Pops wrote:So it is no surprise that my Grand Unified Resource Uber-theory of Peak Oil Profits (GURU POPs) is about the one thing: profit.
Pops wrote:So here is my 13,000th post, a prediction.
Peak oil will not be a function of geologic constraints, "demand destruction", substitution or EROEI; oil production will peak because the oil business can't make enough money.
The peak of profit will signal the peak of oil.
I think you're pretty safe, unless you translate it into a testable prediction.Pops wrote:So here is my 13,000th post, a prediction.
Peak oil will not be a function of geologic constraints, "demand destruction", substitution or EROEI; oil production will peak because the oil business can't make enough money.
Bookmark that to be used against me later.
If this model is accurate—and if the ceiling on global oil production really is around 90 mbd and can be expanded only slowly—it means that every time the global economy starts to reach even moderate growth rates, demand for oil will quickly bump up against supply constraints, prices will spike, and we'll be thrown back into recession. Rinse and repeat.
The yokels are smart enough to figure out that the only way they will benefit from oil resources is by cheap prices at the pump. Otherwise the revenues will be pocketed by corrupt elites.sparky wrote:but the stupid citizens want petrol as cheap as possible
it should be no contest, screw the yokels......... but they tend to protest or even revolt or vote you out
rollin wrote:Although profit and price can cause oscillations in the production curve, the overriding and base factors are geologic constraints and harsher locations. The "easy and cheap" to get oil is gone. It's all uphill as far as difficulty to produce and it's all downhill as far as production.
It has been suggested that PO is when it is more profitable to keep oil in the ground (so as to produce it later for a higher price). But how would we tell if this is happening? If oil rights are privately owned we have no way of knowing why the owner is or is not developing them.Pops wrote:That's right, as long as it is profitable.
The problem Peakers have had is trying to find a concrete number on which to hang their fears. GW prognosticators have a nice, simple number, temperature. Even CO2 concentration is pretty easily understood even if some might still argue with it's impact. But how do you measure "easy" or "cheap" and relate it to the uninitiated observer's world in a way he understands? Heck, I mentioned "easy" energy going away on this board on July 13, 2004 but what did that mean or how measurable was that prediction? It meant nothing really because it was not measurable in any objective way, here 10 years later energy is pretty easily obtained.
Because it is still profitable.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests