommissioning. Hydro is wearing out slowly with many locations suffering variable weather. What is real is depletion. What is real is an economy that is clearly not healthy. What is real is major oil producing nations in political and social chaos. Climate change is no longer debate. So maybe instead of “there is a lot of potential for” and “there are the enormous reserves of” type statements you should be saying “We are facing huge challenges with little time”.
Cloggie on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 7:22 am
“Coal and oil are in a major slump.”
Because of the low prices! They will go up again, eventually, making unconventional oil and unconventional coal (UCG) profitable again.
“So maybe instead of “there is a lot of potential for” and “there are the enormous reserves of” type statements you should be saying “We are facing huge challenges with little time”.”
The only point I would want to make is that there is enough fossil fuel left to set up a renewable energy base and that depletion is not going to be a real issue within the time frame of 50 years required to get the job done.
Cloud9 on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 7:22 am
If George Custer and his boys had M16’s the Battle of the Little Big Horn would have gone another way. The technology showed up for the Seventh Calvary 88 years later but did nothing to change outcome of the battle. Green systems and renewables will do a lot to stabilize the remnant but it will do little for the majority. Systemic collapse is where we are headed. Plan accordingly.
makati1 on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 7:46 am
Cloggie, prices will not go up because the demand for the product is declining. We are in a contracting world economy. It will never grow again. It will eventually kill off all retirement plans and dreams, all social safety nets, all unnecessary jobs and careers. The dominoes are falling all over the world.
You don’t seem to get it that oil is NOT the problem, money is. Oil/NG is plentiful and it will be plentiful long after homo sapiens is gone. There will be no ‘alternates’ build-out because there will not even be money to keep what we have running for much longer. When the current financial system collapse’ there will be no ‘reset’. We are at the end of a system that was started some 100 years ago. We may also be at the end of human existence. What a century!
Davy on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 8:05 am
Clog who says “profitable again”, economist and market analysist? You say they will go up because you want them to go up. Everything is riding on “profitable” for you. Profitable especially at the macro level is very complex and price does not make “profitable”. I want to wake up in the morning but that does not mean I will. Sometimes things end. When you hear thunder you better seek cover. Prices going up again do not equate to economic productivity. Price is a smoke screen to a solid indicator of a positive trend of growth and productivity.
Davy on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 8:09 am
Clog, what about your beloved Third Reich. How did they turn out because of their Sturmgewehr StG44.
shortonoil on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 8:26 am
China’s largest field, Daqing, went into terminal decline more than 10 years ago when its water cut hit 97%. About a 97% water cut is where most fields are shut-in; a WOR (water oil ratio) of 45 to 1, or a 97.8% water cut. The Chinese brought the field back into production with massive injections of emulsifiers. This field has been living on borrowed time, for a long time.
Cantarell isn’t in any better shape, and US fields, using EPA data, are now on average operating at better than a 90% water cut. Coyne and Paterson are just playing their usual bad cop, good cop routine; count the barrels, and then argue over how many they found?
The word depletion never seems to pass their finger tips; leaving the impression that no one really knows for sure. If there are people who don’t know for sure, they sure don’t know anything about oil. With revenue down by $1.8 trillion per year, no new oil coming on line, no demand growth, and an energy function that would scare a grizzle bear, world oil production is now setting up for a crash. Yes, the world will see a 4% decline rate, just before the bottom falls out!
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
rockman on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 9:30 am
Survivor – “Once Mexico flops from oil exporter to oil importer we’ll see them collapse even further.” From a net standpoint Mexico is a lot closer to that point then most folks understand. Been a while but the last time I saw the stat Mexico was spending more then half of its oil export revenue importing refinery products…mostly from the US. At one time most of their oil exports to US refineries was tied to import contracts with those refineries. IOW it wasn’t so much the US buying all the Mexican oil we were importing but working as a refinery arm of PEMEX.
