Australian Politics Forum - The Peak Energy Debate

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Finance and Economics › The Peak Energy Debate

(Moderator: perceptions_now)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 24

The Peak Energy Debate (Read 123230 times)

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: The Peak Energy Debate Reply #195 - Dec 15^th, 2010 at 8:43pm Collapse (The Movie) with Michael Ruppert Part 1 - embedded video http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/50078/Collapse__part_1_/ Part 2 - embedded video http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/50113/Collapse__part_2_/ ============ Not lite!
Back to top	IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #196 - Dec 16^th, 2010 at 1:18pm

Does China Face a ‘Peak Coal’ Threat?

China’s ravenous appetite for energy puts the country at risk of reaching a point of “peak coal,” when demand for coal will outstrip domestic production capacity, a growing number of experts believe.

China now consumes approximately 47 percent of coal produced globally but by most estimates has just 14 percent of global coal reserves. Meanwhile, demand has risen by about 10 percent per year for the last decade, putting the country on an “unsustainable” path, according to a recent report by C.L.S.A. Asia-Pacific Markets, a Hong Kong-based brokerage firm.

Coal might be abundant globally, but if China cannot substantially raise its domestic production, increasing imports enough to meet demand may be hard to accomplish in the short-term, putting the country in a potential supply bind.

“I think China is the vulnerable player here — they don’t really have a lot of options,” said David Fridley, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and deputy leader of the laboratory’s China Energy Group.

Evidence that China may be nearing an ultimate limit on production can be seen in rapidly growing imports and a recent proposal by a top energy official that the country cap coal production at around 3.6 billion tons per year beginning in 2011. China is on pace to produce nearly 3.4 billion tons of coal domestically in 2010, according to a recent Reuters analysis, and will import about 150 million tons this year.

Chinese officials suggest that the coal production cap is intended to prolong domestic supplies. But some analysts believe that the cap may have more to do with the country’s inability to substantially raise production, most likely because of problems with transportation. Already, a significant amount of coal transport has shifted from China’s overburdened rail lines to its crowded roads, with coal-laden trucks blamed for snarling roads, as with a two-week-long traffic jam that clogged the national highway between Beijing and Zhangjiakou this summer.

Domestic Chinese supplies are estimated at about 110 billion tons, enough for about 30 years consumption at the 3.6 billion ton level. Yet continued rapid economic growth will push demand far higher, leading some to suspect that China is preparing to turn toward imports to meet further demand growth.

As our colleague Elisabeth Rosenthal reported last month, rising Chinese demand has countries like Canada, Australia, Indonesia, Colombia and South Africa rapidly ramping up their coal exports. The sudden opening of the Chinese market has put some countries, like Australia, in the unusual position of increasing coal imports while simultaneously pursuing domestic goals of reducing carbon emissions from fossil fuels to address climate change.

In Australia, plans to rapidly scale up coal exports have already run into political opposition, a prospect that would probably await attempts to develop major new terminals on the west coasts of the United States and Canada to export plentiful North American coal.

“I think the West Coast in general would be a very difficult place to come in and put in a massive coal-export terminus,” Dr. Fridley said.

At the same time, China is expected to face increasing competition from India and other developing nations in Asia for coal imports from abroad, potentially setting the stage for a rapid rise in coal prices. The result would be felt across the global economy, some experts say.

“China’s insatiable hunger for more coal will drive up coal prices everywhere,” Richard Heinberg, an author and senior fellow at the Post-Carbon Institute in Santa Rosa, Calif., wrote in a recent essay. “China can’t keep up coal-powered industrial expansion for much longer, nor can the global economy accelerate without the engine of China.”

Link -
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/does-china-face-a-peak-coal-threat/
=================
A few observations -
1) China CAN NOT continue to ramp up Coal production, to meet the current pace of Coal fired power stations, which is about one a week.
The current Coal Production expansion, pictured on the folllowing chart, is not sustainable!
China is currently consumming nearly 50% of Global Coal Production, but it only has 14% of Global Coal reserves.

2) When China starts to reduce its own Coal production, it will try to increase its Consumption via large increases in imported Coal, with Australia being a prime candidate.
This is what the US did with Oil, when it became apparent that US production of Oil would decline.
Whilst TPTB in Australia will think this is just great, IT SHOULD BE RESISTED, IN THE LONGER TERM, BEST INTERESTS, OF ALL AUSTRALIANS!

