Re: The writing is on the wall

On Sep 4, 9:28 pm, "nemo_outis" <a...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

LOL.

Take a look at their demand growth versus realistic production decline
figures. Watch Mexico for a good, realtime example of the
phenomenon. Mexico's "exportable oil" is falling FAR FASTER than
production, because nobody bothered to take into account DOMESTIC
demand growth necessary for industrialization. Even now, Rosneft is
trying to strong-arm the Sakhalin-1 partners into ONLY selling the
production from that field into the domestic market. Yes, they have
their own export agreements to China, but there is more to this than
that. Energy resources are going to become HEAVILY nationalized going
forward, to support domestic economic growth; the voters won't PERMIT
anything else.


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).

I'm literally dead fucking tired of hearing "estimated reserves
divided by current production rates" as some kind of metric probative
of ANYTHING. This is the most utterly IRRELEVANT figure ANYONE could
cite. Don't do it again.

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!

Russia's production is already in decline, even from their re-peak.
This is partially due to underinvestment, true also in Mexico and
Venezuela, due to the idiotic decisions by the greedy dictators to
STEAL the fields from the legitimate developers. Russia is
exeriencing internal demand growth around 10% or so, YoY. More cars,
more factories, more everything. Plot the intersection of a 5% supply
decline rate against a 9% consumption increase rate.

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!).

You're an idiot. You base every single one of these absurd
proclamations upon an assumption of LEVEL production, you freakin
fool! This is inexcusibly stupid.

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?

A ripple in the pond? We lost almost all of our domestic
manufacturing, steelmaking, autos, electronics, and began the descent
into the greatest debtor nation in history status. You certainly
weren't here in the 1970s, were you? We've been BORROWING to maintain
those GDP figures.

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.

Current fucking production rates? Goddamn, are you stupid? You claim
to be in the oil business but you cannot visualize a production
curve? This is retarded. Do you think oilfields hit a peak condition
then sustain it for decades?

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.

OK, Jiminy. China currently depowers factories at night to keep city
lights on. This is a fact. Energy starvation will affect industries,
moron.

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!

LOL. The entire wal mart supply chain is imperiled because of this.
Not catastrophic? HAHAHAHA. Sustained recession isn't catastrophic?

Good lord you have turned out to be a stupid idiot. The tens of
trillions of unfunded liabilities and DEBTs and all the socialist
overhang, juxtaposed against an inevitable decrease in industrial
capacity? That's not catastrophic? I guess the 1930s weren't
either. You speak so foolishly.

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.

LOL. What an absurd fool you are. The entire MODEL of industrialism
in use for 150 years, you STIPULATE, is ending, oh but it'll die
quietly and easily, along with the "American Dreams" of 6B people
hoping for or accustomed to guaranteed upward mobility and/or
prosperity!?!?!? WTF.

The lifestyle changes will be IMMENSE.

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

Without growth, there is no industrialism. Without growth, there is
no hope of "industrial growth" or "economic growth" in the 3rd world.
The game ENDS.

Economic growth CEASES to become growth without the fkin word GROWTH.
You cannot subtract out the word and have it mean the same damned
thing!

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.

Folks coped during the Depression. The coping of folks was never at
issue, you brain-dead blowhard.

With each subsequent statement, you MORE prove my point. Is this your
intent to serve as my comedic foil?

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.

Holy crap...our entire model of existence is based upon capitalism.
There is no Plan B, moron.

You have your head up your ass dude. You clamor for your own
destruction, you delusional "anarchist." I can see why you don't see
a complete sea-change in everyone's way of life as "catastrophic,"
when your worldview is so absurdly self-deceptive.

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.

HAHAHAHAHAHA...Coal to oil is a MASSIVE generator of CO2 emissions.
LOL That's the answer? Burn coal? Pollute the earth until everybody
dies? GREAT. They don't call you a deep thinker for nothing.
Nuclear power won't last centuries with GROWING consumption rates. At
most, we have a few decades with both of these technologies.

And, that doesn't even account for the utterly stupendous capital
investments necessary to erect nuclear plants.

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.

A trickle. Nowhere near enough for consumer nations. And, you should
review SA's domestic demand curve, too. They are in supply decline
against the same type of growth in automobile and consumption growth
as Russia. Seems like EVERYONE wants a fuckin SUV, dude! It's the
American Way, the life EVERYONE wants.

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.

Once they saturate nuclear capacity or enough people buy cars, they'll
have no choice. Everything will transpire as I have foreseen.


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.)

WTF...at what point did I EVER say we would run out of energy you
shoddy-thinking, illiterate ***?

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.

Again, your monomania with the USA shines through. Get back to me
when you can reason, would you?

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).

LOL. Not "catastrophic." what a fool you are.

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).

What exactly in the *** do YOU, an idiot, have to do with the
behaviors and ambitions of the 6B other people on this rock? Don't
bring yourself up again, stupid.


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

What happens when this occurs, generally, in industrial societies?

Just for an example...when earnings growth of a company goes bad, what
happens to the stock price? What happened to RE prices when price
growth stopped? What happens to prices when supply-side overcapacity
meets consumer exhaustion?

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).

Good lord, do you even READ what you write? Listen to yourself,
idiot! In one breath you say it will not be any big deal and THEN you
say that it's ok, we'll just have to "freeze population growth." WTF,
these two are irreconcilable!

Do you EVER, for a MOMENT, even consider whether the condition of
CONSTANT GDP per capita is acceptable to the other 6B people here
before you make these fatuous proclamations from your rectum?


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

No, it won't. It'll grow until it cannot grow anymore, and then it'll
hit a wall and stagflate.

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.

The inevitable WW3 won't be regarded by its victims as a blessing, you
misanthropic worm.

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.

LOL. So, IOW, despite your pathetically transparent ramblings, you
agree with everything I have said.

I see I was not wrong for berating you.

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"?

before or after half the world has to die?

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.)

Yes, I own shares in that venture. Wait until the carbon taxes roll
in. You know as well as anyone that your forecast was based upon an
expectation of NG prices. NG supply is going off a cliff in 5 years;
this is why COS bought CSP. The tarsands are completely dependent
upon energy to extract the oil. There are more variables than "how
much it costs to lift dirt"

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.

5mbpd, max. That means consume massive amounts of extremely valuable
NG and pollute freshwater out the yinyang. These are costs your sorry-
assed "model" didn't account for. Petrocanada's tarsands venture had
a breakeven at $50/bbl. I think the latter figure is more realistic
than your absurd attempt.

Rightfully, Alberta should have built that nuke plant...NG is far too
valuable and about to be in far too short availability to be BURNING
to make oil! What an idiotic premise in the first place; you should
be fucking ashamed of yourself for participating in this boondoggle.

BTW, tell me in the future if you smell any odors coming out of
McMurray, so I can go short.

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.

What part of the world, refresh my memory, is NOT concerned about
economic growth? Name the place. Where?

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

LOL..."unlike me"? I read this *** probably every week or at least
by the month. China wants to double its oil consumption in 15 years,
probably sooner. What for? No, can't be for industrial GROWTH.

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

No, better than we are as a percentage. However, our demand growth is
nowhere near theirs and our efficiency in BTU/GDP is still 2x as good,
but pathetically lagging the EU and JPN.

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,

No. It would require trillions in reinvestment.

China would have to rebuild all those factories to be efficient.

And, yes, it is 9:1. 4.9:1 in the EU. The US is about average at
2:1. China is one of the least efficient nations on earth.

Trav

.