And if US refineries decide to break that deal and keep all those imports: some years ago China made it very clear they would do the same with Mexico…providing the received all of Mexico’s oil exports. Here’s some insight to the growing relationship between the two countries:
“In June 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Mexico after traveling to Central America and the Caribbean where billions of dollars of loans were pledged. The trip was intended to smooth relations between the two countries, and it has certainly done so. During Xi’s visit, the two countries announced a series of agreements on energy, trade, and education to fuel China’s ongoing competition with the United States in the international market. President Peña Nieto said China sought to aid the Mexican economy by promising to import more pork and tequila. As more trade and investment agreements are being made, Mexico and China are changing from competitors to partners in multiple sectors.”
Bottom line: whatever is Mexico’s future net energy exports the US doesn’t have a lock on it as we once did.
rockman on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 10:07 am
So true. The bad news: high water cuts in so many big oil fields globally. The good news: once an oil reservoir hits the high water cut phase the depletion rates decreases dramatically. Usually to the lowest level ever seen during the life of the field. And such production isn’t nearly as hammered by low prices as drilling programs since the typically huge water handling infrastructure is not only in place but has paid out. There is much US oil production running at 98% – 99% water cut today and still delivering positive cash flow.
Consider the field Rockman is redeveloping with hz wells: a very high water cur field that was discovered 70 YEARS AGO and still producing commercial oil several years ago after recovering 28 million bo. Not much then but 30X as much today and still profitable at the current price…with the hz wells doing an 85% water cut. And more hz drilling planned. Rather similar to what the Saudis have done with Ghawar Field: producing a hell of a lot “brown stained water”. But obviously lots of oil separated from that water.
Which is why the US oil production “falling off a cliff” theme was always silly. Rig count falling off a cliff…sure. Shale production looking a tad cliff-like…sure. High water cut fields 20+ years old with all their existing infrastructure paid off that are depleting slower then any other category…not very cliff-like.
penury on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 11:33 am
I think it is time to consider again the proposition that we are more involved with peak “economy” rather than peak oil. The economy of the world is totally dependent upon energy, most of the energy provided comes from fossil fuels, if the populations of the world can no longer afford the energy the world economy will collapse. And no renewables will not save you. It may however save a small per cent of the humans.
shortonoil on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 11:44 am
“The good news: once an oil reservoir hits the high water cut phase the depletion rates decreases dramatically.”
Definitely true, when a field is shut-in its depletion rate goes to zero. As production falls from a higher water cut the percentage of the oil extracted that was originally in the formation declines. That is if one measures it from the original reserve. If one measures it from the oil still remaining in the reserve it goes up.
It just depends on which is more important; yesterday or tomorrow.
HARM on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 11:46 am
Those wishing for a fast crash are likely to be disappointed. I thought we might be on the cusp of one 9 years ago, when we were at the peak of a monster RE and credit bubble, oil was $147/BBL, and everything seemed to be primed for collapse. And yet here we are nearly a decade later, oil is oscillating between $35-$45/BBL, RE prices are not only back, they are now higher than they’ve ever been –even without all the liar neg-am loans.
The global oligarchs and the system itself has proven to be far more resilient than most here give it credit for. Debt (or may not) may be piling on at an unsustainable rate, while the banks pull out ZIRP, NIRP, QE, and the kitchen sink. Even so, the leaky old ship stays afloat as long as the pumps work.
ghung on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 11:51 am
Gosh, Rock, another Blue Bell recall. What will the oil patch do?
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/21/news/companies/blue-bell-ice-cream-recall-listeria/
roccman on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 11:58 am
war will force price up. will be the new demand. after – things will crater. but by that time facilities like CERN LHC will turn the key…or not, but can’t blame them for not trying.
I’d do it this way if i were king of the universe…and you would too if you are being honest and knew “some things” about “other things”.
GregT on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 12:04 pm
“Even so, the leaky old ship stays afloat as long as the pumps work.”
Problem is Harm, the pumps are pumping the water in, not out.
ghung on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 12:07 pm
Harm said; “Those wishing for a fast crash are likely to be disappointed.”
Funny how you twisted that, Harm. Expecting a fast crash, or acknowledging the possibility, isn’t the same thing as “wishing for a fast crash”, and I don’t know many folks “wishing” for a fast crash.
HARM on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 12:19 pm
@ghung,
Ok, so I’ll rephrase it as, “those *expecting* a fast crash…”. Honestly, the doomer rhetoric/porn here gets piled on so thick sometimes I can’t tell sometimes whether it’s projection or fantasy.
Apneaman on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 12:56 pm
HARM, I myself have stated that no one knows how resilient the system is. I got the idea from much smarter people than me, like George Mobus, who claim the system is so massively complex that no single person can understand it all. Lately, I have been contemplating on what does it mean when people talk about the resiliency of the system? Why are so many talking about it now compared to even a decade ago or since 2008? Why is resiliency consistently used as a counterpoint? A a very vague counterpoint at that. What is it supposed to prove or imply? Whenever someone uses it that fashion, I feel like I’m being left with an incomplete argument.
The system has proved more resilient than a collection of unspecified predictions from thousands of anonymous collapseniks suggest.
Therefore ???????????
I am 100% convinced that techno industrial civilization is failing and in it’s twilight. It’s an eclectic gathering of evidence that has convinced me. Not one prediction, accurate or failed, is part of the evidence, because prediction are not evidence – just more meaningless social monkey chatter.
The fact that there has been no recovery, except for the top 10%, from the 2008 financial crash in spite of mega efforts to save (bailout) the system and to prop it up (ZIRP, et al) is a big piece of evidence. An 8 year can kick courtesy taxpayer bailout and even more lying, stealing, cheating and debt debt debt. So the system resiliency looks to be nothing but more of the same maleficence that is killing it in the first place. I do not find that strategy by the overlords to be all that impressive.
Fun with Fake Statistics: The 5% “Increase” in Median Household Income Is Pure Illusion
http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.ca/2016/09/fun-with-fake-statistics-5-increase-in.html
ghung on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 1:01 pm
“I can’t tell sometimes whether it’s projection or fantasy.”
No more than folks who insist that industrial civilization can continue. I base my evaluations on the currently available (and verifiable) evidence, and it’s clear there’s more evidence for one than the other; very little evidence that our required level of consumption can continue; plenty of evidence that humans will continue to extract the things we need as quickly as possible, until they can’t.
Plenty of evidence that there’s very little meaningful concern for our collective future. If liabilities are on the increase while our ability to respond with affective solutions declines, at some point something has to give. Inflection points will be reached.
ghung on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 1:07 pm
Mobius: An Autumnal Equinox and A New Human Society
Part 1. How Can the Human Social System Survive?
Apneaman on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 1:17 pm
The ZIRP/NIRP Gods and their PhD Priesthood Have Failed
http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.ca/2016/09/the-zirpnirp-gods-and-their-phd.html
Davy on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 1:59 pm
I have to agree fully with Ape man and Ghung. The evidence is overwhelmingly showing an ominous trend and systematically this trend is too complex to model beyond the vague. If some of us chose to take the liberties of being more certain that is no more or less a violation of the truth than those who chose the confidence of the success of modernism.
When it comes down to it this is a educated guessing game. A serious game that must be played honestly to have an chance at getting closer to the truth. I have no reason to want the end I often speak of. My life would be hard to improve on so tell me why I want that to end. I would love for optimism to shine through the storm clouds but until there is a reason for optimism I am a realist that sees collapse ahead. It is my duty to learn more about collapse and share those findings with those of you who may have interest. Please prove me wrong is my request.
rockman on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 2:00 pm
“It just depends on which is more important; yesterday or tomorrow.” Actually what’s truly important is understanding what has happened in the past (like producing many billions of bbls of oil and during recent years producing record amounts of daily oil from many high water cut fields that are not only still pumping but delivering an increase AS A RESULT of the price collapse. For a long time there were heated debates here as to how much “excess production” was being heald back. We still don’t know the total amount but the increase in response to lower prices gives us a sense of the minimum.
Yes: high water cut fields produce nothing when shut in. Thus the global increase in daily oil production DESPITE LOWER PRICES appears to prove the vast majority of high water cut fields will keep producing even in a low oil pice environment.
Shorty – I’m sure everyone here appreciates your pointing that out. LOL.
