Re: The writing is on the wall

"travisgod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <travisgod@xxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1188945916.950261.253730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

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.


Well, maybe the magic mushrooms give you a peek into the future. But no
reputable industry source agrees with you, so don't talk bull***, Trav.

Using a median estimate (of the wide range of estimates) of Russian
reserves (116 billion bbl - US Geological Survey) Russia can produce at
its current 9 million bpd or so for 35 years! Without discovering
another drop (and Russia is the leader in deep oil discovery).

Russia is currently exporting 2/3 of that production! It can increase
domestic consumption tremendously (twofold, say) as it reindustrializes
and grows and still be a large exporter for decades to come!

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.

As I said, with oil Russia can double its domestic consumption and still
be a large exporter for decades to come. Even if it never finds another
drop (hah!).


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

The shock of peak oil in the 70s did essentially squat to the US. A
mere ripple on the pond. Do I need to quote GDP figures from the 70s,
80s, and 90s to show you?


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.


There are 40 years of reserves at current production rates. Much longer
if production declines. In short, there will be oil available for *many
decades* to come. But like anything else in the fucking world economy
its use will simply be rationed by cost. That's no cause for "Chicken
Little, The sky is falling!" hysteria like yours, Trav.

The US currently uses about 70% of its total consumption for transport,
for instance - that's going to get axed bigtime when oil is $200/bbl.
No more driving 1000 miles on vacation in the SUV. But industry will
adapt and continue quite nicely, thank you.

Supply will not increase past-peak you fucking fool. And demand
decrease is INDUSTRIAL RECESSION.

No, demand decrease is not "industrial recession," despite your
screaming caps. Industry will adapt and use other less oil energy per
unit of production, through substitution and through increases in
efficiency and productivity. Will there be a cost hit in doing so?
Yep. Will it be disruptive? Yep. Will it be catastrophic? Nope!

No, Trav, industrialism is about production.

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


No, it isn't. The capitalist perpetual growth for growth's sake model
(the same model as cancer) is coming to an end, true. There will be
required shifts in production and consumption. (In years to come you
may ride to work in a car pool with a couple of other guys in a small
Honda Civic type vehicle and may take trains city to city rather than
planes). But it's not that big a deal.

GROWTH ,as you scream it, is unsustainable - oil is just one of the many
limits that will constrain it.


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.

And once the low hanging fruit is gone there will be three choices: do
without fruit, get a ladder, or eat something besides fruit. With oil,
as with fruit, there are choices available and folks will cope.

Costs will go up. Profits may decline. But, strange as it may seem to
you, profit is not the only mainspring for human society. If
corporatism takes a hit the world is likely to be better off, not worse.


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.

There's coal and nuclear. At least two centuries worth of coal and
nuclear for much longer. China is currently building a giant
coal-to-oil converter, the first on such a scale since the 40s.


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.

Several of the producing nations (SA, Venezuela, even Canada) have no
prospect of consuming all they produce. Oil will continue to be
available for export.

In fact, some oil producing countries will prefer to save their oil for
export and use other forms of energy (e.g., nuclear) domestically.
Hardly a novel idea, since it was an idea aggressively pushed in the 70s
for Iran by two fellows you may have heard of: Rumsfeld & Cheney. It's
an idea that is still sound.


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

There is no plan B for the dullwitted perhaps. But the world is a long
way from running out of energy - centuries away. No, only *dirt-cheap*
energy will become scarce. And industry will adapt to using the now
more expensive resource more efficiently and effectively. It's just
another change and the world has been successfully adapting to change
for a very long time. (Yeah, some folks will get hurt - but I suppose a
lot of whalers and buggy-whip companies decried the rise of the
automobile, too.)


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?


The US is - by far! - the world's largest economy and - by far! - the
world's largest consumer of oil specifically and energy generally. To
compare and contrast the effect of peak oil on the US and other
societies is hardly changing the subject.


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.


No, not so. First of all, the corporation, as a core societal
institution, has been around for only a little over a century. If it
can't adapt and must go, so be it. (I, for one, wll not lament its
passing).

As an investor, I want return on investment. If the return is good, I
don't demand that it grow (it might be nice if good earnings got even
better, but good is good enough).

Russia is growing its economy. China is about growth.

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

Growth will happen until growth can no longer happen. Then it will
stop.

Unchecked eternal growth - the motto of a cancer cell, as I said above -
is, by definition, unsustainable on a finite planet. If oil is the
constraint that bites frst to limit that cancerous growth, that's OK by
me. If population plateaus - as it eventually must - then constant GDP
and constant population means constant per-capita GDP. A quite
acceptable situation (even ignoring that there are virtually no checks
on non-material based improvements in living conditions whether captured
by GDP or not).

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

Russia will grow (recover is a far more accurate word) its economy to a
sustainable level. Then it will stop.

Up to now there have been few limits to growth. But it was certain to
happen. So what if oil is the first constraint that achieves this? I
see no reason why it cannot be a blessing for mankind. Arguably cheap
oil has produced major distortions in human societies and the earth's
ecology, distortions that largely offset the benefits it also brought.

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

The world has an addiction to growth. And in the coming decades it will
have to give up that addiction. That's a blessing, not a curse.


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.

There's several decades based on oil, several centuries based on coal,
and several millenia based on nuclear. How long do you think it will
take to "figure out"?


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.

Sonny, it was I - yep, little ol' me - who performed the economic
analysis for the multi-billion-dollar Syncrude Aurora expansion. 35%
ROI based on $18/bbl oil! (As it was there was a capital cost overrun
of 2-1/2 times but the owners were still laughing beacuse oil went to
&75/bbl. Syncrude is awash in money.)

As the oil price increases, production increases at the margin. One
indication of this that the EIA only added the Canadian tarsands as
world reserves in 2003 or so (therby catapulting Canada into #2 position
in reserves worldwide) when it became obvious that they were no longer a
curiosity but commercially viable on a large scale.


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!

No, only a small portion of the world depends on such greed as their
guiding principle. Perhaps, for you and them, peak oil will be
especially painful. But much of the world will gracefully accept a
sustainable level of consumption.

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...

Yes, Trav. Yes, I do. In fact, unlike you, I regularly keep abreast of
such numbers.



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

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.


China presently imports about half of the oil it consumes. Pretty much
the same as the US.


Japan had a lot
of advantages that China does not, starting with a BTU/GDP ratio 9x
better.

A BTU/GDP ratio disparity of 9:1, you say? Seems there's considerable
room for shrinkage in oil demand through more efficient use, eh Trav?

Regards,


.