3) The Chinese Economic expansion has ridden on the back of two Economic tigers, Demographics & Energy (mainly Coal), that is coming to an end!

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #197 - Dec 16^th, 2010 at 1:49pm

China warns of power and energy shortages this winter

SHANGHAI, Dec 15 (Reuters) - Some parts of China could face an intermittent shortage of crucial coal, oil, power or gas supplies crucial for heating during the winter months, China's top economic planning body said in a statement on Wednesday.

Most of China's resource production bases, including coal and and oil, are either concentrated in the northern or western provinces, away from the key demand areas located in the southern and eastern region, such as Shanghai and Guangdong.

Any supply shortfall could prompt a surge in import demand as utilities and firms seek alternative fuel supplies to feed their power plants.

In a sign that the government may again crack down on steel mills which have only recently resumed production, the NDRC said it would need to curb power demand from energy intensive and polluting industries from "rebounding excessively."

Prices of coal and liquefied natural gas jumped last winter, when violent snowstorms caused a transport gridlock and crippled power supplies.

The NDRC has also called for efforts to improve coal production to ensure stable supplies in the winter and spring months, as well as to guarantee "stable supplies" of refined oil and natural gas.

Almost every winter, China's energy market suffers a new variant of the same no-win situation as state controls exacerbate supply shortages that only urgent and pricey imports can relieve.

Despite cold weather and rising fuel costs, a state campaign to stamp out energy wastage has prompted officials in many provinces to cut power supplies to factories, businesses and even homes and public facilities.

Link -
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFTOE6BE04920101215
=============

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #198 - Dec 16^th, 2010 at 2:04pm

Electricity and other rises to cost families an extra $310

BASIC utility price hikes which will cost the average household an extra $310 next year have angered AdelaideNow readers.
The latest power sting, announced yesterday, will increase the average annual electricity bill by $140 or 12 per cent.

AdelaideNow readers have today vented their frustration at the State Government, SA Water, and the Essential Services Commission for the latest in a string of price hikes.

Judi, of Adelaide, warned low income earners were being pushed even further into poverty.

"Once again, a company making profit but not using any of that money to improve the infrastructure, and instead hitting the consumers pocket again," she says

"Remember, our pockets are only so deep - try digging too much further in, and you'll be hitting fresh air."

Tom Bell of Pt Noarlunga, however, said the rise is a global trend.

"PEAK OIL - it's not difficult to understand people - the more OIL costs - the higher prices go - with everything - economics!!"

In addition to the electricity price rise, water bills are up 21 per cent (an average increase of $85 next year), council rates will go up 5 per cent ($50) and gas bills are also likely to rise 10 per cent ($35).

Grocery bills have risen 5 per cent, or $728, over the past year.

The inflation rate is just 2.8 per cent
.

The electricity price rise takes effect on January 1, meaning the average annual bill will increase from $1160 to $1300.

South Australians will endure the second most expensive electricity bills in the country, behind NSW.

Link -
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/electricity-and-other-rises-t...
==================
Who sees a few linkages?

Like the US & elsewhere, the current CPI figures are absolute BS, they are a concoction that specifically does not count many of the staples of life and it does so to provide governments with specific advantages!

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #199 - Dec 19^th, 2010 at 7:51pm

Solutions to peak oil – part I: what is the problem?

A storm is coming, and some say that it will wipe our civilisation off the earth1. I am talking about the progressive disappearance of oil.

I have been thinking and investigating the issue called “peak oil” for over a year now, and it is one of the reasons which started me writing this blog. Peak oil is defined as the moment where the maximum oil is being produced and the production starts it final decline.

