Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak Nonsense

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

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby mkwin » Wed 06 Jun 2007, 18:01:54

MonteQuest wrote:
mkwin wrote: Exactly - growth in revenue and hence profits. This is attractive to investors as the dividend yield is only a small element of the return to the investor. Expected growth in future earnings - in this case by a rising all price - is a very big component. As, as oil is driving the inflation, the stock would be a good inflation hedge i.e. it rises faster than inflation.


But the growth will be in inflation, not oil production. Feeding hay to a dead horse for profits?

What happens when the demand for energy outstrips supply?

No growth. No growth in a fiat money system? No new loans. A shrinking deflating money supply as principal is retired?


We're talking about the growth in the relative value of the shares driven by the rising oil price post peak. Demand will already be exceeding supply.

As for the money system - I don't know. It’s very difficult to know what will happen as the situation is so complicated, it depends on the level of inflation and our ability to reduce demand as supply falls. Government will just print money to fund spending but this will just feed into the inflation. The bottom line is we're all going to get a lot poorer relatively but consumer and government debt will also be reduced relatively as inflation will destroy its value.
Last edited by mkwin on Wed 06 Jun 2007, 18:09:10, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mkwin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby mkwin » Wed 06 Jun 2007, 18:08:03

keehah wrote:
mkwin wrote: We just don't know.

Mission Accomplished


This was my whole point from the beginning. Why present the worst possible scenario as irrefutable fact when there are many possible outcomes. Who knows Lynch might be right, maybe the Fussion test reactors will lead to a massive break though, maybe there are huge reserves of oil and gas in the polar regions, maybe we can achieve an ordered powerdown. Maybe the US could deploy renewables on a massive scale. Who knows...
User avatar
mkwin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby keehah » Wed 06 Jun 2007, 18:24:44

mkwin wrote:
keehah wrote:
mkwin wrote: We just don't know.

Mission Accomplished


This was my whole point from the beginning. Why present the worst possible scenario as irrefutable fact when there are many possible outcomes. Who knows Lynch might be right, maybe the Fussion test reactors will lead to a massive break though, maybe there are huge reserves of oil and gas in the polar regions, maybe we can achieve an ordered powerdown. Maybe the US could deploy renewables on a massive scale. Who knows...


All you are describing is the techno-fix dream, a slice of the current denial that is killing life on this planet.

Why would remaining on the same path of denial we have been on since the 70's be our best course??!!?? (unless one wants a crash, and wants it sooner rather than later, say for a NWO or some such controller's plans and/or to accelerate liquidation of the unneeded)

WAKE UP
User avatar
keehah
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Maple State

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby jedinvest » Wed 06 Jun 2007, 18:36:13

mkwin wrote:
Maybe the US could deploy renewables on a massive scale. Who knows...


For a country that can't even get a simple multiple choice question such as a Presidential election correct, even after an additional try, I don't think so!

I hear the toilet starting to flush!
jedinvest
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri 09 Mar 2007, 03:00:00
Location: No. Calif.

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 06 Jun 2007, 18:36:45

mkwin wrote:1) Its not just Michael Lynch who says this. CERA are another example and Hirsch says he expects a 2% depletion rate - although he expects a peak far sooner.


2%? Exisiting fields ae declining at 4 to 5% right now, with Cantarell at 14.5%.

Don't you read anything people just posted?

2) Well i'm sorry to hear of the localized problems you’re having in Arizona.


It isn't "localized", it is the entire US grid.

Again I assume you're referring to Hirsch - Firstly, he doesn't say if mitigation occurs after peak oil we are doomed to a Olduvai decline he says 'economic hardship'.


He never says, 'economic hardship' without the word "significant" before it.

He says, and I quote.

As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. .. Dealing with world oil production peaking will be extremely complex, involve literally trillions of dollars and require many years of intense effort...In summary, the problem of the peaking of world conventional oil production is unlike any yet faced by modern industrial society...Without mitigation, the peaking of world oil production will almost certainly cause major economic upheaval...The world has never confronted a problem like this, and the failure to act on a timely basis could have debilitating impacts on the world economy...The obvious conclusion from this analysis is that with adequate, timely mitigation, the costs of peaking can be minimized. If mitigation were to be too little, too late, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), which would translate to significant economic hardship, as discussed earlier.


As I said. And all the signs point to that fact that we are already too little, too late.

Another point - we will be experiencing high inflation so MASSIVE government defects are not a problem as inflation eats the value of the debt very quickly.


That isn't a point; that's nonsense.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby Ludi » Wed 06 Jun 2007, 18:42:46

mkwin, do you understand the difference between what we CAN (or might) do, and what we ARE doing?


This is significant, and you don't seem to have grasped it, because you say you think you have pointed out flaws in the argument.


You say "we might, or could, do such and such" and we've discussed a bunch of times how we aren't actually doing these things (much). Producing alternative energy to the tune of 2-6% of the total world demand, this number not having changed significantly in spite of vast increases in investment in alternatives (wind I think grows at 25% per year, still only accounting for some 2% of the total energy demands).


This is really important, and if you don't understand the difference between CAN DO and ARE DOING, you're going to be making a argument that simply doesn't need to be made. We go over this a lot here, really we do. Very few of us think there is nothing we CAN do, but many of us are pretty sure, by observing what is actually occuring, that there is little we ARE or WILL do.


Do you see my point?


Those of us who are darned pessimistic about the whole situation, look around and see business pretty much as usual except for expensive oil wars. Our way of life is not changing to reflect the coming reality. You say, as far as I can tell, we should be optimistic because it might change at some point, and pull our asses out of the fire. This just doesn't seem like a compellling argument to me. We all "hope for the best" but we're certainly not banking on the best occurring.
User avatar
Ludi
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 18585
Joined: Mon 27 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Darkest Dumfukistan

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 06 Jun 2007, 18:43:32

mkwin wrote:If you've been over every single point, why am I finding clear weaknesses in some of the arguments put forward?


Frankly, all I have seen from you is a dismissal and lack of understanding of the facts.

Clear weaknesses?

Pfft!
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 06 Jun 2007, 18:53:10

mkwin wrote: This was my whole point from the beginning. Why present the worst possible scenario as irrefutable fact when there are many possible outcomes.


Well, I most certainly have not done that. Not even close. Unless you didn't read my Slow Decline thread.

Who knows Lynch might be right, maybe the Fussion test reactors will lead to a massive break though, maybe there are huge reserves of oil and gas in the polar regions, maybe we can achieve an ordered powerdown. Maybe the US could deploy renewables on a massive scale. Who knows...


You willing to bet civilization on that doubt?

“Within a period of time which is very short compared with the total span of human history, supplies of fossil fuels will almost certainly be exhausted. This loss will make man completely dependent upon waterpower, atomic energy, and solar energy for driving his machines.

There are no fundamental physical laws which prevent such a transition, and it is quite possible that society will be able to make the change smoothly.

But it is a transition that will happen only once during the lifetime of the human species...if machine civilization should, because of some catastrophe, stop functioning, it will probably never again come into existence.” Harrison Brown -1954


As to the possibility of those things you suggest; even if possible, they are years away from reality. Some decades.

And the reality is, we are not doing any of those things; we are invading sovereign nations with oil.

You have got to get your head around scalability.

I know it is not worth the gamble to rely on some status quo sense of doubt.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby threadbear » Wed 06 Jun 2007, 21:14:59

jedinvest wrote:threadbare said:
My brother's a journo and he did some digging into the cause of global warming, and kept hitting brick walls, trying to nail down a definitive answer about what is actually causing global warming.


Threadbare, your journo bro' is not much of a journalist then, as anyone can find out what scientists believe the cause of global warming is. It's actually 'are', but it all boils down to mankind's activities. However, he wanted a 'definitive' answer and people like that never get the answer they want to hear.

Now how politics plays up or down these issues is another matter all together. I doubt if the nuclear industry is big enough to go against oil. But as many have said, peak oil is peak everything!


Look Dude, Anyone can turn on the boob tube and glean what the new status quo will likely be. But if you dig deeper, it's not as clear. He's trying to source the popular mainstream media idea that there actually is a firm consensus among scientists about the cause.

Surprise! There isn't a really strong consensus. There's a story here, about how "science" generates consensus, regardless of the cause/causes of global warming. At what point do all scientists hop on the bandwagon, or do many refuse, and through marginalization, simply dissappear.

