Re: The writing is on the wall

On Sep 4, 3:55 pm, "nemo_outis" <a...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Yep, monomania, fixation, tunnel vision.

Demonstrably incorrect.

Russia is using the resource to refinance its reemergence as a world
power: politically, economically and militarily. Russia exports oil,
the US imports it - that tells you a lot about future relative strength!

Russia will not be exporting oil within a decade. Nobody will be.

I have every expectation that they can rebuild their econony (having
jettisoned the old equipment and methods) and will be *better
positioned* than the US (which has to IMPORT roughly half of what it
consumes)

Rebuild their economy...how? What economy? They are a resource
exporter who is busily trying to industrialize to USE said resource.
IOW, the profits therefrom are going to evaporate.

No, energy is only one input to industry, and oil is only one form of
energy. As energy cost rises (due to supply/demand pressures) use of
the input will be adjusted in terms of both quantity and efficiency to
achieve the same or greater output. Did no one ever explain to you why
Belchfire V8s disappeared even in the US in the 70s? (and came back
again, reincarnated as SUVs, when oil dropped to $10/bbl in the 90s?)

Did anybody ever explain to you the shock of Peak on the US in the
1970s and to the USSR in the late 1980s?

Present estimates of world reserves (variable and politically
manipulated but nonetheless useful) are something like 1.3 trillion bbls
- current consumption is 80+ million bbl/day or so. That's 40+ years at
current consumption: several decades, as I said.

Are you an idiot? CURRENT PRODUCTION WILL NOT SUSTAIN, moron! You
claim to be in the oil business, yet you cannot see the depletion
curve of a supergiant field like Prudhoe or Cantarell in your mind?
Mexico was a net exporter for decades...within 3 years, they will be a
net importer. CERTAINLY you can see how this will DRAMATICALLY affect
their economy.

Yes, demand is predicted to increase - but only for moderate increases
in oil cost. If cost goes through the roof demand is reduced and supply
increases (not so much due to exploration any more, but to increased
production from expensive sources such as tar sands)

Supply will not increase past-peak you fucking fool. And demand
decrease is INDUSTRIAL RECESSION. Less activity, less production.
Grow your population against it and you have a decrease in GDP per
capita, which is GROWING poverty.

Decades, Trav.

I certainly didn't expect you to be such a moron, really. I honestly
thought you got that MAINTENANCE of current levels of ANYTHING within
an industrial economy was irrelevant. Do I have to quote Ray Kroc to
you??

No, Trav, industrialism is about production.

You freaking idiot...it is about GROWTH IN PRODUCTION. GROWTH.

And energy is only one input to production, and oil is only one form of
energy. Oil energy is an input that has competitors (coal, nuclear,
etc.) and which has *gigantic* scope for more efficient use (perhaps
halving the energy input per unit of production)

This is asinine. Do you even vaguely comprehend how the profit
margins DECLINE for these other forms of energy? They are
significantly MORE expensive to use, otherwise, they'd be in use NOW.
Oil has no realistic competition. It is the low-hanging fruit.

The current correlation between GDP and oil consumption is predicated on
cheap oil. As oil becomes more expensive it will be used more
efficiently and other energy sources will be substituted for it. A game
that will play out over *decades!*

LOL. WHAT other energy sources? Natural gas? hahahahahaha. You're
a fool.

You sound like a goldilocks economist. Within 10 years there will be
no oil available to import. Any nation that is a net importer will be
fucked. Economies dependent upon oil (all of them) will
have...trouble.

Economic impact? Social disruptions? Political fallout? International
jockeying for control of oil? A few more wars to add to mankind's
misery? You bet. But the world's economies will adapt and change, not
collapse. (Some, like the US, will shrink and that will bring pain,
both economic and psychic, to those previously living off the fat of the
land - but, in the grand scale of things, just another empire that
passed its prime and faded.)

Any economy dependent upon growth in a resource that will become
unavailable is fucked. Not "impacted," fucked. There is no plan B.

A fascinating thesis. So, if Russia, an oil *exporting* country, is
riding the dead cat bounce, what is the US - which IMPORTS half its oil
- riding on?

Debt. Nothing else. And, a non sequitur response if there ever was
one. You cannot resist changing every subject to the USA, can you?

It is you who is obsessed with growth. Up until now I had not spoken of
it.

It is all that matters to an industrial economy, and it is not my
obsession, it is that of every single corporation in existence, all of
whom must report earnings GROWTH or else.

WTF do you call it when GDP isn't increasing, nemo?

The US, which imports more oil than any other nation on earth will have
long since cratered.

monomania. It's all you care about, this hard-on for the US, so much
so that you cannot even answer the question.

Once again you are obsessed with growth. But (although this will come
as a surprise to USians) there doesn't have to be endless industrial
growth, and there is still *gigantic* scope for using energy more
efficiently and productively.

Good lord, you are stupid.

Russia is growing its economy. China is about growth.

What the *** PLANET do you live on, you freaking ridiculous blowhard
***?

Russia's rebound is measured HOW? By GROWTH IN GDP. That is what
INDUSTRIALIZING IS, you retard.

There is currently a worldwide mania for consumption and growth;
expensive - NOT unavalable! - energy will go a long way to curtail that
insanity. Godd for the planet, good for mankind. The fact that endless
growth is not sustainable implies, oddly enough, that it will not be
sustained. A tautology that should not surprise anyone (except USians)
But, hard as that may be for a USian consumer to absorb, that does not
mean that life will revert to the dark ages.

Oh, I see, a strawman argument. At what point did I claim life would
revert to the dark ages? At what point did I say it would be
unavailable? We still bang out 6 or 7 mbpd here. We'll have oil,
just not as much as we'd like and this will have dire consequences to
our economy.

You are so monomaniacal about the US that you cannot even read and
think clearly.

Yet, here you concede that the world has an addiction to GROWTH. That
addiction is to be the undoing of industrial society.

YES, I stipulate that if oil consumption were DRAMATICALLY curtailed,
there'd be plenty of time for us to "figure out" how to create a
sustainable, cushy lifestyle predicated upon ZERO population growth
and a gradual conversion to renewable energy resources.

The problem is that this is NOT what's going to happen and it's not
what ever HAS happened. The US proceeded into its Peak Oil whistling
and fiddling; the USSR did too. The world is, as we speak. The
tarsands and this boon you've seen only EXIST because of the
phenomenon. Even the canadian gov't has forecast peak tarsands
production at 5mbpd while you pollute every freshwater source west of
the Rockies and burn all the NG you can find. WTF happens to you when
NG production falls off a cliff in 5 years?

You assclown; the ROI on tarsands is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than came out
of Burgan...it's WHY the latter resource was exploited first.

Mankind, especially the very small priviled fraction of mankind used to
overconsumption, will be *forced* to live more lightly on this planet.
No big deal - most of mankind will shed few tears for the privileged few
being discommoded by the loss of their luxuries.

Industrial society IS ABOUT overconsumption, IDIOT. YOU overconsume,
everyone in the entire freaking western world does. If CONSUMPTION
does not grow, then GDP cannot grow!

And, the sudden, precipitous demand destruction caused by DEFAULT due
to inability to roll debt over with an expectation of future GROWTH
will affect everyone!

Our housing market inflection has already spread to Europe and
beyond. Do people still need houses? OF COURSE. Do houses still
sell? OF COURSE.

Can we continue to expect a yearly INCREASE, i.e., GROWTH in not only
price, but supply??!?! NO.

Housing was a CLASSIC example of supplyside economics. They built and
built and built and it was all financed by debt. Until they ran out
of bigger idiots, now the cards are crashing down. It was a HUGE boom
for everyone, so long as almighty growth could be expected. The
inflection occurred in 2005. A nice pricing peak.

Pretty much how the US established itself v Great Britain in the 19th
century. Cheap labour, impenetrable economic barriers to entry, etc.
Same old story, just in more modern dress.

LOL. Do you have even a VAGUE clue how much energy China imports and
wants to grow imports to sustain its economic growth? And how
DRAMATICALLY different that was from the USA's situation during the
same period? We were the largest EXPORTER in the history of the
world. The USSR was as big. No fucking big secret why we were the 2
superpowers. Our reserve currency status enabled us to survive our
peak; the USSR was not so fortunate.

Japan became the second biggest economy on earth with a resource base of
ZERO. Compared to that China has a gigantic advantage.

Regards,

China has no significant energy resources other than coal (don't cite
to me their supergiant field that is now in production decline,
Daqing). Certainly nowhere NEAR enough to support their industrial
economy's GROWTH needs.

Japan was built on efficiency and efficient deployment of capital, but
they STILL encountered the liquidity trap at the end of their
supplyside bubble and have been mired in stagflation ever since.

If you think stagflation on a global scale is going to sit well with
ANYONE, you're even stupider than you purport to be. Japan had a lot
of advantages that China does not, starting with a BTU/GDP ratio 9x
better.

Trav

.