[kublikhan]

I seriously doubt that. The world economy has slipped back into recession. It began at the same time as the oil glut. This is all consistent with the Etp model. Here is a graph of Gross World Product:

That graph you keep posting is measuring growth in nominal dollars, not real terms. IE, the only thing it is really saying is that the dollar strengthened last year. It is NOT saying global goods and services produced shrunk. Measured in real terms, the global GDP grew 2.5 percent last year:

this doom and gloom about the global economy does also depend upon something of a statistical trick:

"The world economy is currently growing at its weakest pace since it began recovering in 2009, with global GDP growth for 2015 estimated at 2.5 per cent in real terms. But measured in nominal dollar terms, global GDP will likely contract by about 5 per cent this year. This would be just the third time that the global economy has shrunk in nominal GDP terms since 1980."

And that is the trick that we need to use to get to a 5% fall in global GDP: measure it in nominal dollar terms. We all rather expect the dollar to rise against other currencies into the future, as the Federal Reserve continues to raise interest rates. This means that economic activity conducted in other currencies, when measured in dollars at those market rates, is worth less. We’re not in fact saying that growth is going to fall when measured in renminbi, euros, yen or pounds. Rather, that it will fall when we measure it in dollars. And that’s a useful measure but not a complete one. We still think that the global economy at the end of 2016 will be producing more goods and services than it did at the beginning: it’s just that the value of our measuring stick, the US dollar, has changed.

Morgan Stanley's Bloodcurdling Economic Forecast: Global GDP To Shrink By 5% Next Year

[marmico]

<I>That graph you keep posting is measuring growth in nominal dollars, not real terms.</I>

futilist whatever is a retard. Of course, if global GDP is measured in US$, and the US$ rises more than global nominal GDP, global nominal GDP will decline.

I'm more interested in the inability of the Mendocino Weed Dealer aka Peter Starr to make the Method 2 calculation proof of the ETP algorithm. No wonder 99.9% of his 22000+ peakoil.com posts are in the realm of foggy worthlessness.

[StarvingLion]

"...shutting down high EROEI coal plants at the expense of lower EROEI oil and gas because of environmental concerns"

LOL...they shut down the coal plants because they require engineers on every day staff. Classic Ponzi requires 0 employees:

Solar: 0 engineers
Wind: 0 engineers
Gas Turbine: 1

Yep, its a ponzi. Why? Because the USA is broke and cannot afford coal plants, nuclear plants...totally dedicated to The 0 Engineer No Energy System courtesy of the Department Of No Energy (DONE) which is indeed DONE.

[rockdoc123]

We are talking about thermodynamic limits. We are not talking about using thermodynamics to guide our choices. So your entire argument is as irrelevant as it was a couple of pages back. 

Do you even read the crap you write?

This is exactly what you said:

The second law of thermodynamics sets the arrow of time. That is why backing up is not one of your choices. And each of your remaining "choices" - left, right, or straight ahead - are also predetermined by their thermodynamic viability.

So which is it? On the one hand you are arguing that everything is predetermined by it’s thermodynamic viability and then you say that it isn’t or it doesn’t matter?

First religion, and now you are arguing politics.

And you are throwing out red herrings to avoid addressing the failings and contradictions in your arguments. If you think nobody has figured out this ploy which you have been using continuously then you are seriously mistaken.

rockdoc123 wrote:
And as I pointed out some pages back oil companies often decide to pursue projects that have lower EROEI's than competing projects for economic considerations.

So what?

Well we aren’t “maximizing energy usage at the greatest possible efficiency” then are we? Something that the MPP apparently GUARANTEES according to you.

[Whatever]

We are talking about thermodynamic limits. We are not talking about using thermodynamics to guide our choices. So your entire argument is as irrelevant as it was a couple of pages back. 

Do you even read the crap you write?

That is inappropriate, rockdoc. You are the one playing word games.

This is exactly what you said:

The second law of thermodynamics sets the arrow of time. That is why backing up is not one of your choices. And each of your remaining "choices" - left, right, or straight ahead - are also predetermined by their thermodynamic viability.

So which is it? On the one hand you are arguing that everything is predetermined by it’s thermodynamic viability and then you say that it isn’t or it doesn’t matter?

The view I expressed is internally consistent. You keep pretending not to understand it so you can play word games.

First religion, and now you are arguing politics.

And you are throwing out red herrings to avoid addressing the failings and contradictions in your arguments. If you think nobody has figured out this ploy which you have been using continuously then you are seriously mistaken.

You called thermodynamics a religion that preaches irresponsibility. Then you talked about US geopolitics. My comment is not a red herring. You are the one playing word games.

And as I pointed out some pages back oil companies often decide to pursue projects that have lower EROEI's than competing projects for economic considerations.

So what?

Well we aren’t “maximizing energy usage at the greatest possible efficiency” then are we? Something that the MPP apparently GUARANTEES according to you.

If you couldn't chose some projects for economic considerations, then the choice you made was your best possible choice. You are operating at maximum efficiency.

------------------

Since you keep pulling things out of context from posts on prior pages to make your fake, repetitive arguments, I am now forced to repeat some of my posts so that the readers aren't misled:

Oil men only care about money, not energy. I get it. They don't think about energy return, only monetary profit. But the energy returned from oil is ultimately responsible for the price of oil. Just because you can drill a particular well that can make you a profit tells us nothing about the depletion state of the world's oil reserves.

The total immediately available energy is what is responsible for world economic growth. Oil supplies 38% of the total energy. The dollars to buy oil are generated by an economy that uses the energy from oil to maintain economic growth to generate the dollars to buy oil. Thermodynamics ultimately determines the price of oil and the price of oil determines what oil gets produced.

There must be sufficient available energy to maintain enough economic growth to pay for the continuing production of oil. And the energetic cost of oil production can only rise due to the rising entropy in the oil production system.

I don't disagree with you that individual drilling decisions are made by considering only profit, and not thermodynamics. There is no other way to do it. But thermodynamics ultimately runs the show. How could it be otherwise?

The price of oil is not determined by the refiners. That is silly. The refiners have to sell their finished products to consumers in the general economy. Consumers cannot afford whatever price the refiners might want to ask. They are limited by the economy which runs on the energy from oil.

Again, let me save you some time, your entire argument is irrelevant.

That is just an empty declaration.

1. The total immediately available energy is what is responsible for world economic growth. Do you agree or disagree?

2. The dollars to buy oil are generated by an economy that uses the energy from oil to maintain economic growth to generate the dollars to buy oil. Do you agree or disagree?

3. Thermodynamics ultimately determines the price of oil and the price of oil determines what oil gets produced.

If you agree with #1 and #2, then you must agree with #3.

We are not talking about what drives the decisions of the oil and gas companies. We are talking about the thermodynamic limit to the oil production process.

You have it completely backwards. The thermodynamic effects of reaching peak oil drives the decisions of the oil producers.

Businesses make their decisions based on money, not the physics of energy.

The wolves cannot be kept at bay forever. If oil prices do not rise sufficiently, production will ultimately fall.

No it isn't. You are just making another empty declaration.

1. There must be sufficient available energy to maintain enough economic growth to pay for the continuing production of oil. Do you seriously disagree with this?

2. And the energetic cost of oil production can only rise due to the rising entropy in the oil production system. You cannot possibly disagree with this.

I know thermodynamics is not a part of the equation that oil companies use. But it really is the underlyning driver. It is just that people are not generally aware of it.

Okay, here is some proof:

http://phys.org/news/2009-11-law-thermo ... ution.html

Terms such as the "invisible hand," laissez-faire policy, and free-market principles suggest that economic growth and decline in capitalist societies seem to be somehow self-regulated. Now, scientists Arto Annila of the University of Helsinki and Stanley Salthe of Binghampton University in New York show that economic activity can be regarded as an evolutionary process governed by the second law of thermodynamics. Their perspective may provide insight into some fundamental economic questions, such as the causes of economic growth and diversification, as well as why it’s so difficult to predict economic growth and decline.

As Annila and Salthe explain in their study published in Entropy, the second law of thermodynamics was originally formulated to describe the flow of heat from hot to cold areas. However, when formulated as an equation of motion, the second law can be used to describe many other processes in energetic terms, such as natural selection for the fittest species, organization of cellular metabolism, or an ecosystem’s food web. In these systems, free energy is consumed; that is, energy is dispersed in a way to promote the maximal increase of entropy, which is the essence of the second law.

While economic activities are traditionally viewed as being motivated by profit, Annila and Salthe argue that the ultimate motivation of economic activities is not to maximize profit or productivity, but rather to disperse energy. From this perspective, a growing economy consists of entities (e.g. products, labor, etc.) that are assigned an energy density resulting from their individual production processes. These density differences are the forces that direct energy flows (e.g. manufacturing processes) to equalize energy density differences within the system and with respect to its surroundings.

The scientists argue that this tendency to disperse the maximum amount of energy (that is, to consume free energy in the least time) is what gives rise to economic laws and regularities.

Ultimately, it does. See the article above. While people may make decisions based on money (and lots of other things), thermodynamics is still in charge. Money is just what humans use to direct invisible energy flows. The decisions made by humans cannot supersede the laws of thermodynamics, so it makes no sense to worry about all of those human decisions when discussing thermodynamic limits. It is irrelevant.

