onlooker wrote:So Simmons was essentially correct about everything P, except his timing was a bit premature uh?
ennui2 wrote:onlooker wrote:So Simmons was essentially correct about everything P, except his timing was a bit premature uh?
Simmons never pushed ETP theory. He, like everyone else, predicted prices going UP as depletion advances.
rockdoc123 wrote:Again recovery in Ghawar will be 70 - 73% according to Aramco which means there is still about 25 Gbbls left....I know of a lot of companies who would like to get their hands on an "oily film" of that size.
ennui2 wrote:onlooker wrote:So Simmons was essentially correct about everything P, except his timing was a bit premature uh?
Simmons never pushed ETP theory. He, like everyone else, predicted prices going UP as depletion advances.
When was the last time you checked out the IHS Edin P2 estimate on Ghawar Rockdoc? It changed recently, and interestingly, not in the direction I would have expected.
SumYunGai wrote:Basic peak oil theory had always predicted that the economy would be very sensitive to high oil prices. That turned out to be true.
SumYunGai wrote:We already had the big "classic peak oil" moment and you didn't even notice! LOL.
AdamB wrote:SumYunGai wrote:Basic peak oil theory had always predicted that the economy would be very sensitive to high oil prices. That turned out to be true.
Please provide reference to seminal, basic peak oil theory as written by Hubbert in 1956 that says anything about the economy being sensitive to high oil prices.
AdamB wrote:True. Global peak in 1979 was pretty ugly.
AdamB wrote:
Please provide reference to seminal, basic peak oil theory .... that says anything about the economy being sensitive to high oil prices.
The price of oil already did go UP as depletion advanced. Did you miss it? In 2008, the price of oil shot up to $147/barrel. That was a giant shock to the economy and the Great recession was the direct result. With the central banks desperately bailing out and stimulating, the economy managed an anemic "recovery" and the oil price climbed back over $100/barrel. But the economy could not sustain a price over $100/barrel for very long. Now we are in collapse so the oil price will be going down from here on out.
rockdoc123 wrote:There is not an economist ... in the world that would agree with you that oil prices started the 2008 - 2009 recession.
Plantagenet wrote:Considering how little you know about the subjects discussed at this site, you really should tone down your statements a bit. You have been proven wrong so often in the past, and once again today you've made a bone-headed and completely false statement. A word of advice----relax a bit and try conversing with the other posters instead of insisting you are right all the time.
rockdoc123 wrote:The price of oil already did go UP as depletion advanced. Did you miss it? In 2008, the price of oil shot up to $147/barrel. That was a giant shock to the economy and the Great recession was the direct result. With the central banks desperately bailing out and stimulating, the economy managed an anemic "recovery" and the oil price climbed back over $100/barrel. But the economy could not sustain a price over $100/barrel for very long. Now we are in collapse so the oil price will be going down from here on out.
Oh for crying out loud. Do you think that you can wander from thread to thread and try to push this same idea? There is not an economist or financial banker in the world that would agree with you that oil prices started the 2008 - 2009 recession.
Peak Oil and the Great Recession
"Pretty similar" to 2005-09 means a big spike in oil prices that causes a big recession. The chart on the right shows what he means. The green line shows expected economic growth. The dashed line shows the Great Recession. And the red line? That's his estimate of the effect of the huge spike in oil prices in 2007-08. If Hamilton is right, then the oil spike is responsible for about two-thirds of the Great Recession all by itself. The housing and credit bubbles are only responsible for a fairly small piece of it.
rockdoc123 wrote:They are all very adamant that it was the sub-prime mortgages and had bupkiss to do with oil price.
rockdoc123 wrote:Also we have shown countless times here that $100 /bbl oil had absolutely no affect whatsoever on increasing global demand/consumption and the reason for the drop in price was over supply.
rockdoc123 wrote:Do you actually think if you spout the same BS a lot of times that it will suddenly be recognized as truth?
Plantagenet wrote:The eminent economist Prof. James Hamilton believes that spikes in oil prices cause most recessions
Most economists view the economic growth of the last century and a half as being fueled by ongoing technological progress.
radon1 wrote:Plantagenet wrote:The eminent economist Prof. James Hamilton believes that spikes in oil prices cause most recessions
Why don't they sack him for this idiotic statement?
radon1 wrote:radon1 wrote:Another storyline from your link:
Most economists view the economic growth of the last century and a half as being fueled by ongoing technological progress.
"Most economists" are wrong. This is the other way round - technological progress has been fueled by economic growth.
radon1 wrote:Why some "prof. Hamilton" who produсes nonsense papers, is in any more authoritative than poster rockdoc, who supports his view with solid facts?
rockdoc123 wrote:There is not an economist or financial banker in the world that would agree with you that oil prices started the 2008 - 2009 recession.
StarvingLion wrote:Russia is on the brink of TOTAL COLLAPSE.
Russia is seriously running out of cash - Sep. 16, 2016
CNNMoney - 1 day ago
Russia's rainy day fund has shrunk to just $32.2 billion this month and is likely to dry up ...
Russia 'could run out of cash reserves in 2017'
The Independent - 14 hours ago
Russia is seriously running out of cash | Money
WLWT.com - 1 day ago
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 143 guests