There are indications that peak oil is either imminent or even may have passed a few years ago. Although the consequences won’t be immediate after the peak, on the long term they will be dire. We will discuss what the possible solutions to peak oil are in a moment but first, what are we talking about? Let’s start by a few facts:
1) There is only a limited amount of oil on the planet – because the planet is round.
2) The world’s first commercial oil well was drilled in Poland in 1853, and global production reached 4 million barrels a year in the 1860s (one barrel is about 159 litres).
3) Today’s production hovers just above 70 million barrels a day.
4) 2005 was an all-time high at 73.72 million barrels a day. Production is nearly flat since.
5) The Industrial Revolution brought a better understanding of how to use energy and allowed global population to increase ten times compared to what has been constant over millennia. It is quite clear that our population would never have reached this level without access to all the cheap energy sources we currently have.
6) Our industry, food system and economy have become wholly dependent on cheap fuel.
7) India and China demand for oil is set to quadruple by 2030.
8) Some 64 million barrel per day of additional gross capacity – the equivalent of almost six times the daily output of Saudi Arabia today – needs to be brought on stream between now and 2030 (World Energy Outlook 2008)

So if the amount of oil we have is limited, if our demand is exponentially growing and if production has been stationary for 5 years, how much oil have we left?

First we have to realise there aren’t any massive oil field discoveries those days. It is estimated that the peak of oil production lags behind the peak of oil field discoveries by 30 to 40 years depending on the urgency with which new fields are brought on line. The graph below shows the rate of discoveries of conventional oil field

Second, according to the EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration) itself, we are on the verge of a downward slope. See this graph:

The graph above was submitted at an U.S. Department of Energy roundtable in April 2009. You can find the presentation document of this roundtable on the Department of Energy website. As you can see the only line going up is the demand. It is to be noted that over the next 5 years the amount required to meet demands equates to 10 million barrels a day, which is the daily production of Saudi Arabia, the largest producer on earth. Bear in mind that it takes least 7 years to get any new oil project running so if we were to meet oil demand in 7 years we will need to get 20% of our oil from yet-unidentified projects. Therefore we are already behind schedule by quite a long way.

The fact is that there is no cheap replacement for oil, and most of what we consider granted in the western world is based on its availability. If peak oil hasn’t passed yet, all the above facts suggest that peak oil is imminent (definitely less than 10 years, probably less than 5), after which we will start to see an irremediable decline in production. Sometime peak oil is defined as when demand outstrip supply, which in my opinion has already come to pass for a few years, given the current prices of crude and flat production despite international growth.

I’d like to stop a moment to let this sink in and consider what actually depends on oil.

1) Most of our transportation: cars, planes, boat, trucks.
2) Commercial shipment: bringing food to the supermarket, shipping building material, most of the industry.
3) Tyres: It takes 3.6 billion gallons of crude oil to produce tyres for all of the cars in the U.S. and 7 gallons of crude to produce one tire. Therefore should we all run on electric cars we would still have a problem.
4) Mining equipment, farming and forestry equipment. The energy density of any commercially available battery makes it very heavy to move around and therefore a poor replacement of liquid fuels11.
5) Most plastics. Plastics are everywhere. Look around you, starting by your computer and your phone, and the chips inside of them, and then try to imagine a world without plastics.
6) Many pesticides are derived from petroleum. Fertilizers are derived from natural gas, which ultimately will be confronted to the same issue.
7) Motor’s lubricating oil.
8) Asphalt.
9) Our entire food production and distribution network is heavily dependent on oil and fossil fuels17. It is estimated that for every calories you eat, 10 calories of fossil fuels (mainly from oil and gas) is being used.

Link -
http://www.worldsalvation.info/2010/12/solutions-to-peak-oil-%E2%80%93-part-i-wh...
===========
Could be an informative series, its a good start!

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #200 - Dec 20^th, 2010 at 8:07pm

Australia faces looming fuel shortages.

Australia will soon not be able to import enough oil to meet demand because of Peak Oil.

This warning comes from Prof Kjell Aleklett, head of the Global Energy Systems group at Uppsala University in Sweden, who is currently visiting Australia.

Peak Oil is the time when the rate of global oil production reaches its all-time maximum and starts its inevitable downtrend. Forecasts vary from between 2011 to beyond 2015.

Australia’s own oil production has been declining since 2000, and already 80 per cent of the fuel for our cars, trucks and planes is imported, either directly or as crude oil to be refined in Australia.

“Declining global oil production, increasing internal consumption in OPEC nations and increasing demand from China and India will mean there is less oil available for importers like Australia, US and Europe, just when their own domestic production is declining,” says Prof Aleklett.

Prof Aleklett has published a critical review of the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook, casting very serious doubts on the independence and methodology of the IEA forecasts.

“In 2008, the IEA predicted world oil production would grow from the current 85 million barrels/day to 106 mb/d in 2030. However, the Uppsala group, using the same base data on existing reserves and future discoveries, can see only 75 mb/d. This means a substantial decline in oil availability instead of business as usual growth. This will almost inevitably lead to oil shortages in Australia,” he warns.

The IEA and the Uppsala group agree that production is dropping in most of the world’s giant oil fields by about 6 per cent per annum. It is the ability of new fields to fill this enormous decline gap which is the bone of contention.

“The difference is due to the IEA’s mistake in assuming impossibly high rates of extraction from future oil fields, twice as high even as those unachieved in the high-tech North Sea region. Oil has to flow through the pores in the reservoir rocks to find its way to the oil well to be pumped up. The flow rates depend largely on the laws of physics and on the geology and permeability of the sediments,” Prof Aleklett says.

“Sadly, economics and market forces have little impact on droplets of oil squeezing through rocks kilometres below the surface.”
The IEA is an oil-importers’ cartel to counterbalance OPEC, the oil exporting countries’ cartel.

“There has been public criticism of the IEA for succumbing to political pressure from the US to give unreasonably optimistic oil forecasts,” says Prof Aleklett. “But even the IEA has been reducing its forecasts of future oil production over the years, from 121 mb/d by 2030, to 115 then 106 and now 96 mb/day in 2030. However, the Uppsala group’s criticisms of the IEA methods have been unchallenged. I stand by my assessment that world oil production will start declining soon.”

Forecasts of looming global oil shortages have also been given by a range of authorities, including the US and German Defence Departments, Sir Richard Branson and even Macquarie Bank.

Prof Aleklett is warning planners and investors that on-going business-as-usual growth in Australia’s oil usage is impossible.

“Peak Oil will mean peak traffic and peak air-travel. Car and plane trips will start to decrease as oil shortages hit“.

“Cities and businesses that prepare in advance for the probability of oil shortages will fare far better than those that believe the fairy-tales that oil production will keep increasing continuously.

"Oil vulnerability assessment and risk management planning should be an essential step for governments and investors. People whose superannuation is in airport and urban toll-road companies will be very hard hit unless the funds managers start considering Peak Oil risks, soon. Oil vulnerability assessment should be an essential part of any investment decisions as most companies will be affected in one way or another", Professor Aleklett concluded.

Link -
http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/australia-faces-looming-fuel-shortages/
===============
Peak Oil, in concert with Global Demographics & Climate Change, will affect every corner of modern life, the Global Economy & Politics!

IP Logged

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: The Peak Energy Debate Reply #201 - Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 8:44pm Peak Oil: The Basics of Oil Depletion in 5 Minutes
Back to top	IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #202 - Dec 28^th, 2010 at 8:46pm

The Finite World

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Oil is back above $90 a barrel. Copper and cotton have hit record highs. Wheat and corn prices are way up. Over all, world commodity prices have risen by a quarter in the past six months.

So what’s the meaning of this surge?

Is it speculation run amok? Is it the result of excessive money creation, a harbinger of runaway inflation just around the corner? No and no.

What the commodity markets are telling us is that we’re living in a finite world, in which the rapid growth of emerging economies is placing pressure on limited supplies of raw materials, pushing up their prices. And America is, for the most part, just a bystander in this story.

Some background: The last time the prices of oil and other commodities were this high, two and a half years ago, many commentators dismissed the price spike as an aberration driven by speculators. And they claimed vindication when commodity prices plunged in the second half of 2008.

But that price collapse coincided with a severe global recession, which led to a sharp fall in demand for raw materials. The big test would come when the world economy recovered. Would raw materials once again become expensive?

Well, it still feels like a recession in America. But thanks to growth in developing nations, world industrial production recently passed its previous peak — and, sure enough, commodity prices are surging again.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that speculation played no role in 2007-2008. Nor should we reject the notion that speculation is playing some role in current prices; for example, who is that mystery investor who has bought up much of the world’s copper supply? But the fact that world economic recovery has also brought a recovery in commodity prices strongly suggests that recent price fluctuations mainly reflect fundamental factors.

What about commodity prices as a harbinger of inflation? Many commentators on the right have been predicting for years that the Federal Reserve, by printing lots of money — it’s not actually doing that, but that’s the accusation — is setting us up for severe inflation. Stagflation is coming, declared Representative Paul Ryan in February 2009; Glenn Beck has been warning about imminent hyperinflation since 2008.

Yet inflation has remained low. What’s an inflation worrier to do?

One response has been a proliferation of conspiracy theories, of claims that the government is suppressing the truth about rising prices. But lately many on the right have seized on rising commodity prices as proof that they were right all along, as a sign of high overall inflation just around the corner.

You do have to wonder what these people were thinking two years ago, when raw material prices were plunging. If the commodity-price rise of the past six months heralds runaway inflation, why didn’t the 50 percent decline in the second half of 2008 herald runaway deflation?

Inconsistency aside, however, the big problem with those blaming the Fed for rising commodity prices is that they’re suffering from delusions of U.S. economic grandeur. For commodity prices are set globally, and what America does just isn’t that important a factor.

In particular, today, as in 2007-2008, the primary driving force behind rising commodity prices isn’t demand from the United States. It’s demand from China and other emerging economies. As more and more people in formerly poor nations are entering the global middle class, they’re beginning to drive cars and eat meat, placing growing pressure on world oil and food supplies.

And those supplies aren’t keeping pace. Conventional oil production has been flat for four years; in that sense, at least, peak oil has arrived. True, alternative sources, like oil from Canada’s tar sands, have continued to grow. But these alternative sources come at relatively high cost, both monetary and environmental.

Also, over the past year, extreme weather — especially severe heat and drought in some important agricultural regions — played an important role in driving up food prices. And, yes, there’s every reason to believe that climate change is making such weather episodes more common.

So what are the implications of the recent rise in commodity prices? It is, as I said, a sign that we’re living in a finite world, one in which resource constraints are becoming increasingly binding. This won’t bring an end to economic growth, let alone a descent into Mad Max-style collapse. It will require that we gradually change the way we live, adapting our economy and our lifestyles to the reality of more expensive resources.

But that’s for the future. Right now, rising commodity prices are basically the result of global recovery. They have no bearing, one way or another, on U.S. monetary policy. For this is a global story; at a fundamental level, it’s not about us.

Link -
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
=============

As usual, I agree with some, but not all, of what the author has written!

The Oil Price is coming again and that is driven largely by Demand from places such as China, India & other non-developed contries.

However, we do not have the time to gradually transition away from Oil and the USA is far from a by-stander in the events surrounding Peak Oil!

IP Logged

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: The Peak Energy Debate Reply #203 - Dec 29^th, 2010 at 6:37pm Wishful Thinking & Fairy Dust Observations on the EIA 2010 Annual Energy Outlook
Back to top	IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #204 - Jan 1^st, 2011 at 8:23pm

Oil is Not Food but Food is Oil: The Imminent Crisis of Food Production Dependence on Oil

Awareness of the oil crisis is ubiquitous, epitomized by America's desperate struggle to secure control over the world's oil supplies notwithstanding the specious pretexts offered as rationalizations for occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and destabilization campaigns in countries such as Iran.

Sadly absent from public discourse on oil-related issues is the impact of declining oil reserves on the production of food and the complete lack of interest of Western governments in pursuing alternate methods of feeding the world.

Many scientists have concluded that we have passed peak oil which is the point at which the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached due to geological limitations. After reaching peak oil, the rate of production enters terminal decline.

Obviously, the rate of oil production after peak oil is reached can remain at high levels but at the cost of shortening the time remaining before producing oil is no longer feasible.

Another problem in extracting oil after it reaches its peak is the net gain in energy or the "energy returned on energy invested ratio" (EROEI). EROEI is the ratio of the amount of usable energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource. When it reaches the point that it costs more than a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of oil as in the Alberta Tar Sands, production becomes a losing proposition.

According to a number of experts, peak oil has either been reached or approaching rapidly. The EU energy chief warns that: "European oil consumption of gas already reached its peak. The amount of oil available globally, I think has already peaked." In a U.S. Department of Energy study "Peaking of World Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management", released in 2005 reports that: "As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically." The Association for the Study of Peak Oil (APSO) concludes that regular conventional oil reached its peak in 2005.

There are many ramifications of living in a world with dwindling production of oil, but none more important than the impact on the production of food.

Over 400 gallons of oil are consumed each year to feed one person in North America. About one third of that oil is used to manufacture fertilizer, about 20% to operate farm machinery, 16% for transportation, 13% for irrigation, 8% for raising livestock and 5% for pesticides. Transportation involves refrigerated trucks and planes transporting foods long distances to distribution centres.

According to Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow-in -"Residence at the Post Carbon Institute and author: "Over all -" including energy costs for farm machinery, transportation, and processing, and oil and natural gas used as feedstock's for agricultural chemicals -" the modern food system consumes roughly ten calories of fossil fuel energy for every calorie of food energy produced." Currently, efficiency in food production is obscenely poor and foreshadows an escalation in prices and diminishing supplies.

To sever the relationship between oil and food will require a major paradigm shift in how we produce food. In the words of Richard Hienberg (2005): "Given the fact that fossil fuels are limited in quantity and we are already in view of the global oil production peak, the debate over the potential productivity chemical-gene engineered agriculture and agroecological farming may be relatively pointless. We must turn to a food system that is less fuel reliant, even if it does prove to be less productive."

Link -
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Oil-is-Not-Food-but-Food-i-by-David-Model-101...
==============
Energy is often referred to in terms of grid and particularly base load power generation, but there are areas such as Liquids for Transport, Agriculture & Oil used in a myriad of manufacturing processes, where the real problems are, which have few, if any, solutions!

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #205 - Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 12:22pm

A Picture is worth a thousand Words

What does it all mean -
1) World Crude Oil Production effectively Peaked in 2005.
2) Non-OPEC Proction has effectively reduced over the last 7 years, despite a huge ramping up in Russian Production, which is now set to decline.
3) Crude Oil available for export is set to seriously decline over the next 10 years, despite continued Population & Demand increases, which will lead to heavy competition for available resources and a continued escalation in Oil Pricing, which will also drag up other Energy pricing!

However, this is only one of the major factors driving the Global Economy, the broader Economy will also have to take into consideration -
1) The effects of an Aging Baby Boomer generation, which are set to commence "official retirement" from January 1st, 2011, which means a decrease in Demand for a wide range of Products & Services, an increase in Taxes from those still employed to pay for the Boomers Pensions and Health Costs that have already been spent by 40 years of Politicians thinking the future would take care of itself.

2) The effects of the continuing slow down in Global Population Growth, which has been slowing for 40 years and is likely to hit ZPG around 2040-2050, before going into actual decline for the rest of this century, which means a slowing Growth in Demand for a wide range of Products & Services.

3) The effects of Global Climate Change, which can be hinted at by the increased prices for Wheat arising from the likes of the Russian summer Heatwave & the Australian summer Floods and increasing Oil costs!

http://chart.apis.google.com/chartchtt=Wheat,+US,+(Hard+Red+Wheat)++price+chart&chts=000000,12&chs=700x420&chf=bg,s,ffffff|c,s,ffffff&chxt=x,y&chxl=0:||2000|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|2009|2010|1:||1:|84.1|105.1|188.8|272.4|356.1|439.7&cht=lc&chd=t:24,25,24,24,26,26,25,25,27,29,29,29,30,29,30,29,31,29,28,28,28,28,28,28,28,28,28,28,28,30,34,37,43,43,40,37,34,34,32,32,32,30,30,34,33,34,37,38,38,37,38,38,37,35,34,32,34,34,36,35,35,34,34,32,33,32,33,34,36,38,37,37,38,41,40,41,44,44,46,43,45,48,48,46,45,45,45,45,45,51,54,59,74,76,73,84,84,97,100,82,75,79,75,75,67,54,52,50,54,51,53,53,60,58,51,48,43,45,48,47,46,44,43,44,41,36,45,56,62,61,62&chdl=($/mt)&chco=000099&chls=3,1,0

IP Logged

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: The Peak Energy Debate Reply #206 - Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 10:38pm Congressman Roscoe Bartlett on Peak Oil [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5] [Part 6] [Part 7]
Back to top	IP Logged

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: The Peak Energy Debate Reply #207 - Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 11:10pm Peak Oil - Robert Hirsch
Back to top	IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #208 - Jan 5^th, 2011 at 5:48pm

Pretty clear which direction Oil Production has been going & is likely to go in the future!

And, I would suggest that Pricing is mainly the market reacting to Demand & Supply.

The initial escalation starting in 2002 was Demand outstripping supply, which reaching a Peak in 2008, before a crashing Global Economy sent Demand plummeting, followed by a declining Price.

Oil Prices have doubled between early 2009 and now, as the Global Economy has supposedly recovered and the Price may go still a little higher, before the Energy Cost to GDP ratio (plus other factors), again sends the Global Economy into a downward spiral and along with it lower Energy Demand & lower Oil costs.

So, this is where we are, until the linkage is broken by apparent Oil shortages (rationing) &/or the other factors such as -
1) Demograhpics (Aging & Slowing Population Growth)
2) Debt
3) Climate Change

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: The Peak Energy Debate
Reply #209 - Jan 6^th, 2011 at 8:08pm

The Financial Crisis was NOT caused by Peak Oil

Personally, I mark the "public" moment of this financial crisis to July 2007, when two Bear Stearns hedge funds were both completely wiped out. Neither had anything to do with oil or oil trades. Both were highly leveraged funds that were simply in way over their heads. And those funds were symptomatic of the entire financial industry at that time.

The signs of the impending collapse had been building for a while. A few people had been pointing to the "Greenspan bubble" as early as 2005. I freely admit that I missed those calls in the 2004-2005 period but I won't deny that some people did make them. And that was well before oil prices spiked. So the fix was in long before.

The Greenspan bubble (or the last Greenspan bubble) came in response to the dot-com bust which was caused by the prior Greenspan bubble. See a pattern here yet? That prior Greenspan bubble happened during the era of $10 oil. Peak oil didn't burst that bubble either. The bubble popped because all such bubbles pop. And the reason it popped was nothing to do with oil prices and everything to do with herding behaviors as the herd recognized in a very short time frame that they had been sold a bill of goods.

Likewise the current bubble burst as toxic mortgages began failing causing the MBS based on those securities to fail, leading to catastrophic losses, starting with (for example) some of those hedge funds I mentioned. Again, this had nothing to do with peak oil and everything to do with herding behavior, as the holders of MBS began to realize that these securities would never pay back the capital invested in them, let alone the interest promised. None of these people cared about peak oil or were formulating positions based on peak oil. They were simply interested in recouping their capital and hopefully their promised profits, but if not, at least their capital. Instead they suffered massive losses of capital and zero profits because the financial instruments involved were created deliberately as acts of fraud by the banks that created them.

Did Peak Oil cause the Great Depression? Did Peak Oil cause the dot-com bust? Did Peak Oil cause the Tulip mania? Did Peak Oil cause the large recession after the Civil War? If it did not (and it did not, trust me) then why should I believe that "this time it's different"? The onus of proof is on those making the extraordinary claim that Peak Oil caused this recession. Yet I have never seen real proof that this is so. Sure, you can point to some correlations between oil price and financial crisis, but I can point to correlations of oil price and prior financial crisis before oil peaked in North America. Correlation is not causation. To establish causation requires a whole lot more work than just plotting a graph showing correlation and then proclaiming "See!" And that, so far, is all that anyone has done.

Peak oil will place a hard cap on the scope of recovery of the global economy, since the global economy is based on fossil fuels (primarily oil). That hard cap will limit and frustrate all political responses to the financial crisis and in the end, peak oil may be part of the cause of the fall of some governments over the next few decades. The natural limits to growth that we are approaching are going to affect us. Those limits were already impacting businesses that deal with energy and will slowly creep out to impact all of society. But peak oil did not cause human greed to run rampant. And peak oil won't stop human greed from trying to run rampant yet again someday. Remember that.

Link -
http://intothegreyzone.blogspot.com/2011/01/financial-crisis-was-not-caused-by-p...
==================
What a load of CRAP!

What's so difficult here, different issues, at different times, have or may have, different causes!

1929 had different causes to today and so did the early 1970's, the early 1980's and what happened after 9/11.

« Last Edit: Jan 6^th, 2011 at 9:40pm by perceptions_now »

IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 ... 24

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page