The fact that you are using the term Gibbs Free Energy suggests that you do understand what I am talking about. So your entire argument is just a disingenuous word game. But perhaps it is an improvement of sorts, since you actually seem to understand some physics. Maybe we could have a useful discussion after all. Hey, here is a question that everyone else is afraid to answer:

Is there a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?

Oil company decisions cannot defy the laws of thermodynamics. Oil companies do not control peak oil.

I am saying that the refiners are not the end users of oil. They have to sell their refined product to consumers. Producers sell to refiners, refiners sell to distributors, distributors sell to consumers. Consumers are the ones buying the final product. Their willingness and ability to pay is what sets the price of oil.

I am saying that the refiners cannot charge whatever price they want for oil. The end consumers have to be able to afford the refined product. The level of economic activity determines what consumers can afford. And the level of economic activity is determined by the amount of energy immediately available.

Refiners try to get the best price they can. Their customers willingness and ability to pay sets the final price.

It is the same invisible hand it has always been. People are just starting to realize that the invisible hand is thermodynamics.

I have spent the last 26 or so pages explaining the Etp model and thermodynamic limits in great detail. You are playing word games.

We are talking about thermodynamic limits. The oil company decisions are not made with any consideration given to thermodynamics or thermodynamic limits, as you keep repeating. And no decision made by an oil company will change the fact that we reached the thermodynamic limit for the life cycle of oil production in 2012. That means that the price of oil will generally decline from now on. So what the hell do oil company decisions have to do with thermodynamic limits? That seems like a simple enough question. If you can't answer that question, then your entire diatribe is irrelevant.

Great. But it seems like you missed my question that I put in bold so you wouldn't miss it. You even carefully cut my bolded question out of my quote above to hide it. Nice. You are doing this on purpose. It is very disingenuous to dodge a direct question. I will ask it again.

Is there a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?

The whole shape of the oil age was made by billions and billions of individual decisions, none of which was concerned in the least with thermodynamics. That is what I mean when I say that oil industry decisions don't control peak oil. No one controls peak oil.

Peak oil is a thermodynamic phenomenon. Since the oil industry is only concerned with making money, why should anybody care what they think about thermodynamic limits?

I thought the oil industry was making all the decisions. Now you have the bankers in charge. So how do the bankers know which way the oil price is going to go? Do they use thermodynamics? Bankers have been *WAY* wrong before, remember? Many bankers lost a lot of money when the oil price crashed. They sure weren't right then. What makes you so sure they are right now?

And by the way, have you had a chance to think about the answer to this question:


Is there a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?


This is like pulling teeth, rockdoc. Please. I asked you a fair question. You really should come up with an answer.

So you don't care? What a total cop-out! Why didn't you say so sooner? Why are you spending so much time on this thread? Before you got here, we were talking about thermodynamic limits.

Who are you arguing with? I basically agree with you. The whole shape of the oil age was made by billions and billions of individual decisions, none of which was concerned in the least with thermodynamics. That is what I mean when I say that oil industry decisions don't control peak oil. No one controls peak oil. Do you understand what the word control means?

This two page argument all started with this simple statement by me:

Oil company decisions cannot defy the laws of thermodynamics, so oil companies do not control peak oil.

My statement is true. You have turned this into an endless word game. Knock it off.

Peak oil is a thermodynamic phenomenon. Since the oil industry is only concerned with making money, why should anybody care what they think about thermodynamic limits?

There must be a maximum sustainable thermodynamic limit to the price of oil. Here is why:

Consumers are the end users of oil. They must pay the full cost of the production, refining and delivery of oil. The economy runs on the energy it gets from oil. The total immediately available energy determines the level of world economic growth. The level of world economic growth determines how much money consumers have to spend on oil. Consumers cannot spend more money than they actually have.

If there were no maximum thermodynamic limit to the price of oil, that would imply that the price of oil could rise to infinity. Of course that is impossible since consumers cannot spend more money than they actually have. If you then claim that there are many other things that can limit the oil price to less than infinity that is fine, but these things cannot possibly result in a sustainable oil price that is higher than the maximum thermodynamic limit.

All human activities and decisions take place within the bounds of the physical laws of the universe. No matter what humans may imagine is possible, the laws of thermodynamics cannot be superseded.

You claim lots of things can play a roll in determining the daily price of oil. But none of those things can can raise the price above the maximum sustainable thermodynamic limit. Get it?

The amount of money held by consumers depends on the overall health of the economy. The overall health of the economy depends on the amount of energy that is immediately available to it. Energy creates the economy and the economy creates the money to buy the energy to create the economy.

The economy is a thermodynamic heat engine that runs on the energy from oil. All economic activity depends on the immediately available energy. Consumer's oil affordability is completely dependent on the overall health of the economy which depends on the energy it gets from oil. This is a thermodynamic loop.

Energy is a zero sum game. Hydro, nuclear, and coal are already being used for something. If you want to use some of this energy to produce oil, you will have to take it away from some other current use. If you do that, you are just robbing Peter to pay Paul. The total immediately available energy cannot fall or the economy will fall with it. To make up for the loss of energy from oil, you would have to grow the capacity of alternatives at the same rate you are losing energy from oil. If it were possible to grow the capacity of alternatives so easily, why are we still using oil?

The empirical reality is that all processes in the universe are subject to the laws of thermodynamics. This includes the oil production process.

It's the total immediately available energy that determines the health of the economy in which all economic drilling decisions are made. Thus economics may determine which particular wells might be drilled, but thermodynamics will determine how much total oil is produced in the world (even if all human economic decisions are based on money). Thermodynamics really runs the show, but since energy flows are invisible, humans blindly use economics to attempt to "control" things. Life is a thermodynamic process and humans are no different than yeast in a vat. The individual eating decisions of a particular yeast cell will not make any difference to the overall thermodynamics of the system.

Thermodynamics determines the maximum size of the pie, economics cuts it into pieces.

Thermodynamics is *WAY* more powerful than any little human decision. The second law of thermodynamics sets the arrow of time. That is why backing up is not one of your choices. And each of your remaining "choices" - left, right, or straight ahead - are also predetermined by their thermodynamic viability. And you can't know that in advance, so your "choice" isn't much of a real choice anyway. A blind guess is not a choice and whatever decision you actually make, it cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics runs the show.

The economic decisions of an individual oil company do not control peak oil. Individual oil companies compete for profits. The Maximum Power Principle guarantees that the sum of ALL economic decisions will work to maximize energy usage at the greatest possible efficiency. It took a lot of individual blind decisions to get us on our current path. We didn't plan it in advance. We can't decide to start planning it now.

The laws of thermodynamics ultimately determine the limits to a system's growth. Humans cannot control thermodynamic limits with money decisions.

We are talking about thermodynamic limits. We are not talking about using thermodynamics to guide our choices. So your entire argument is as irrelevant as it was a couple of pages back.



---Futilitist

[Whatever]

I seriously doubt that. The world economy has slipped back into recession. It began at the same time as the oil glut. This is all consistent with the Etp model. Here is a graph of Gross World Product:

That graph you keep posting is measuring growth in nominal dollars, not real terms. IE, the only thing it is really saying is that the dollar strengthened last year. It is NOT saying global goods and services produced shrunk. Measured in real terms, the global GDP grew 2.5 percent last year:

No. You are wrong. The graph shows that the world economy is in decline. Gross Planet Product is a more reliable measure than World GDP. Here is the article about shrinking GPP:

http://voxeu.org/article/shrinking-planetary-gdp

We are shrinking! The neglected drop in Gross Planet Product

Peter A.G. van Bergeijk 07 December 2015

The analysis and forecasts of the IMF are well covered in the press. This column deals with a less noted development in the data provided by the IMF, namely the nominal decrease in Gross Planet Product. Since the IMF forecast both positive growth and positive inflation, the nominal shrinkage of GPP puts into question the consistency of the IMF World Economic Outlook data and forecasts.

Presenting the October 2015 IMF World Economic Outlook, Maurice Obstfeld (2015) identified the fall of commodity prices as one of the powerful forces shaping the outlook for the world economy. The strength of this force, however, is underestimated by the official forecasts in the IMF’s flagship publication. As illustrated in Figure 1 the IMF world economic outlook database reports a reduction of Gross Planet Product (GPP) for the year 2015 by -3,8 trillion dollar (-4.9%). A nominal reduction of GPP of this size has occurred only once since 1980 (the starting year of the IMF database), namely at the start of the Great Recession when GPP contracted by -5.3%. Table 1 illustrates that all previous contractions of nominal GPP are associated with major crises in the world economy.

Figure 1. Gross Planet Product at current prices (trillions of dollars, 1980 – 2015)



Source: IMF World Economic Outlook Database, October 2015.

Table 1. Years with nominal contractions of GPP (1980-2015)



Source: IMF World Economic Outlook Database, October 2015.

The reduction at current prices is especially noteworthy in view of the official IMF forecasts (2015, table 1.1, p.2) that set real economic growth at 3.1% and planetary inflation at 3.3%. Taken at face value these forecasts imply a growth rate of GPP of + 6.5 %. By implication the IMF is either too optimistic about real growth, too optimistic about the avoidance of deflation or too optimistic about both these factors.