This is a hot political issue, regardless of what is true. A cursory glance tells you one thing. Looking deeper can leave you with a bit more skepticism.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby threadbear » Wed 06 Jun 2007, 21:45:47

keehah wrote:.

What happened last fall? Peak Oil was having (or about to have) undeniable impact on the Western economies. Understanding the full ramifications of Peak Oil would be a game ending realization for this current delusional game masquerading as capitalism and globalization. Thus by allowing consensus on climate change, specifically focused on stopping growth of fossil fuel consumption (CO2 emissions) can keep the slaves slaving most efficiently.



I tend to see it as coporate driven, and a make work project for nukes, with the media used as a tool to obliterate any opposition. At least, that's part of the dynamic here. It may not even be the main part, but we'll see how it unfolds.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 06 Jun 2007, 22:03:45

threadbear wrote:
keehah wrote:.

What happened last fall? Peak Oil was having (or about to have) undeniable impact on the Western economies. Understanding the full ramifications of Peak Oil would be a game ending realization for this current delusional game masquerading as capitalism and globalization. Thus by allowing consensus on climate change, specifically focused on stopping growth of fossil fuel consumption (CO2 emissions) can keep the slaves slaving most efficiently.



I tend to see it as coporate driven, and a make work project for nukes, with the media used as a tool to obliterate any opposition. At least, that's part of the dynamic here. It may not even be the main part, but we'll see how it unfolds.


Huh? You see GW as a corporate driven hype for the expansion of nuclear power?

That has got to be the peak of nonsense. :roll:

You must wear a tin foil daily.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby vision-master » Wed 06 Jun 2007, 23:13:06

"Many stones crossing river"
vision-master
 

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby threadbear » Wed 06 Jun 2007, 23:31:17

MonteQuest wrote:
threadbear wrote:
keehah wrote:.

What happened last fall? Peak Oil was having (or about to have) undeniable impact on the Western economies. Understanding the full ramifications of Peak Oil would be a game ending realization for this current delusional game masquerading as capitalism and globalization. Thus by allowing consensus on climate change, specifically focused on stopping growth of fossil fuel consumption (CO2 emissions) can keep the slaves slaving most efficiently.



I tend to see it as coporate driven, and a make work project for nukes, with the media used as a tool to obliterate any opposition. At least, that's part of the dynamic here. It may not even be the main part, but we'll see how it unfolds.


Huh? You see GW as a corporate driven hype for the expansion of nuclear power?

That has got to be the peak of nonsense. :roll:

You must wear a tin foil daily.


I don't expect you to pick up on the subtleties of what I'm posting, but you've really missed the point altogether.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby jeezlouise » Wed 06 Jun 2007, 23:49:55

Ludi wrote:mkwin, do you understand the difference between what we CAN (or might) do, and what we ARE doing?


This is significant, and you don't seem to have grasped it, because you say you think you have pointed out flaws in the argument.


One of the other posters on this site, Windmills, had a really great post a couple of months ago which was partly about this important distinction. Here's the relevant part:

Another place that novices get tripped up concerns the important distiction between what could be done and what will be done. That point can hardly be overstated. What could we do to mitigate our problems? It's easy to conjure a utopia built on workable ideas. But there is a gulf between what we could do and what we will. Given how short-sighted, lazy, and greedy humans can be, how much faith should we put in humans playing their cards perfectly? We could have ended poverty and hunger and many other social ills. But we haven't. We have the means, but we don't use them. The same lack of will and self-sacrifice plagues the responses to peak oil. We already have alternatives on the market for personal transportation. Are we using them as much as we should? No. Could and will. And don't forget the clock is ticking. It's not that we couldn't build a million of these or those, but rather, will there be the time once your country finally realizes that oil production is in undeniable trouble? We could have dealt with global warming in a rational manner 20 or 30 years ago. Did we? What did we actually do? What are we doing now? We're going to wait. We'll wait until the fire is at our doorstep. The problem is that not every crisis can be solved at the last minute. So it is with global warming. And so it will be with peak oil. Sometimes humans have to plan ahead.

So it isn't that many here have no faith in all the proposals that have been offered. They may just lack faith in people caring to implement them until it's too late. So far, they're dead right.
User avatar
jeezlouise
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby Concerned » Thu 07 Jun 2007, 06:32:37

jeezlouise wrote:
Another place that novices get tripped up concerns the important distiction between what could be done and what will be done. That point can hardly be overstated. What could we do to mitigate our problems? It's easy to conjure a utopia built on workable ideas. But there is a gulf between what we could do and what we will. Given how short-sighted, lazy, and greedy humans can be, how much faith should we put in humans playing their cards perfectly? We could have ended poverty and hunger and many other social ills. But we haven't. We have the means, but we don't use them. The same lack of will and self-sacrifice plagues the responses to peak oil. We already have alternatives on the market for personal transportation. Are we using them as much as we should? No. Could and will. And don't forget the clock is ticking. It's not that we couldn't build a million of these or those, but rather, will there be the time once your country finally realizes that oil production is in undeniable trouble? We could have dealt with global warming in a rational manner 20 or 30 years ago. Did we? What did we actually do? What are we doing now? We're going to wait. We'll wait until the fire is at our doorstep. The problem is that not every crisis can be solved at the last minute. So it is with global warming. And so it will be with peak oil. Sometimes humans have to plan ahead.

So it isn't that many here have no faith in all the proposals that have been offered. They may just lack faith in people caring to implement them until it's too late. So far, they're dead right.


My feeling exactly.

What we could do and what we actually do are two different things.

Reminds me of Miss Universe contestants and the desire for "world peace" could we do it absolutely 100% will we do it, I doubt it.

This disconnect is what will make PO the unseen wolf, until it's literally ripping out your entrails.

Even Richard Heinberg admits to going back to the consensus trance, I go to my day job and more than likely >95% of posters to this board.

To say collectively we are in for a MAJOR SHOCK is an understatement.

It's not difficult to envisage resource wars and die off scenarios. Especially considering you could argue it's already starting to happen and we are at peak or on the plateau.
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
User avatar
Concerned
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu 23 Sep 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby mkwin » Thu 07 Jun 2007, 09:34:45

MonteQuest wrote:
mkwin wrote:1) Its not just Michael Lynch who says this. CERA are another example and Hirsch says he expects a 2% depletion rate - although he expects a peak far sooner.


2%? Exisiting fields ae declining at 4 to 5% right now, with Cantarell at 14.5%.

Don't you read anything people just posted?

2) Well i'm sorry to hear of the localized problems you’re having in Arizona.


It isn't "localized", it is the entire US grid.

Again I assume you're referring to Hirsch - Firstly, he doesn't say if mitigation occurs after peak oil we are doomed to a Olduvai decline he says 'economic hardship'.


He never says, 'economic hardship' without the word "significant" before it.

He says, and I quote.

As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. .. Dealing with world oil production peaking will be extremely complex, involve literally trillions of dollars and require many years of intense effort...In summary, the problem of the peaking of world conventional oil production is unlike any yet faced by modern industrial society...Without mitigation, the peaking of world oil production will almost certainly cause major economic upheaval...The world has never confronted a problem like this, and the failure to act on a timely basis could have debilitating impacts on the world economy...The obvious conclusion from this analysis is that with adequate, timely mitigation, the costs of peaking can be minimized. If mitigation were to be too little, too late, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), which would translate to significant economic hardship, as discussed earlier.


As I said. And all the signs point to that fact that we are already too little, too late.

Another point - we will be experiencing high inflation so MASSIVE government defects are not a problem as inflation eats the value of the debt very quickly.


That isn't a point; that's nonsense.


1) Montequest - You constantly quote Hirsch as support for your argument in regards to the lack of time - yet you ignore his depletion projection.

The depletion rate on individual fields doesn't equal the global depletion rate. The aggregate depletion rate is the sum of the depletion of mature fields and the expansion on non-convention and deepwater oil plus the new production from new conventional fields.

2) I had no idea the US grid was so bad. My uncle lives in North California and doesn't mention problems. In the UK we never get any problems. I can't remember one blackout in the last 20 years.

3) The word 'significant' doesn't change the fact he doesn't say global collapse.

4) You’re possibly right regarding it being too late but then again lets wait to see if the Saudis can open the taps this summer.

5) With all due respect Montequest, you ignorance of my statement demonstrates your lack of understanding of central banking and inflation. Government debt is a fixed dollar denomination as inflation rises - the value of that debt is destroyed. For example, if we have an inflation level of 10%, after 5 years your $3 Trillion government debt will be half the value it was before. The same for mortgages and consumer debt.
User avatar
mkwin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 07 Jun 2007, 12:40:33

mkwin wrote: 1) Montequest - You constantly quote Hirsch as support for your argument in regards to the lack of time - yet you ignore his depletion projection.

The depletion rate on individual fields doesn't equal the global depletion rate.


I am well aware of that. We don't know what the depletion rate will be, but with existing fields at 4 to 5% and mature elephants at 11 to 14%. I don't think a 2% decline like we experienced in the lower US will be repeated. Primarily, because the extraction methods used then are not the ones used today. today, they result in a steeper decline rate.

So, I don't ignore his decline projection, I just think the facts on the ground don't support it.

2) I had no idea the US grid was so bad. My uncle lives in North California and doesn't mention problems. In the UK we never get any problems. I can't remember one blackout in the last 20 years.


California has some of the biggest brownouts. The US potential for brownouts and black outs is huge. We are on the edge.

3) The word 'significant' doesn't change the fact he doesn't say global collapse.


And he doesn't just say "economic hardship", either...as I have pointed out in spades.

4) You’re possibly right regarding it being too late but then again lets wait to see if the Saudis can open the taps this summer.


LOL! Man, you haven't got a clue!


5) With all due respect Montequest, you ignorance of my statement demonstrates your lack of understanding of central banking and inflation.


And your failure to catch the point I was making is telling. If you had bothered to read the many threads I have written on fiat money, deflation, etc. ...maybe you wouldn't have missed it.

Your thinking is nonsense; not the statement you made.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby threadbear » Thu 07 Jun 2007, 12:48:44

Yes, let's see if the Saudis can open the taps this summer! That might give us an idea as to how steep the depletion curve is. Right now, it's all speculative. Ask the real experts, Mkwin
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby mkwin » Thu 07 Jun 2007, 13:56:20

MonteQuest wrote:
mkwin wrote: 1) Montequest - You constantly quote Hirsch as support for your argument in regards to the lack of time - yet you ignore his depletion projection.

The depletion rate on individual fields doesn't equal the global depletion rate.


I am well aware of that. We don't know what the depletion rate will be, but with existing fields at 4 to 5% and mature elephants at 11 to 14%. I don't think a 2% decline like we experienced in the lower US will be repeated. Primarily, because the extraction methods used then are not the ones used today. today, they result in a steeper decline rate.

So, I don't ignore his decline projection, I just think the facts on the ground don't support it.

2) I had no idea the US grid was so bad. My uncle lives in North California and doesn't mention problems. In the UK we never get any problems. I can't remember one blackout in the last 20 years.


California has some of the biggest brownouts. The US potential for brownouts and black outs is huge. We are on the edge.

3) The word 'significant' doesn't change the fact he doesn't say global collapse.


And he doesn't just say "economic hardship", either...as I have pointed out in spades.

4) You’re possibly right regarding it being too late but then again lets wait to see if the Saudis can open the taps this summer.


LOL! Man, you haven't got a clue!


5) With all due respect Montequest, you ignorance of my statement demonstrates your lack of understanding of central banking and inflation.


And your failure to catch the point I was making is telling. If you had bothered to read the many threads I have written on fiat money, deflation, etc. ...maybe you wouldn't have missed it.

Your thinking is nonsense; not the statement you made.


1) Its obviously pure speculation - the question is how much oil new production will bring to the market to reduce the aggregate rate of decline.

2) My Uncle runs a number of restaurant businesses and he has never spoken about serious problems. I've also spent a number of summers at Lake Tahoe and had no electricity problems. I would be interested to see any statistics of brown and black outs - if you have some.

3) If you could define this illusive point it would be appreciated. I made a rather simply statement about quite basic economics and you called it nonsense. Just to clarify, I'm no fan of lose monetary policy as it causes debasement of the currency and hence inflation but desperate times and all that.
User avatar
mkwin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests