Ibon wrote:asg70 wrote:. Oh, and HIV is for the most part a non-lethal disease now. Progress marches on.
Let's remember how pharmaceutical companies decide which direction to take research. A vaccine is a one time injection with maybe an additional booster or two. That means 3 shots at the most. In the case of HIV it is a non lethal disease today because those testing positive are on a lifetime cocktail of anti viral medications that have to be taken daily.
Now if you are a pharmaceutical company CEO with your R&D team deciding on where to invest your research which path would you take, a one time vaccine or antivirals that are taken for a lifetime?
The Covid19 pandemic has been so disruptive to the global economy that the pressure is on for a vaccine and they probably will succeed. If there was not so much disruption though pharmaceutical companies would focus more on anti virals.
Pharmaceutical companies act a lot like pathogens. They are parasites that want to debilitate but not cure or kill their customers. You know, keep them chronic but not kill them. This is exactly what the most successful pathogens do.
I find that strangely ironic.
Disclosure: I was in the medical field in sales for almost 20 years in senior management.
Ibon wrote:Now if you are a pharmaceutical company CEO with your R&D team deciding on where to invest your research which path would you take, a one time vaccine or antivirals that are taken for a lifetime?
asg70 wrote:This thread is really veering off-topic. Can we get back to our regularly scheduled discredited oil theory?
tita wrote:asg70 wrote:This thread is really veering off-topic. Can we get back to our regularly scheduled discredited oil theory?
Every subject of forum was veered off-topic with this discredited oil theory. And it's not an oil theory, it's economical nonesense. Short doesn't understand the basic equations like debt = money or Expense = revenue.
REAL Green wrote:There is thermodynamics of oil to describe in decline and we see through peak oil dynamics a reduction in energetics properties pointing to lower value over time in depletion. That part of the equation is understandable. What I always had a problem with putting a dollar price on that process. That's where the science went pseudo.
tita wrote:REAL Green wrote:There is thermodynamics of oil to describe in decline and we see through peak oil dynamics a reduction in energetics properties pointing to lower value over time in depletion. That part of the equation is understandable. What I always had a problem with putting a dollar price on that process. That's where the science went pseudo.
I made a very basic calculation one time, the share of oil in the global GDP. Just very basic, multiply quantity of oil consumed with the average price, and what percent it is from total GDP.
Assuming that oil require more energy to be extracted, that would also mean that this share would also increase. Oil is a significant part of global GDP, something around 3% in 2018, and it was 2-2.5% between 2015 and 2017. It's actually way lower than between 1979 and 1985. Before 1970, that was around 1.75%, and between 1993 and 1999, it was also even lower than that. For me, 1998 is the record year of low oil prices ever.
So, IMHO, the whole "cheap oil is behind us" is not so obvious. In the last 5 years, there was not the slightest problem for consumers to get all the oil they needed. We know that we increase air traffic, the number of cars on the roads, production of goods and services in general, all this with an increase of oil consumption. Thinking of oil below $25 for a long time doesn't make much sense, that would mean it is cheaper than historical prices.
There's a problem, of course, but it's not the availability of energy. Not yet. It's the slow growth in 1st world countries that can't provide new jobs and new opportunities. We're not building things at a fast rate anymore.
oil cannot be extracted with dollars
The entire economy functions because of the free energy provided mostly by oil and other fossil fuels that is not accounted for in their price.
If you look from the energy (thermodynamic) perspective, at some point in time the energy necessary to produce oil is a high as the energy content of oil.
Jesus wept….what do you think they use pigs and cattle as barter? I spend $4 MM to drill and complete a well and another $250K to tie it in. That is dollars (or euros or ringgits or pounds etc) spent to extract oil. Give your head a shake.
don't know how many times it has to be said here.....there is nobody out there in industry who does a calculation of how much "energy" they are expending to get a certain amount of "energy". That situation only exists in the fantasy world of those who falsely consider themselves "great thinkers" and who have never been involved in the industry so as to understand how things actually work.
What is used to pave the roads? energy
What is used to mine the minerals used to build the machinery? Energy.
Dollars are mere lipstick on the energy pig.
t doesn't matter that they don't. They have provided climate change CO2 emission data that allows others to do the calculation. And many are under 10 EROEI, propped up by over 10 EROEI of the remaining high EROEI declining sources.
Every real economic action takes energy, that cannot be done away with supply and demand. You have energy scarcity and the ability to increase supply, supply of any and all goods will decrease. Printing money won't change that.
It is not possible to change rocks opinion, he always follows his agenda. And he never admits errors.
Baduila wrote:The world economy runs with energy, not money.
Money can created by central banks out of thin air endlessly, energy not.
If you look on an energy producing process from a pure money perspective, you are not at all able to recognize the problem. With infinite amounts of money there are no limits for the capability to produce oil.
If you look from the energy (thermodynamic) perspective, at some point in time the energy necessary to produce oil is a high as the energy content of oil.
At that point in time the world economy will stop to spent any energy for oil production. The price of oil will drop to zero. Watch the price per barrel to see what is coming !
Not in this world. It is graters and pavers that burn gasoline or diesel and tar that is made from petroleum. In order to obtain any of that you have to pay money for it, it all has a price.
Good God man. Do you somehow think this is all free? Please show me one of the things you mentioned that did not cost money whether it be dollars, pounds, Ringgat, Rupiah or whatever.
If EROEI was so low the profit returns on a barrel would have decreased considerably over the years....they haven't.
Analysis shows U.S. shale drillers still not profitable
In fact, roughly 9 out of every 10 U.S. shale companies are burning cash, according to Rystad Energy. The Oslo-based consultancy studied 40 U.S. shale companies and found that only 4 of them had positive cash flow in the first quarter of 2019. In fact, the number of companies with positive cash flow was lower than it was previously, and total cash flow from the group fell from $14 billion in the fourth quarter to just $9.9 billion in the first.-ieefa
More than 200 North American oil and gas companies already went bankrupt between 2015 and the end of 2019. By that measure, the shale industry was in financial distress even prior to the global pandemic and oil market meltdown.-energyfuse
Please demonstrate to us where a barrel of oil produced in 2050 had more energy than a barrel of oil produced now. I was in the industry for 30+ years and remember the energy requirements to drill a well back then (measured in cost for tubulars, rent of rig, manpower, fuel etc) and on a per barrel basis it was not much different than it is currently when time value of money is taken into consideration.
What do you think gasoline and diesel are? They are fossil fuels, a form of stored energy.
In a communist regime without money, energy would still limit what can be done.
There's a reason why 90% of shale is unprofitable and there are vast bankruptcies
The barrel of oil doesn't have to have less energy, but if you consume more energy to produce it, in general it is the same as if it had less energy available.
The companies that produce oil many give out CO2 emissions reports as part of climate change information. This information the CO2 emissions can be used to calculate the amount of energy used to extract the oil.
Baduila wrote:@Darian
It is not possible to change rocks opinion, he always follows his agenda. And he never admits errors.
If you want to understand the thermodynamics, read this:
https://limitstogrowth.de/wp-content/up ... _EN_09.pdf
Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests