Re: The writing is on the wall

On Sep 5, 4:23 pm, "nemo_outis" <a...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I have. The US EIA is not predicting Russian production to peak until
2011 (at 10.6 million bpd, significantly above the 9.8 million bpd for
2007)

The EIA is full of ***. Russia has, in all likelihood, re-peaked
within the last year. Their production is flat.

Russia's nationalization of all things oil & gas is simply a reversal of
the lunatic neoliberal selloff urged on them in the 90s. Russia is
simply reversing that giveaway to mafioso oligarchs and taking direct
control of its primary economic levers. Good for Putin!

Laughable. They'd have had a shot at that10.6mbpd if they had not
stolen from the foreign investors.

You're tired? Tough! It's a widely used metric precisely because it is
so useful.

Reserves divided by current production rate is useLESS. Nobody EVER
uses it.

Say what? Maybe bluff & bull*** gets past the mouthbreathers here on
rma, but you'll have to do better than that to fool me! Russia's oil
production has increased every year since 2002 and is not expected to
peak before 2011!

Who, by the EIA? What have they ever been RIGHT about? The USGS is
notioriously polyannaish, too.

Uhh, no, Trav. Oil is a resource owned by the state (on behalf of the
citizenry), and a state may exercise its sovereign right to repudiate
any contract and reclaim its oil at any time should it decide (wisely or
unwisely) to do so. Sovereignty 101, Trav! Oil companies are given
opportunites to develop the oil (at the - always revocable - pleasure of
the State) but the usual arrangement nowadays is essentially a "fee for
service," not production-sharing and certainly not company ownership of
the oil resource.

Failing to honor agreements for investment discourages further
investment. Venezuela is basically radioactive now. It's cost them
500,000 bbl/day in production. What a WINNER!

Uhh, Trav, Russian consumption is only about 1/3 of its production. Even
if domestic consumption of oil went up 10% that would only decrease the
oil export rate by about 5% (for a constant production rate). But the
production rate is NOT constant. Contrary to your hypothesis, Russia's
production rate is INCREASING! And that's what the stats show:
increasing, not decreasing, oil exports!

Idiot.

Production HAS increased. The numbers show Russian production to have
been flat over the last year, at 9.3-9.4mbpd. I don't want to hear
rose-colored "estimates" by the EIA either. I don't give a *** where
they're from.

What was their global peak forecast? 2020? It's already happened,
probably 2005.

And Russian GDP went up by 6.7% in 2006 - the oil is being put to
productive use. And not just oil. Unlike most other nations Russia
mostly uses natural gas, not oil, domestically. Natural gas accounts for
55% of Russia's total energy consumption (oil is only 19%)!

NG is in worse shape than is oil.

The US export of its manufacturing had nothing to do with the price of
oil which, as you may recall, has the same price worldwide. US real GDP
has steadily risen since the 70s - despite the US consuming more oil at
higher prices.

Are you without clue? The US went from net exporter to net importer,
retard. That's got jack*** to do with "the price of oil" in general
and everything to do with trade deficits and capital accounts
imbalances needing to be rectified.

What sustained recession? Your attempt at drawing "inferences" from your
wild speculations about the future is hadly persuasive.

Energy use and GDP are proportional.

Uhh, no, Trav. Sadly, most of the world is completely cut off from
industrialism and its putative benefits (2 billion people live on less
than $2/day!) and if oil and the entire industrial world were to
disappear tomorrow they would be no worse off. (Likely it would be a
benefit to them.)

Horse***. When the free food the West sends them is gone, so go
millions of them to starvation and disease, nevermind the droughts
we'll visit them with as we try to burn all the coal ever mined.

Industrialism will not be shattered, it will jst have to adjust and
change. No need for your "sky is falling" hysteria, Trav. No big deal.
Hell, the US has dropped its energy use per dollar of real GDP by a
factor of 2 since the 50s. Cut it in half, Trav. And can - no, will -
halve it again in the upcoming decades.

Our GDP is fabricated. Plus, we are not a manufacturing power any
longer. We basically sell financial transactions. An INDUSTRIALIZing
nation is not going to adjust very easily to an oil price shock or
systemic scarcity.

No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't make it so.
Industrialism can work just fine without growth.

It utterly cannot. It never has. Industrialism has always been about
growth.

There is not now and will not be in the future any "hope" for the poor
bastards in much of the third world, even if we magically quintupled the
oil reserves on this earth. Those poor bastards, though it pains me to
say it, are fucked no matter what happens. Oil has almost nothing to do
with it.

I blame you for it. You Canadians are sitting on all these resources,
why don't you share with the downtrodden?

No, Trav, most of the world is NOT a big fan of capitalism (especially
the weird state-subsidized, foreign exploitation, military adventurism
version so popular in the US)

LOL. Of course they are. Fuckin Russia, China...give me a break. WTF
does India need 2 aircraft carriers for? Why do the French own one?

Coal WILL be heavily used as oil production declines, CO2 and the
concomitant warming be damned (but fortunately CO2 & global warming is
mostly bullsit hype). So will nuclear. Given the alternative of
freezing in the dark, NIMBY and ecological correctness will go out of
style real fast. Oil will be conserved and used more efficiently, not
out of some pie-in-the-sky environmentalism, but because it will have
become damned expensive.

Good lord, your "solution" is worse than mine. When there are no
icecaps left and the hurricane season lasts all year and the eastern
seaboard is underwater, I'll be sure to carve a new epitaph into your
headstone w/ my pocketknife, "here lies a MORON."

You have now drifted to a second-order problem: distribution of the oil.
But the first-order problem, sufficient oil for productive activities and
a manageable transition to other energy sources, is still quite tractable
with a time-scale of decades for its management.

You haven't examined the problem deeply enough...I can see that
straight off. Take a look at exporting nations and trace a realistic
domestic growth curve against a REALISTIC production decline curve.
Use REAL numbers instead of EIA or IEA or USGS "estimates" that have
proven LAUGHABLY overoptimistic. You will quickly see that I am
right. You won't like the answer, but you'll have it nonetheless.
There is no decadeS. There is decade.

As for the second-order oil distribution problem, maybe producing nations
(yea, Canada! yea, Russia!) will become the global industrial giants
while others wither. No big deal (unless you're in one of those
withering places, I suppose :-)

Huh? You are going to become an industrial giant HOW? By doing what,
CONSUMING your fuckin oil to produce ***?!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...with
each passing moment, Gerald...

Russia's production decline, once they pass peak, will be SEVERE.
Very severe. Probably steeper than Cantarell, which has defied ALL
the idiotic "projections" made by the agencies you've previously
cited. Study reality for a change, doofus.

You didn't, I did. Haven't you been paying atttention? Or did you think
I was only going to respond to your silly points and not introduce my far
more cogent ones?

That is the most bizarre defense of your construction of a STRAWMAN
argument that I've ever seen. So, you ADMIT to being either too
stupid to follow along, such that you thought we were talking about
something else, or else you admit to constructing a fiction to argue
against?

Your point wasn't cogent; it was never AT ISSUE. It's immaterial,
irrelevant, and a complete non sequitur.

Yes, the era of dirt-cheap energy is coming to a close, but there is, as
you acknowledge, no problem of a true shortage of energy for centuries to
come. The end of cheap abundant oil merely implies a transition, a very
manageable transition that the world has many decades to implement.

You're a fool, a complete one.

Every industrialized or industrializing economy has an expectation of
growth. These expectations will be unrealized and this changes
EVERYthing. If you cannot see this, then you're truly a fool.

In a no-growth scenario, in an economy that isn't driven by insane
speculation, the price of the stock becomes constant (at a non-
speculatively-inflated multiple of its static earnings) and the investor
payout is the similarly static dividend. Perfectly ordinary. Perfectly
OK financially.

Yet...not...how...markets...function...in...industrial...economies.

I don't want to hear about geraldworld, fucktard, I want to discuss
the REAL world. How do things work HERE IN THE REAL WORLD and not in
YOUR fantasy?

I see, so you instead desire that world population should increase
forever unchecked to support your weird conception of the need for
economic "growth."

No, I desire nothing of the kind. Your sloppy thinking and reading
aside, I stated no preference either way.

I merely take extreme umbrage at the brazenness with which you, on one
hand, say that we must freeze population growth, then on the other,
say that this transition will be a nice, easily-managed non-event.

I must again question both your sanity and intelligence.

Sorry, Trav, the world has far too many people now (although I'm not
voluntereering to get off) and advocating increasing that population
(especially for such a nonsensical idea as economic "growth") is silly.

I concur wholeheartedly. Now, are you going to tell me why you
brought this point up or was this another demonstration of your
inability to properly comprehend that which you read?

Positing a freeze in population growth is tantamount to eugenics or
barbarism, virtually apocalyptic for 99% of the people out there.
Nobody other than YOU believes that this is an easily soluble problem
or that such a transition will go smoothly. You are asking 6 BILLION
people to limit their fucking reproduction. Have you spent more than,
say, 2 seconds thinking this through?

You, not I, are the enthusiast about growth.

I am no enthusiast, fool. If you had read anything I have ever
written, I have been calling for a population drawdown for years now.
Do try to keep up, old man.

The real difference between us is that I am smart enough to understand
that such a transition from a growth-based praxis to steady-state will
not be EASY.

Half the world is oblivious to oil, one way or the other. There are
limits to population growth, there are limits to economic growth. The
process of dropping the "growth addiction" can be managed with minimal
pain or it can, thorugh inaction, be left to catastrophes. Which way the
denouement plays out is not some preordained certainty but a matter quite
amenable to human management - if humanity so chooses.

LOL. You cannot actually believe, given history, that the latter
potentiality will manifest.

Ignoring such aspects as the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline which will be
dedicated to tar sands production (although nobody will say so publicly)
there are a number of other solutions available (e.g., nuclear).

Get cracking now you stupid fkers.

The plain fact of the matter is that Canada is the US' best hope for
(partially) achieving "continental" self-sufficiency in oil (with Canada,
as always the subservient colony providing it). There is not the
slightest doubt that the US, which is prepared to flatten the middle east
to get oil, would be adverse to the simple expedient of using its
economic muscle to lean on Canada to do whatever is necessary to deliver
tarsands oil to the US in huge quantities.

I pray every day for us to invade Alberta and slaughter every one of
you.

No, Trav, development of the Alberta tarsands for US benefit will NOT be
allowed to be impeded in any serious way (and certainly not by such
piffles as carbon taxes or what silly Canadians think about the matter).

Good, b/c I wants my dividend, mfer.

Sounds like a recipe for Chinese economic prosperity to me.

What, spending all their savings to rebuild factories that are already
in grotesque overcapacity?

China IS rebuilding everything - everything, Trav. Fortunately, the old
threadbare small-scale industrial *** they currently have is not worth
keeping and the Chinese recognize that.

LOL. You know nothing about China, I see. They are awash in money
supply and mismanagement of capital, cronyism, and misallocation.
They're in a parabolic growth bubble.

Trav, Trav, do you really want me to call you on this? I have the
numbers, Trav. The variations in energy usage per GDP are large, but
nowhere near what you say above.

I have the numbers too. Front page, business section, Washington
Post.

But, hey, I'm a reasonable man. Get off your fat ass and give some
cites, Trav! (But be wary, Trav, because, as usual, I've got better
numbers from more credible sources right at hand.)

Regards,

No, you don't. Had you had any credible refutation of anything I
said, your history demonstrates that you'd have used it. You're
clearly trolling me.

Trav

.