Alternative explanations

In order to assess whether this difference between nominal and real growth rates is relevant we need to consider three alternative explanations that relate to registration, exchange rate effects and aggregation error.

Firstly, the differences could be due to registration errors, including typos and software bugs. Such errors could be expected to be solved when new vintages of the data become available as revisions are used to solve apparent data inconsistencies (Croushore 2011). In this case, however, this factor actually increases our concerns since the revisions point to increasing shrinkage of GPP (in April 2015 the reduction of GPP was estimated at $2,8 trillion or -3.6%). Hence, the more recent (October) vintage of the data actually shows a larger GPP reduction than foreseen in April 2015.

Secondly, the reduction of GPP is too large to be explained from the fact that the IMF forecasts for real production growth are based on constant exchange rate. It is clear that exchange rate movements cannot be neglected, but at the same time the underlying data (from the IMF WEO Database) suggest that only 0.7 percentage points of the difference between nominal and real GPP growth can be related to this factor.

A similar conclusion follows for the third factor that might potentially explain the nominal-real GPP divergence, i.e. errors of aggregation or fallacy of composition. One clear indication of the aggregation issue can be derived from the global aggregate of the current account (van Bergeijk 2013). Since Earth does not trade with Moon or Mars the world total of all current accounts should logically be zero. The world’s current account in the WEO database, however, shows a surplus of $206 billion in 2015. These goods and services ‘disappear’ and create statistical (as opposed to real) shrinkage. Again, while relevant, this factor only amounts to 0.3% of GPP and thus cannot explain the difference between nominal and real GPP in the IMF data and forecasts.

Conclusions and implication

All in all only one percentage point of the shrinkage could possibly be caused by these alternatives. The remainder of about 3.9 percentage point is too large to be simply regarded as the usual inaccuracy of macroeconomic statistics (Manski 2015). This shrinkage is therefore economically significant and thus needs to be taken seriously.

The implication is that the IMF forecasts for 2015 for the world economic system are inconsistent, but that this has not been explicitly noted. These are already worrying conclusions in themselves. Moreover, it is likely that the official IMF forecasts for real GPP are likely to be too optimistic as has also been the case in the past. Analyzing the IMF’s track record over a 20-year period, the Independent Evaluation Office (2014) reports that real economic growth has been overestimated, especially in periods of global crisis. Further downward revisions of the real economic growth rate are therefore to be expected.

I will just repeat this article every time you try to call the GPP graph into question.



---Futilitist

[Whatever]

futilist whatever is a retard.

This is very inappropriate, marmico. You can't call someone a retard. It is extremely inflammatory and it is against the rules. Although I hate to be the one to request moderation, you leave me no choice. I am flagging your post. Let's see what happens.

And my name is Futilitist.



---Futilitist

[ennui2]

the energy returned from oil is ultimately responsible for the price of oil.

Not necessarily. Note that we're still in the tail end of a glut created by oversupply. The glut depressed prices. It has nothing to do with EROEI. Also, let's say the only oil left in the world was sitting in a single tanker ready to be unloaded. EROEI couldn't be any better than that, right? But the competition for that oil would cause the price to be higher than crappy EROEI coal-to-liquids in a post-peak dystopia probably would be. So you can't keep ignoring the impact of supply and demand. The more you attempt to do that, the more you undercut your case that you're soooo about "the data" and scientific-method. You can't cherry-pick in the interest of simplifying a complex system.

Remember that while it may be the ultimate boundary of the universe there's more to physics than the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The universe is actually quite messy with various states of matter, forces, dimensions, mysterious dark-matter and dark-energy, anti-matter, etc... The same is true of the world as we know it. Oil may be the primary force, but it isn't the only one.

2. The dollars to buy oil are generated by an economy that uses the energy from oil to maintain economic growth to generate the dollars to buy oil. Do you agree or disagree?

38% != 100%.

Peak oil is a thermodynamic phenomenon.

Peak oil? Last time I checked, we were in a glut still.

Is there a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?

What's that supposed to be? ASCII art? You're getting ridiculous with these attempts to scream via text.

The economy runs on the energy it gets from oil.

38% != 100%.

Energy is a zero sum game. Hydro, nuclear, and coal are already being used for something. If you want to use some of this energy to produce oil, you will have to take it away from some other current use. If you do that, you are just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I already addressed that earlier using the same figure of speech. Not all energy sources are being exploited to its maximum. Not even oil, really (because of the glut).

[Whatever]

Yep, its a ponzi.

Hey StarvingLion, how about this one:

Civilization is a ponzi.



---Futilitist

[Whatever]

the energy returned from oil is ultimately responsible for the price of oil.

