Excerpt on peak oil, revisited

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
And people who have no idea how the capital markets work completely forget that supply/demand equations only work when other exogenous independent variables do not alter the equation, and that supply/demand only works when the markets are rational and efficient.

But then again, you knew that, right?

I'm still waiting for you to refute all the articles and links I posted earlier. Why dont you start on THAT Mr. Banker, THEN work on the later stuyff.

Unless....Whats that? Oh, you CANT counter my claims because you know they are true. You know the declines in established fields wont be offset by new production, and you know deep down inside that money wont solve the issue.

So tell me Mr. Banker, what firm do you work for anyways? I think you're what Texans like to call "All hat and no cattle". I ponied up when you asked and gave you many articles from many sources considered, well, semi reliable. You havent refuted them, and you continue on thinking your high and mighty title lends you some level of expertise.

I think your generally a blow hard whos full of shit. Prove me wrong. Prove the articles I posted wrong. I want hard facts and numbers from reliable sources.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
Things are going to change, we may lose a few large cities. The country can always revert or adapt though.

Cities are going to become more important as populations concentrate.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
And people who have no idea how the capital markets work completely forget that supply/demand equations only work when other exogenous independent variables do not alter the equation, and that supply/demand only works when the markets are rational and efficient.

But then again, you knew that, right?

I'm still waiting for you to refute all the articles and links I posted earlier. Why dont you start on THAT Mr. Banker, THEN work on the later stuyff.

Unless....Whats that? Oh, you CANT counter my claims because you know they are true. You know the declines in established fields wont be offset by new production, and you know deep down inside that money wont solve the issue.

So tell me Mr. Banker, what firm do you work for anyways? I think you're what Texans like to call "All hat and no cattle". I ponied up when you asked and gave you many articles from many sources considered, well, semi reliable. You havent refuted them, and you continue on thinking your high and mighty title lends you some level of expertise.

I think your generally a blow hard whos full of shit. Prove me wrong. Prove the articles I posted wrong. I want hard facts and numbers from reliable sources.

LOL. I have merely said production of existing fields CAN be offset from new finds or advancing technology, or simple replacements. I have never stated that they'd be at the same price. I have continuously stated that the price will differ, because as conventional provable resource dry up, economically speaking the price will go up, at which time suitable replacements will be found.

You've just laid out a doomsday myopic scenario with little understanding of economics.

As for the firm I work for, I don't tell anybody that, due to privacy reasons. It's one of the biggest banks in the world and I work in an area that delivers high ROE hurdle rates (150%+). I've worked there for about 15 months, which is pretty good, since my sector has been hit by 40-60% layoffs in the last year. My expertise is analytics.

Several people can vouch for me, including 3cho and JS80, as they do know where I work and what I do. It's actually not that hard to find me, since I have a CFA charter and I work in a certain sector of finance. Here, I'll even help you.

My name is in here, it was printed in the WSJ. I completed my charter within 3 years, all 3 exams the first try, something maybe 5% of candidates do. Only 20% even complete the program.

http://www.cfainstitute.org/ab...sj_eastcongrats_07.pdf

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. I have merely said production of existing fields CAN be offset from new finds or advancing technology, or simple replacements. I have never stated that they'd be at the same price. I have continuously stated that the price will differ, because as conventional provable resource dry up, economically speaking the price will go up, at which time suitable replacements will be found.

You've just laid out a doomsday myopic scenario with little understanding of economics.

As for the firm I work for, I don't tell anybody that, due to privacy reasons. It's one of the biggest banks in the world and I work in an area that delivers high ROE hurdle rates (150%+). I've worked there for about 15 months, which is pretty good, since my sector has been hit by 40-60% layoffs in the last year. My expertise is analytics.

Several people can vouch for me, including 3cho and JS80, as they do know where I work and what I do. It's actually not that hard to find me, since I have a CFA charter and I work in a certain sector of finance.

Here, I'll even help you.

My name is in here, it was printed in the WSJ. I completed my charter within 3 years, all 3 exams the first try, something maybe 5% of candidates do. Only 20% even complete the program.

http://www.cfainstitute.org/ab...sj_eastcongrats_07.pdf

Hey, I'm impressed.

Now again, can new production offset declines elsewhere? I dont know why you seem to think economics can solve our problems. The biggest pitfall of economics is assuming an ever expanding resource base.
If you have a limited supply of something IT WILL RUN OUT.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. I have merely said production of existing fields CAN be offset from new finds or advancing technology, or simple replacements. I have never stated that they'd be at the same price. I have continuously stated that the price will differ, because as conventional provable resource dry up, economically speaking the price will go up, at which time suitable replacements will be found.

You've just laid out a doomsday myopic scenario with little understanding of economics.

As for the firm I work for, I don't tell anybody that, due to privacy reasons. It's one of the biggest banks in the world and I work in an area that delivers high ROE hurdle rates (150%+). I've worked there for about 15 months, which is pretty good, since my sector has been hit by 40-60% layoffs in the last year. My expertise is analytics.

Several people can vouch for me, including 3cho and JS80, as they do know where I work and what I do. It's actually not that hard to find me, since I have a CFA charter and I work in a certain sector of finance.

Here, I'll even help you.

My name is in here, it was printed in the WSJ. I completed my charter within 3 years, all 3 exams the first try, something maybe 5% of candidates do. Only 20% even complete the program.

http://www.cfainstitute.org/ab...sj_eastcongrats_07.pdf

Hey, I'm impressed.

Now again, can new production offset declines elsewhere? I dont know why you seem to think economics can solve our problems. The biggest pitfall of economics is assuming an ever expanding resource base.
If you have a limited supply of something IT WILL RUN OUT.

It will undoubtedly run out, but probably not for a very very long time (100+ years)

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
It will undoubtedly run out, but probably not for a very very long time (100+ years)

It was supposed to run out 35 years ago.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Which doesn't include offshore in various places, nor advancing technologies in the shale industry.

Peak oil is a farce.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

It will undoubtedly run out, but probably not for a very very long time (100+ years)

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Which doesn't include offshore in various places, nor advancing technologies in the shale industry.

Peak oil is a farce.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

It will undoubtedly run out, but probably not for a very very long time (100+ years)

Wow, maybe I should have put in some temporal context. It's a farce in the near term or even medium term, and it assumes that replacements cannot be found. The whole quick fall of society is also pretty stupid.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. I have merely said production of existing fields CAN be offset from new finds or advancing technology, or simple replacements. I have never stated that they'd be at the same price. I have continuously stated that the price will differ, because as conventional provable resource dry up, economically speaking the price will go up, at which time suitable replacements will be found.

You've just laid out a doomsday myopic scenario with little understanding of economics.

As for the firm I work for, I don't tell anybody that, due to privacy reasons. It's one of the biggest banks in the world and I work in an area that delivers high ROE hurdle rates (150%+). I've worked there for about 15 months, which is pretty good, since my sector has been hit by 40-60% layoffs in the last year. My expertise is analytics.

Several people can vouch for me, including 3cho and JS80, as they do know where I work and what I do. It's actually not that hard to find me, since I have a CFA charter and I work in a certain sector of finance.

Here, I'll even help you.

My name is in here, it was printed in the WSJ. I completed my charter within 3 years, all 3 exams the first try, something maybe 5% of candidates do. Only 20% even complete the program.

http://www.cfainstitute.org/ab...sj_eastcongrats_07.pdf

Hey, I'm impressed.

Now again, can new production offset declines elsewhere? I dont know why you seem to think economics can solve our problems. The biggest pitfall of economics is assuming an ever expanding resource base.
If you have a limited supply of something IT WILL RUN OUT.

It will undoubtedly run out, but probably not for a very very long time (100+ years)

Where did you get that number?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton


Where did you get that number?

SWAG. Just the same as the fools running around claiming peak oil in the next 40 years.

 

[CptObvious]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Throckmorton


Where did you get that number?

SWAG. Just the same as the fools running around claiming peak oil in the next 40 years.

You seem to consistently fail to grasp the concept of peak oil.

Peak oil is NOT about 'running out' of oil. Proponents of peak oil acknowledge that there is plenty of supply of oil left in the world, albeit in harder to reach forms. The problem is the conventional sources of oil that are relatively cheap to extract and process are running out. There is very little debate about this. Even oil company-friendly experts like CERA, which has consistently underpredicted oil prices in the past 5 years, and Shell Oil say that world oil production will peak between 2020 and 2025. Quoted from the Hirsch report, sponsored by the Department of Energy:

Even the most optimistic forecasts suggest that world oil peaking will occur in less than 25 years. (p.13)

That doesn't mean there won't be oil in 25 years, it means prices will continue to climb as production plateaus (or declines) and world demand increases.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
Things are going to change, we may lose a few large cities. The country can always revert or adapt though.

Cities are going to become more important as populations concentrate.

I disagree, cities are going to be the problem when food supplies run low. Farms>slums

 

[wwswimming]

for people that are interested, there are some relevant graphs at
http://www.theoildrum.com/

(graphs & charts) that show oil exports, country by country.

and, coming out in the last few days, another Matt Simmons
presentation
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/...gy%20Investor%20BW.pdf

until Cheney decides to unlock America's oil shale, perhaps by
using nuclear bombs to remove all the rock on top so that the
oil shale can be mined more easily, the US receives oil at the
mercy & whim of other countries that have oil - Russia, Iraq,
Iran, Kuwait, Venezuela, Norway, Canada ... etc.

if the shoe were on the other foot, and America was just beginning
to taste the "joys" of abundant material wealth for the larger
population, as is happening in Russia - would we share the oil
with other countries ?

the countries that have oil are receiving $trillions - and are
realizing that they like it. why should they share it with the US ?
because the US pays in dollars ? because the US has a big military ?

the 20 million barrels per day that the US receives from our trading
partners continues at the whim of countries that are beginning to not
just think about keeping some for themselves - they're actually keeping
some for themselves.

it's like going scuba diving with them, in the circumstance where their
hand is on the valve that controls our air supply - and where they need
more & more of that air for themselves.