HARM on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 2:36 pm
“The fact that there has been no recovery, except for the top 10%, from the 2008 financial crash in spite of mega efforts to save (bailout) the system…”
Which is all the bailout was ever intended to do. It was never about the 99% or even the 99.9%. The bailout actually WORKED great for the 0.1% of super-elites it was designed to help.
You and I just don’t matter. The only time the global elites are forced to even *pretend* to care about us is when we fail to stay fully pacified/numbed with religion, drugs, junk food, video games, sports, etc. When that fails, they divide us along culture war and gender/race/religion battle lines, so we keep on fighting and demonizing each other and not focusing our rage on the real enemy within.
I have seen zero evidence that this pattern cannot continue indefinitely. In fact, in the U.S., the proletariat is getting even *more* polarized and *less* unified. Americans have 100% accepted and so thoroughly internalized the neocon/neolib narrative about capitalism/growth = good; socialism/anti-growth = bad that they cannot even conceive of a viable alternative to the status quo, much less take positive unified action in that direction.
HARM on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 2:47 pm
“The ZIRP/NIRP Gods and their PhD Priesthood Have Failed”
I like CHS, but sometimes his extreme Libertarian bias blinds him to the obvious truth that there is no “us” in “we”. ZIRP/NIRP/QE and bailouts have not “failed”, in fact they succeeded beyond the global elites’ wildest dreams. THEY are a lot richer, you and I are a little poorer. That’s a win-win in the Richistani playbook.
Extreme concentration of wealth and political power is NOT a “flaw” in the system of global capitalism, it’s a FEATURE. Libertarians and conservatives fantasize endlessly about an impossible utopia of unfettered capitalism that benefits everyone, not just the elite. They continue to claim (without any historical precedent or evidence) that if we just “unleash private capital and deregulate the markets” that a new era of universal prosperity will just naturally happen.
They are hopelessly deluded. Capitalism is functioning perfectly and doing exactly what it’s supposed to do –enrich the property holding rent-seekers (capitalists) at the expense of everyone else.
“Pure” unfettered capitalism *IS* crony capitalism. There has never been any other kind and never will be.
Apneaman on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 4:23 pm
HARM, you are correct, but I think CHS is referring to the publically stated goal of the policies not the behind the curtain ones. Maybe he hopes to wake up the sheeple and they’ll start the revolution? As for “indefinitely”, it depends on in which sense of the word you are using it – unlimited, no. Unspecified, sure. For a decade or so IMO. Hell let it ride, I’m 50 and my reckless and physically abusive lifestyle of yesteryear is catching up to me in a hurry. Not looking forward to any “World Made by Hand”
All the G-20 countries now have legislation for bail-ins, so does that count as “prepping” by TPTB?
Boat on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 4:43 pm
ape, harm
“The fact that there has been no recovery, except for the top 10%, from the 2008 financial crash in spite of mega efforts to save (bailout) the system and to prop it up (ZIRP, et al) is a big piece of evidence.”
I won’t try to argue unemployment during the great depression and the great recession but for over 70 percent of Americans they had jobs, supported their families and life went on.
The so called recovery that only the top 10 percent gained from. I for one was able to refinance my home from 7.5 to 4 percent. I had plenty of equity so I took out enough cash to purchace a car with cash. Home prices have risen enough essentially the car was free on paper. I would assume any business refinanced their debt.
So the government spends 4 trillion with air/printed money and buys my debt and we all pay our much lowered interest to them. Where is the danger. For me and millions of others it was cash that used to go to a banker at a much higher rate.
Apneaman on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 5:30 pm
Boat, whatever version of reality that makes you happy.
HyperNormalisation: Adam Curtis BBC documentary to look at why the world is so hopelessly f*cked
‘We have retreated into a simplified and often completely fake version of the world”
“The film shows that what has happened is that all of us in the West – not just the politicians and the journalists and the experts, but we ourselves – have retreated into a simplified, and often completely fake version of the world. But because it is all around us, we accept it as normal.'”