Not necessarily. Note that we're still in the tail end of a glut created by oversupply. The glut depressed prices. It has nothing to do with EROEI. Also, let's say the only oil left in the world was sitting in a single tanker ready to be unloaded. EROEI couldn't be any better than that, right? But the competition for that oil would cause the price to be higher than crappy EROEI coal-to-liquids in a post-peak dystopia probably would be.

If all the oil left in the whole world could only fill one oil tanker, where would the money come from to buy it? At that point, civilization would have lost 38% of total energy and 90% of transportation fuels. There wouldn't be much economy left. Your example is imaginative, yet ridiculous.

But it does highlight something very important. When you project your "oil price keeps rising" scenario to it's bitter end point like that, it obviously breaks down. Things just can't go that far. That means that something must get in the way of your projection. That thing is the thermodynamic limit to the price of oil. Energy is required both to produce oil and to run the general economy. The consumer's oil affordability is dependent on the general health of the economy. The general health of the economy is dependent on the total energy that is immediately available. This has to result in a maximum thermodynamic limit to the price of oil.

Are you saying that there is no thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?

So you can't keep ignoring the impact of supply and demand.

Thermodynamics supersedes supply and demand. The dynamics of supply and demand are the way that humans blindly find the thermodynamic sweet spot according to the Maximum Power Principle. A healthy economy can't be too cold or too hot. That is thermodynamics.

The more you attempt to do that, the more you undercut your case that you're soooo about "the data" and scientific-method. You can't cherry-pick in the interest of simplifying a complex system.

I am not cherry picking. We are only talking about thermodynamic limits. There is no need to complicate the argument. The so called laws of supply and demand cannot cause us to exceed thermodynamic limits.

Remember that while it may be the ultimate boundary of the universe there's more to physics than the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The universe is actually quite messy with various states of matter, forces, dimensions, mysterious dark-matter and dark-energy, anti-matter, etc... The same is true of the world as we know it.

Astrophysics is fun!

Oil may be the primary force, but it isn't the only one.

Oil is our primary energy source. It's loss as an energy source will decrease total immediately available energy. This will cause economic decline. Once the economy begins declining, alternative energy capacity cannot continue to grow. If it were really possible to grow alternatives to this extent, we would have done it by now. We certainly can't do it during a depression.

2. The dollars to buy oil are generated by an economy that uses the energy from oil to maintain economic growth to generate the dollars to buy oil. Do you agree or disagree?

38% != 100%.

If total available energy falls by 38%, the economy will also fall that much.

Peak oil is a thermodynamic phenomenon.

Peak oil? Last time I checked, we were in a glut still.

Last time I checked, tight oil was the only thing responsible for growing world oil production. When fracking goes under, we are officially past peak oil.

Is there a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?

What's that supposed to be? ASCII art?

Do you like it?

I am pretty artistic. My degree is in Biomedical Visualization. I think I read somewhere that you wanted to be an animator. I used to work at ILM and Digital Domain. I animated two Super Bowl commercials and I was one of the original producers on the first "Shrek" movie at DreamWorks.

You're getting ridiculous with these attempts to scream via text.

I don't know what else to do. I am trying to have a serious discussion and people keep childishly evading my basic questions. The visual cues are to draw the reader's attention to an intentional deception. I actually think it has been quite effective.



---Futilitist

[vtsnowedin]

Whatever wrote.

Peak oil? Last time I checked, we were in a glut still.

Last time I checked, tight oil was the only thing responsible for growing world oil production. When fracking goes under, we are officially past peak oil.

[/quote]
What about the increase from Iran after the sanctions were lifted.
And are you sure KSA and Iraq can't increase their production if they so choose?

[ennui2]

Yep, its a ponzi.

Hey StarvingLion, how about this one:

Civilization is a ponzi.

But it's lasted 10,000 years so far, and is likely to last longer than another 4 years.

[ennui2]

If all the oil left in the whole world could only fill one oil tanker, where would the money come from to buy it? At that point, civilization would have lost 38% of total energy and 90% of transportation fuels. There wouldn't be much economy left. Your example is imaginative, yet ridiculous.

Exactly, just like ETP, because last time I checked, the economy is functioning too well to account for doomsday in just 4 years.

But it does highlight something very important. When you project your "oil price keeps rising" scenario to it's bitter end point like that, it obviously breaks down. Things just can't go that far. That means that something must get in the way of your projection.

That's not thermodynamics. It's supply and demand. Price goes up until people are priced out of the market. Why do you keep rejecting supply/demand dynamics???

Are you saying that there is no thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?

I'm saying that thermodynamics is only ONE FACTOR in the price of oil. Apparently your brain can't seem to conceive of more than one variable at a time.

Thermodynamics supersedes supply and demand.

Not YET it doesn't. And not in 4 years either.

Oil is our primary energy source. It's loss as an energy source will decrease total immediately available energy. This will cause economic decline. Once the economy begins declining, alternative energy capacity cannot continue to grow. If it were really possible to grow alternatives to this extent, we would have done it by now. We certainly can't do it during a depression.

That's a lot of sweeping fatalistic conjecture about macro-level forces. That kind of stuff tends to lead to bad predictions.

If total available energy falls by 38%, the economy will also fall that much.

The most important word in the above is "if". It ain't gonna drop 38% in 4 years, man.

I animated two Super Bowl commercials and I was one of the original producers on the first "Shrek" movie at DreamWorks.

That raises an important question... Is there a thermodynamic limit to Shrek's methane emissions?



Don't dodge the question. ANSWER!

(Seriously, though, I would stop short of dropping info that could easily reveal your real-life identity.)

[kublikhan]

I will just repeat this article every time you try to call the GPP graph into question.

Thanks whatever but I have already read that article. The website in question (voxeu.org) has since issued a correction about the errors in the original article:

IMF data showed that the dollar value of ‘planetary GDP’ fell in 2015, but the IMF projects that world real GDP growth and inflation will be positive. This column notes that there is no inconsistency here. The decline in the dollar value of ‘planetary GDP’ reflects the 2015 increase in the value of the US dollar, not calculation errors or inconsistencies between real growth, inflation, and nominal GDP projections. The choice of numeraire matters in measuring nominal GDP growth, especially in years with very large currency movements such as the ones we have seen this year.

A recent VoxEU column (van Bergeijk 2015) noted the projected 4.9% decline in 2015 world GDP measured in current US dollars in the IMF’s October 2015 World Economic Outlook report (IMF 2015). Given the positive world real GDP growth and positive world inflation rates projected for 2015 in the same report, the author suggested that the IMF forecast may be inconsistent.

We note that this suggestion misses the simple reason why world GDP in current US dollars declined in 2015: the large appreciation of the US dollar—the numeraire currency for nominal GDP in current US dollars—against virtually all currencies in 2015. Against a trade-weighted basket of world currencies, the US dollar stood some 13% higher in the first nine months of 2015 than its average level the year before. Based on estimates in the October 2015 World Economic Outlook, one US dollar could on average buy 19.4% more euros and 14.6% more Japanese yen in 2015 than it did in 2014.

As a result of this US dollar appreciation, the US dollar value of GDP has fallen sharply across the world, even in countries where GDP has grown at a hefty pace in domestic currency terms. If the currency of a country weakens against the US dollar, the dollar value of that country’s GDP will decline mechanically. Table 1 below provides a numerical illustration of this for a selected number of countries. For instance, the table documents that Eurozone GDP dropped 14% in US dollar terms but rose 2.7% in euro terms, with even more dramatic differences between domestic-currency and dollar GDP for Brazil and Russia.

Table 1. Nominal GDP in U.S. dollars, euros, and local currency units


And of course if we were to measure world GDP using a different currency as a numeraire, the series would look very different. For instance, in 2015, world GDP measured in euros expanded 13.6% while declining 4.9% in US dollars.

Bottom line: The decline in the dollar value of ‘planetary GDP’ simply reflects the 2015 increase in the value of the US dollar, not calculation errors or inconsistencies between real growth, inflation, and nominal GDP projections. The choice of numeraire matters in measuring nominal GDP growth, especially in years with very large currency movements such as the ones we have seen this year.

The choice of numeraire matters when calculating world GDP growth

[AdamB]

Last time I checked, tight oil was the only thing responsible for growing world oil production. When fracking goes under, we are officially past peak oil.

---Futilitist

Really? What a wonderfully ignorant perspective of oil production. In 2005, the world was making about 75 million barrels a day of crude oil and lease condensate. All of that production suffered a natural decline of 4-8% per annum, depending on who's field decline answer you like. At 4% decline, that means that right now. Today. The world is producing 47.8 million barrels a day of crude oil and lease condensate. And light/tight in the US it about 4? Which means that the other 43.8 came from all those other things responsible for oil production. An order of magnitude more than light/tight.

So now we've established you know nothing about thermodynamics, the oil industry, and economics.

Seems like you are, indeed, a perfect peak oiler.

[Whatever]

I will just repeat this article every time you try to call the GPP graph into question.

Thanks whatever but I have already read that article. The website in question (voxeu.org) has since issued a correction about the errors in the original article:

That is a massive misrepresentation, kub. The website did not issue a correction. Someone wrote a separate article making the argument that appreciation of the dollar was reason for the fall in GPP. I don't think that argument makes very much sense at all. Here is why. The GPP graph also shows that a similar decline occurred during the great recession in 2009. Was that decline also due to dollar appreciation? Was there no great recession? It makes no sense. And besides, even World GDP shows a significant slowdown of growth happening now. Is that due to dollar appreciation as well? There is no logic to the dollar appreciation argument.

As the economic decline worsens, it will soon become undeniable that the world economy is in recession. What excuse will you use then?



---Futilitist

[ennui2]

Whatever, you keep evading my question.


IS THERE A THERMODYNAMIC LIMIT TO SHREK'S METHANE EMISSIONS?

[Whatever]

No, because Shrek is an imaginary character like you are.

Exactly, just like ETP, because last time I checked, the economy is functioning too well to account for doomsday in just 4 years.

Do you have some prior apocalypse experience that you base this on?

But it does highlight something very important. When you project your "oil price keeps rising" scenario to it's bitter end point like that, it obviously breaks down. Things just can't go that far. That means that something must get in the way of your projection.

That's not thermodynamics. It's supply and demand. Price goes up until people are priced out of the market. Why do you keep rejecting supply/demand dynamics???

I don't. I am saying that the laws of thermodynamics supersede supply and demand.

Thermodynamics supersedes supply and demand.

Not YET it doesn't. And not in 4 years either.

Dude, it always does. Supply and demand is the way that humans blindly find the best thermodynamic balance for the system.

Are you saying that there is no thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?

I'm saying that thermodynamics is only ONE FACTOR in the price of oil.

Are you saying there IS a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?

Oil is our primary energy source. It's loss as an energy source will decrease total immediately available energy. This will cause economic decline. Once the economy begins declining, alternative energy capacity cannot continue to grow. If it were really possible to grow alternatives to this extent, we would have done it by now. We certainly can't do it during a depression.

That's a lot of sweeping fatalistic conjecture about macro-level forces. That kind of stuff tends to lead to bad predictions.

I don't think so, in this case. The Etp model shows that the thermodynamic limit of the oil production life cycle was reached in early 2012. This event has already caused major changes in the functioning of the entire system. The ongoing consequences of this phase shift can be expected to be quite extreme.

If total available energy falls by 38%, the economy will also fall that much.

The most important word in the above is "if". It ain't gonna drop 38% in 4 years, man.

The Etp model shows that it will. Your opinion says it won't. We will just have to wait and see.

(Seriously, though, I would stop short of dropping info that could easily reveal your real-life identity.)

So you are saying that I should create a fake bio like you?

Civilization is a ponzi.

But it's lasted 10,000 years so far, and is likely to last longer than another 4 years.

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Just because something has lasted a long time doesn't mean that it can't break very rapidly. Most things take longer to build than to destroy. You are making a baseless argument from astonishment.



--Futilitist

[ennui2]

Do you have some prior apocalypse experience that you base this on?

And you do?

Are you saying there IS a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?

You've worded this as a trick question. If I reject the conclusions of ETP, it shouldn't matter whether there's a thermodynamic limit or not. I'm not going to proceed from that binary question over to economic doomsday in 4 years.

Again, you keep oversimplifying a complex system in order to break Occam's Razor with an extraordinary claim.

We certainly can't do it during a depression.

And we're not IN a depression.

The Etp model shows...The Etp model shows that it will....We will just have to wait and see

And if the model is wrong? You've placed all your bets on one and only one source of truth: one model, one algorithm, and you're exerting an extraordinary amount of effort to ignore any and all skepticism about the validity of that model. That is why people (rightfully so) are classifying you as clutching at this as a pseudo-religion.

A little humility, a little qualification in your statements, would go a long way. But to pound the table and proclaim that this is how it's gonna go down, period, well, you're sticking your neck out bigtime in a real chicken-little way. Par for the course with doomers, but it never pans out how they think it will.

So you are saying that I should create a fake bio like you?

Hey, if you want to put a link to your IMDB page in your sig, knock yourself out.

You seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands. Are you currently employed? If not, I wonder whether this obsession with ETP you have is an outgrowth of your own career doldrums.

Just because something has lasted a long time doesn't mean that it can't break very rapidly.

Again, I refer you to occam's razor. No, it's not made by Gillette.

[StarvingLion]

Why Billions in Proven Shale Oil Reserves Suddenly Became Unproven

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -vanishing

Ans: The Ponzi powered by unsecured debt blew up. ...Like housing....like student loans...like auto loans...like "renewables"...like every XXXXing thing about this fake economy.

Adam thinks there is 28 trillion in proven shale oil along with thousands of years of gas hydrates.