Marek wrote:Soft_Landing, you got the gist of the economic analysis of peak oil. Now, there is one problem: after the peak, you cannot maintain the pre-peak levels of production from existing fields - rather, you have to invest in new discoveries or begin to pump fields that had been discovered but were previously uneconomical.
I wrote:For example, there's lots of talk here about petrol/gas prices going up 3 to 4 times. This would take oil prices going up more than 3 to 4 times. I am very sceptical about these possibilities, or, to be more precise, think they are a load of poo. I doubt oil price would ever breach $150 (in todays dollars), because you'd see an economic meltdown quick as you like! Nothing crunches oil price like meltdown, and I don't suppose that high oil prices, even todays $45 could persist through a meltdown. I rather think the economy would keep melting until there was total breakdown, or, until oil prices become amenible to a global recovery. That might be $15? Who knows? At that point, I doubt oil price would ever get back above $50 again, because every slight increase in the oil price would melt any burgeoning recovery.
Soft_Landing wrote:Looking backward, historians might well claim that we never hit a geological peak, rather, the ecomony will melt down. There was still oil there to recover, they may say, but the weak economy couldn't get it. Peak (understood as geological) may be thought of as a fear that never eventuated, because the economy crumbled first. Of course, from our perspective, we can see that the two problems are one. More specifically then, I suggest that peak oil, understood appropriately, is not a geological problem at all, but rather, is precisely an economic problem.
buster wrote:Nevertheless, the following essay by Bracho offers a possible model for a post-oil economy:
http://s90114153.onlinehome.us/html/mod ... storyid=21
Don't laugh when you read the title, give it half a chance.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests