[Outcast_Searcher]

If you're talking running out completely, the news may be perfectly correct. The end of the decline could be quite slow.

What most people don't know is that this will happen with production steadily falling, and that it isn't geologically possible to have it otherwise.

As if fracking weren't a viable technology. As if the world weren't awash in oil due to fracking. As if the price of dry gas and wet gas products haven't collapsed (and supplies boomed) in the past 15 years due to fracking.

As if many global shale formations worthy of fracking didn't exist, even if the bonanza in the US slows down when demand and prices are relatively high.

Source: Book: "The Domino Effect". I notice you have no citations. I notice what you say is demonstrably false: production of hydrocarbons is NOT falling overall, until the full effects of the recent oil price oversupply and price collapse kicked in.

If you just make stuff up with no citations, expect to have no credibility.

[ROCKMAN]

The Rockman doesn't recall any shale formation outside the U.S. that any company has proven viable WHEN OIL WAS $100+/BBL. Did he miss a press release?

[rockdoc123]

Venezuela's Vaca Muerta is economic at the current price ($65 - $70/bbl) which is fixed.
My understanding is the only thing holding them back at this point is lack of equipment given the former gov'ts draconian import laws.
I believe some of the Chinese shales are also economic but there really isn't much out there about it, they are fairly silent.
Shale gas in Algeria's Oued Mya basin has been produced for a number of years economically, just no oil.

[Tanada]

Once a beacon of progressive politics, the Netherlands today is a traumatised, angry and deeply confused nation. Support for immigration and the European project are at all-time lows. Synagogues and Jewish schools need police protection from homegrown jihadists, and freedom of expression is under serious pressure. Leading pundits and comedians incite hatred against Muslims in much the same way that antisemites rage against “the Jews”.

It seems a long time since “Dutch” was synonymous with tolerance. A founding member of the European Union, the Netherlands developed from the 1970s onwards into a laboratory for social and cultural change, boldly pioneering the legalisation of prostitution, soft drugs, euthanasia and gay marriage.

Those were the days when Dutch politicians and opinion-makers would refer to the Netherlands, without any apparent irony, as a “gidsland”, or “guide country”: a small nation leading by example. Its proudest moment probably came in June 1988 when an ethnically mixed team of Dutch footballers won the European Championships, beating the all-white teams of arch-rival Germany and then Russia. It felt like the ultimate vindication of multiculturalism.

Fast-forward 28 years, and heading the polls today is Geert Wilders’ PVV or Freedom party. Elected “politician of the year 2015”, Wilders is the sole member of the party he founded, ruling over it as undemocratically as the Arab dictators he so despises. He wants the Netherlands to drop the euro and leave the EU. Like Donald Trump he demands an end to all immigration from Islamic countries. A typical Wilders tweet: “As long as we have ‘leaders’ such as [Dutch prime minister] Rutte, Merkel, Obama and Cameron denying Islam and terror are one and the same, there will be more terrorist attacks.”

Of course there was racism and intolerance in the Netherlands during the 70s, 80s and 90s, too, and the country of old has not entirely disappeared. A slim majority continues to vote for pro-EU parties that abhor discrimination against Muslims. The popular mayor of Rotterdam, Ahmed Aboutaleb, is openly and proudly Muslim. The speaker of parliament, Khadija Arib, is of Moroccan descent; and in 2007 Dutch readers voted the book The House of the Mosque by Iranian-born Kader Abdolah to be the second “best Dutch book ever”.

Yet the influence of the PVV is widely felt, particularly because the steadily growing far-left Socialist party shares many of its views on the EU. And with every new terrorist attack, wave of refugees or expensive euro bailout, the forces of regression grow stronger, both on the far right and the far left.

Many of the reasons for the “Dutch turn” mirror those elsewhere in Europe. As the EU struggles to get on top of jihadist terrorism and the refugee crisis, some voters look for fresh faces promising simple solutions: torture, deportation, closed borders. And as the eurozone limps from panic to panic, people wonder whether the currency can and should be salvaged in the first place. Is “more Europe” really the answer to every crisis?

These questions, formerly taboo, are now being debated across the continent, reflecting a deep loss of faith in the competence and trustworthiness of traditional elites. Yet no country seems quite as disoriented as the Netherlands. One important reason must be the unprecedented series of catastrophes to have hit the country over the past 15 years. Three high-profile political murders. The country’s first mass shooting. An attempt on Queen Beatrix’s life in which eight people died. And finally the downing over Ukraine of an airliner, nearly two years ago, killing all 298 on board. Of those, 193 were Dutch, meaning that, relative to population-size, the country suffered a larger loss of life than the US did on 9/11.

These are major traumas that deeply shook the country’s complacent consensus that bad things did not happen around here. And when a frightened population looked to its elites for leadership, those elites looked painfully incompetent – a second reason for the Dutch turn. There were the lost wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – which the Netherlands was almost alone from mainland Europe in joining, where 25 died. There was the disaster of the financial crash that took the entire policymaking elite by surprise. And then there is the Greek euro-crisis.

Each of these debacles made the traditional elites look helpless and inept – in Wilders’ favourite slur, “naive”. When those same elites then implore their voters to trust them on the EU, the euro and immigration, many voters now think twice.

There are still those in the Netherlands who believe that the country needs to “sit out” the PVV. They point out that there have not been even low-level defections from the elites to the PVV and that, unlike Marine Le Pen in France, Wilders is not building a political machine. Quite the contrary. As soon as anybody in his party assumes any kind of profile they are quickly sidelined. In this respect Wilders resembles Nigel Farage – though with none of the latter’s cheerfulness.

Yet it would be a grave mistake to think that once Wilders leaves the scene, so will the questions that, beneath all the offensive and incendiary rhetoric, he has put centre stage. What if the European project is an edifice with fatally flawed foundations? How does an open society based on equality survive, when every year it takes in tens if not hundreds of thousands of immigrants from countries with no tradition of openness, equality or democratic debate? Especially when those immigrants consistently have more children than the native Dutch?

There was a time when mainstream Dutch politicians and opinion-makers would answer breezily that the EU was a work in progress and that successful integration would simply take a generation: why would the children of immigrants remain socially and culturally conservative if they could also be Dutch?

That self-confidence is gone and what will take its place is anyone’s guess. What seems certain is that the heady days of progressive optimism are not coming back.

As for the football, the Netherlands did not even qualify for this year’s European Championship.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... are_btn_fb

[onlooker]

A good example of how now the pressure of Consequences is favoring this attitude of intolerance. As the pressure mounts expect ever more backlashes against "those" who are perceived a threat or those who do not comply with the majority. The one hope is that for the time being centuries now of civilized society and respect for the rule of law will inhibit some of the more grotesque and violent reactions.

[MaqFot]

Congrats to Steve Haley for topping the flyoff results at the first international F5J contest in the Netherlands.
53 competitors entered from 8 different countries.

Great time at a well run contest with some testing weather conditions.

Will post a link to results when available and possibly some pics when we are back in UK

[Newfie]

I didn’t know such a thing existed.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I didn’t know such a thing existed.

I had to look up F5J.

It's amazing how much stuff goes on that it's hard to keep up with.

[Tanada]

Green Elitism Behind Farmer Crackdowns

This article was originally published at Real Clear Investigations.

ALMERE, Netherlands — Farmers in the Netherlands reduced nitrogen pollution by nearly 70%. But the government says that is not enough and is demanding that they cut pollution by another 50% by 2030.

By the Dutch government’s own estimates, 11,200 farms out of the roughly 35,000 dedicated to dairy and livestock would have to close under its policies; 17,600 farmers would have to reduce livestock; and total livestock would need to be reduced by one-half to one-third. The Dutch government has demanded that animal farming stop entirely in many places. Of the over $25.7 billion the government has set aside to reduce pollution, just $1 billion is for technological innovation, with most of the rest for buying out farmers.

This effort has sparked a fierce backlash among Dutch farmers, who argue that the government seems more interested in reducing animal agriculture than in finding solutions that protect the food supply and their livelihoods.

“Why would you buy out farmers or reduce livestock when you have the possibility to invest in innovation?” asked Caroline van der Plas, the founder and sole Member of Parliament for the Farmer-Citizen Movement party, or BBB in Dutch. “The car industry innovated for the past 40 years. There aren’t fewer cars and the cars we have are cleaner. We even have electrical cars. That's what I think is so crazy. Why don't we treat the farmers just like the car industry? Give them time to develop solutions or innovate? We can produce food in a much more efficient and cleaner way if we do that. And it's much cheaper also then by buying out farmers.”

Farmer protests in the Netherlands come at a time of heightened global food insecurity created by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a major wheat exporter.

The Netherlands is the largest exporter of meat in Europe and the second largest exporter of agricultural products overall by economic value in the world, after the United States, a remarkable feat for a nation half the size of Indiana. Farm exports generate nearly $100 billion a year in revenue. Experts attribute the nation’s success to its farmers’ embrace of technological innovation.

The Netherlands is just one of the countries where governments are pushing for sharp limits on farming. Canada, for example, is seeking a 30% reduction in nitrogen pollution by 2030. While the Canadian government says it is not mandating fertilizer use reductions, only pollution reductions, experts agree that such a radical pollution decline in such a short period will only be possible through reducing fertilizer use, and thus food production. The cost to farmers would be between $10 billion and $48 billion.

“If you push farmers against the wall with no wiggle room, I don’t know where this will end up,” said Gunter Jochum, president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. “Just look at what’s happening in Europe, in the Netherlands. They’ve had enough of it.”

Where the proposed Dutch restrictions are driven by land and air pollution concerns, the Canadian restrictions are driven by the desire for strong action on climate change. But greenhouse gas emissions from farming pale compared to those from energy. Emissions from oil and gas production in Canada rose five times more (76 million metric tonnes) than emissions from crop and animal production (14 million metric tonnes) between 1990 and 2020. And with the pollution came more food. Canada’s spring wheat yields increased over 40% during that period.

The most dramatic consequences of government intervention occurred in Sri Lanka, where a 2021 fertilizer ban led to a massive reduction in yields, sparking starvation and an economic crisis that brought down the government in July. Because agriculture is a source of greenhouse gases, the efforts by the governments and the backlash they are fomenting may be a harbinger of a global crisis.

Why are politicians being so dogmatic, in the view of their critics, at a time of rising food insecurity? After all, it’s obvious the strategy is not working – not even for them. In the Netherlands, after farmers blocked highways, dumped manure on roads, and started fires in protests across the country, they won the support of the broader public. If elections were held today, the governing parties would lose a significant number of members in parliament while Van der Plas’ Farmer-Citizen party might win enough to form a new government, with Van der Plas as prime minister. In Canada, the federal government has sparked a backlash from the regional governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan. And now, Dutch farmers are inspiring protests by other farmers across Europe, including in Germany, Poland, and Italy.

What, exactly, is going on?

LINK

[careinke]

Blame the WEF (World Economic Forum), where the ultra rich gather to decide how to enhance their wealth and keep the population under control.

PEACE

[C8]

Wealthy people know they have far more than they need and this brings the fear of being accused of this. So, they feel they have to "do good" by using their power to enact "reforms". If their plans cause massive disruption and suffering then its OK b/c their intentions were good (plus, they will never suffer themselves).

We need rich people that don't feel so guilty and leave us alone.

[Plantagenet]

Wealthy people know they have far more than they need and this brings the fear of being accused of this. So, they feel they have to "do good" by using their power to enact "reforms". If their plans cause massive disruption and suffering then its OK b/c their intentions were good (plus, they will never suffer themselves).

We need rich people that don't feel so guilty and leave us alone.

IMHO the creation of wealthy people is one of the advantages of capitalism.

Capitalism creates wealth and wealth creates a class of people who are free to act on their own ideas.

Some wealthy people do extemely dumb things, some do smart and/or benevolent things, and some just leave everyone else alone. But overall, it adds to the diversity of the society to have different viewpoints and different groups of wealthy do-gooders doing different things for different reasons. In the US its mainly wealthy people who support the arts, for instance. Even in my small little town in Alaska we've got theatre and music performances and our own little group of rich people who contribute their own money year after year to keep these things going for the good of the community...and bless 'em for it.


Sure....I'll donate another million to your charity.........no no now stop that blubbing...... business is good and I'm happy to help you out

Cheers!

[Doly]

IMHO the creation of wealthy people is one of the advantages of capitalism.

Wealthy people existed long before capitalism.

Capitalism creates wealth and wealth creates a class of people who are free to act on their own ideas.

You put the cart before the horses. Capitalism doesn't create wealth. Wealth creates capitalism. Everybody thought that getting into debt as a normal way of doing business was a very, very dumb idea until there was enough wealth to go around that what was previously thought as a very dumb idea worked so often that people started to think it was actually a brilliant idea.

But overall, it adds to the diversity of the society to have different viewpoints and different groups of wealthy do-gooders doing different things for different reasons.

True, as long as inequality doesn't get too high. When it gets too high, diversity suffers.

In the US its mainly wealthy people who support the arts, for instance. Even in my small little town in Alaska we've got theatre and music performances and our own little group of rich people who contribute their own money year after year to keep these things going for the good of the community...and bless 'em for it.

It's almost always wealthy people who support the arts. Which has always made me wonder if art is for the good of the community, or for the good of wealthy people. After all, artists are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them, right?

[Plantagenet]

Wealthy people existed long before capitalism.

Of course. But capitalism creates more wealth and more wealthy people then feudalism or tribalism or other competing systems. Thats why you no longer find a lot of feudalistic countries---they have shifted to a better system at creating more wealth for more of the population. Its a fact that the wealthiest countries in the world today are mostly capitalist countries.

Capitalism doesn't create wealth. Wealth creates capitalism.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Consider the fact that Countries that switch from communism to a form of capitalism, like China, can become much much wealthier very rapidly. And countries that have switched from capitalism to socialism, like Venezuela and Cuba, have become very poor very quickly.

It's almost always wealthy people who support the arts. Which has always made me wonder if art is for the good of the community, or for the good of wealthy people. After all, artists are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them, right?

If you don't think theatre, museums and concerts are a good thing in your community, then stay at home and do a crossword puzzle or watch TV. Personally, I think live theatre is far far superior to TV, but everyone is entitled to their own preferences.

AND, if you don't think artists for centuries haven't joked about, mocked, ridiculed and even rebelled against social norms, the wealthy, elite, and the system as a whole----in spite of the fact that they get paid by wealthy patrons---- then you don't know very much about the history of art.


Mexican artist Diego Rivera famously painted a huge mural showing depictions of Karl Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and other communists. His wealthy patron for this painting?-----Henry Ford

Cheers!

[jedrider]

Related, from 2011:

"Oil Will Be Gone in 50 Years: HSBC"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42224813

I'm not too worried. Climate will run out first.