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/hypernormalisation-adam-curtis-bbc-documentary-to-look-at-why-the-world-is-so-hopelessly-fcked-a7322391.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULbq_xftJ6E
godq3 on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 5:34 pm
HARM:”And yet here we are nearly a decade later…”
China’s coal saved us. But now it’s in decline. Look at world’s overall energy consumption, not oil only.
farmlad on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 7:06 pm
historically as technology automation and volumes have increased they have only served to free the labourers to pursue other and better paying and more productive work. One great example is the vast population that moved from farming to manufacturing as technology coupled with fossil fuel energy replaced more than 90% of farmers. This was seen as a positive. So if the same thing happens today you try to convince us that it is a negative?
Up until the 90s or so we always had more energy and other resources to tap into so additional ventures and jobs were in no way limited, not even the sky was the limit. That no longer is true and now we are left to fight over the leftovers. And if a job will get you that then lossing a job is a bad thing.
Predictions of a one day work week used to be what people envisioned, well that didn’t work out since people just used that extra time to acomplish even more work in order to have more things.
The predictions of automated autos are still a long way off and will most likely never materialize for the same reasons that the flying car never materialized and the reason that the concorde was scrapped. That would be the amount of available energy in a usable form that is available to enough people.
Boat on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 7:08 pm
Apneaman on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 5:30 pm
“Boat, whatever version of reality that makes you happy.”
Exactaly ape. Most of us live in our own version of reality. My factory upbringing leads me live through numbers. If you can’t prove a talking point without a historical context along with todays numbers I will be very skecpital. In many cases when I do the research I find many claims and opions are shyt.
godq3 on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 5:34 pm
HARM:”And yet here we are nearly a decade later…”
China’s coal saved us. But now it’s in decline. Look at world’s overall energy consumption, not oil only.
Here is a all to often example. Any idiot can google world energy demand and find charts showing growing consumption for ff and renewables. So yea, we all in our own realities.
Apneaman on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 9:54 pm
‘Air pollution fourth leading factor for premature death’
“The deaths cost the global economy about $225 billion in lost labour income in 2013, a new study finds, pointing toward the economic burden of air pollution.
“The Cost of Air Pollution: Strengthening the Economic Case for Action”, a joint study of the World Bank (WB) and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), estimates that around 5.5 million lives were lost in 2013 to diseases associated with outdoor and household air pollution, causing human suffering and reducing economic development.
The study, released early this month, discovers that while pollution-related deaths strike mainly young children and the elderly, premature deaths also result in lost labour income for working-age men and women.”
http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/2016/09/19/46445/%E2%80%98Air-pollution-fourth-leading-factor-for-premature-death%E2%80%99
Young children and the elderly? Useless eaters I say. Why waste money and resources on non producers? If you’re not contributing to the growth of the cancer then you should be “let go”.
makati1 on Thu, 22nd Sep 2016 10:20 pm
Nice satire, Ap. But I plan to hang around for a long time to watch the current extinction progress to its inevitable end.
Davy on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 1:44 am
We will have to evolve consciousness as we are “devolved” by evolution. This will likely occur in existential crisis and in accordance with “Ecos”. We are in the vicinity of this crisis. I also have come to the conclusion that this process was inevitable because it is part of the nature of “Ecos” to destroy itself as it finds itself because extinction and evolution is the frequency of life. This frequency reflects the greater system found in the stars. We are just a resonance of this star based phenomenon. Life is hummed into existence by the stars so to speak.
Another way to put this inevitability is to pass on blame. Blame is for and within our modern civilization it is a dualistic approach typical of humans in separation from “Ecos”. The reality is humans are “vectors” or “carriers” of this frequency of life as top level species. Other species do not have the forces to transmit evolution and extinction as we do. This place in the “Ecos” of course is not conscious. Our consciousness is towards a separate human civilization not the “Ecos”. Our drive then becomes a subset but it is at a level that places us in the driver seat of extinction and hence evolution. There can be no blame if we are following the nature of “Ecos”.
Once blame is disposed of then we can see through the fog of doubt and guilt who and what we are. This is only partial because a part can never know the whole. It is also a call to devolve our consciousness as much as to advance it. If we understand that we are vectors of extinction by acquiescence of “Ecos” we must also come to the conclusion that it is also “Ecos” nature to extinguish this drive to extinction with evolution. We can flip from an extinction vector to an evolution vector. We can thus transform and evolve from our extinction phase.
Our impact has reached the stage of turning an Epoch. We are now turning a human age. The final phase is turning a species. This is if “Ecos” acquiesce this path. That is not known nor can it be known. This is not a known because this path is part of the frequency and such a frequency cannot know its range or there will be no frequency. To know completely is paralysis. Thus our final phase as a species may or may not be evolution into a new species it may be the end of our species and over time new life will form and find its place as the top level vector of extinction and evolution. If we accept this then we can go extinct in peace.
“Ecos” dwells within geologic acquiescence of the Earth system, to the solar system and finally within the galaxy. Ultimately all meaning and acquiescence originates somewhere out there. For us now then there is this profound time of the whole meaning of life resting within our hands. The meaning of life and death is now in our hands and self-realized. What we do with that immense power is now. This power is much more powerful than our technology because this is life reflecting on itself at its highest level but lowest level. We are there as extinction and evolution and we are reflecting upon it.
shortonoil on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 7:16 am
“We will have to evolve consciousness as we are “devolved” by evolution. This will likely occur in existential crisis and in accordance with “Ecos”. We are in the vicinity of this crisis.”
There is an interesting quote that I ran into on Cloudy Nights on the KIC-846452 thread:
[i]”If you’re advanced enough to build a Dyson sphere, you’re probably advanced enough to live within your means. Advanced need not mean profligate. It might mean efficient.”[/i]
http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/515226-kic-8462852/page-14
Is it possible that we can evolve into a more efficient civilization if put under duress?
My house in Vermont, I could take completely off the grid for 3 months in the dead of a Vermont winter, and survive very comfortably. Electricity came from a near by stream, heat from 3 Vermont Casting wood stoves, and every thing in the house was duel electric and gas. Even the lighting system. We even ran it, during one very bad ice storm (my wife and I) for about 8 weeks with the three of us, and a few cold neighbors. At that point you could have charged $20 for a shower – if you were a real Dick Head.
At four months we would have been looking for food, at eight propane. By year end we would have been cutting wood, and storing food for the next year. In lieu of all the preparations we probably would not have made it much further than a year.
The problem is that to become a much more efficient civilization it would be necessary to unload most of the means of survival that the prior civilization had offered. In which case most of the “evolution” would have to take place with the descendants of the very few that survived. In other words, none of us are going to be around to see it! It is an academic exercise for which we will never know the answer. It is pure speculation that leaves that “sinking feeling” in the pit of your stomach.
PS: Is KIC-846452 the remains of a past, or present highly advanced alien civilization. Extremely unlikely. They are looking at something that is so far away, and so vast in volume that it could contain millions of stars. This is really attempting to pick the needle out of the proverbial haystack. They are looking into a volume that is 200 light years across.
donstewart on Fri, 23rd Sep 2016 10:43 am
@rockman @shortonoil
I would like to inject my two cents into the questions about the future of high water cut fields.
40 years ago I was at a fund-raising dinner for a local arts organization. My neighbor said he was a ‘slum lord’. We had a fascinating discussion about the ins and outs of making money on derelict properties. He said that he could make money where conventional property management companies could not, because his methods were aimed at the specific market. Similarly, a couple of years ago I noticed that Exxon had sold some high water cut fields in the Gulf to a smaller company who specialized in taking high water cut fields and making money when a company like Exxon either couldn’t or wasn’t interested.
So…there is no question that there are SOME people who can bottom fish, and do so successfully given the right circumstances.
But my slum-lord dining companion was dependent on housing subsidies. If the government had not been subsidizing either the housing directly or the household in general, the people would have been living on the street. And that is the question raised by the ETP model. If oil production begins to decline at 6 percent per year and GDP declines at 10 percent per year, and the price paid for oil trends toward zero, then will anyone be able to afford to pay for oil produced from high water cut fields?
And that latter question goes to the heart of whether the ETP model is actually a realistic view of the connection between oil and GDP and the ability of society to pay its debts and for the society to remain stable enough to maintain some kind of industrial system. The ETP model may or may not be a good guide, but just referring to bottom fishing businesses which can make money now doesn’t prove that they can make money in 5 or 10 years.
Don Stewart