Matt Damon's character in Syriana was right

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

6/14/2007 2:13:46 PM

That article is long on rhetoric and short on facts. Both BP and this "Oil Depletion Analysis Centre" have their own agendas.

Reaching peak oil is probably a good thing in the long run. It will hurt in the short-term, though.

6/14/2007 2:20:31 PM

Quote :

"It's quite a simple theory and one that any beer drinker understands. The glass starts full and ends empty and the faster you drink it the quicker it's gone"

superior logic.

6/14/2007 2:22:41 PM

6/14/2007 2:28:24 PM

It's funny how they keep revising their predictions.

Quote :

"Production Peak In 1974, Hubbert projected that global oil production would peak in 1995 at 12-GB/yr "if current trends continue".[4] However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, global oil consumption actually dropped (due to the shift to energy efficient cars,[5] the shift to electricity and natural gas for heating,[6] etc), then rebounded to a lower level of growth in the mid 1980s (see chart on right). The shift to reduced consumption in these areas meant that the projection assumptions were not realized and, hence, oil production did not peak in 1995, and has climbed to more than double the rate initially projected. Colin Campbell of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) has suggested that the global production of conventional oil peaked in the spring of 2004 albeit at a rate of 23-GB/yr, not Hubbert's 13-GB/yr. During 2004, approximately 24 billion barrels of conventional oil was produced out of the total of 30 billion barrels of oil; the remaining 6 billion barrels coming from heavy oil and tar sands, deep water oil fields, and natural gas liquids (see adjacent ASPO graph). In 2005, the ASPO revised its prediction for the peak in world oil production, again, from both conventional and nonconventional sources, to the year 2010 [11]. These consistent upward (into the future) revisions are expected in models which don't take into account continually increasing reserve estimates in older accumulations. [12] Another peak oil proponent Kenneth S. Deffeyes predicted in his book Beyond Oil - The View From Hubbert's Peak that global oil production would hit a peak on Thanksgiving Day 2005 (Deffeyes has since revised his claim, and now argues that world oil production peaked on December 16, 2005[13]). Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens has stated that worldwide conventional oil production will top out at 84 MB/day[14] (31 GB/yr). "

And I'm not sure I understand the logic behind these huge drops in production predicted in the graphs:

6/14/2007 2:35:27 PM

Quote :

"Reaching peak oil is probably a good thing in the long run. It will hurt in the short-term, though."

Reducing our dependence on oil is a good thing, peak oil is a bad thing. The reprecussions of truly expensive oil would be absolutely massive. Our entire economy glides on a foundation of cheap oil.

6/14/2007 4:29:39 PM

we did pretty damn well 110 years ago with the horse and buggy

can always go back to it

6/14/2007 5:50:57 PM

tell me you're joking.

6/14/2007 5:53:16 PM

The human race can easily weather peak oil, we've done it a few times before. The last time was in 1980 when Iraq invaded Iran, so civilization dramatically reduced oil consumption.

True, at that time it was not a real peak-oil shortage, since it was imposed through a political mechanism called the Iran-Iraq war. But, whatever the cause, the effect was the same: production fell, prices went up, consumption fell, prices fell and never recovered.

Civilization did not collapse; there were no riots in the street; people just went on with their lives, the only difference is they exerted real effort to reduce oil consumption.

What about gas lines? In 1980 there were very few reported instances of gas lines, this is because Government price controls by this point had been almost completely eliminated.

So, if you want to have an energy crisis tomorrow, re-institute price controls. Otherwise, even sudden and unforseen supply drops will result in little more than temporary higher prices.

6/14/2007 6:01:24 PM

This thread has never been done before...

6/14/2007 6:04:28 PM

^^ I'm usually inclined to agree with you, but I'm not sure on this one. Disruptions in the supply of crude oil are always buttressed by the assumption that, eventually, more oil will become available either through the elimination of the disruption or the discovery of new oil sources. By definition, peak oil is just that, a peak which intiates a period of ever reducing returns. The market's reaction to that realization will determine how big the shock will be.

The question of when we'll hit peak oil is less important than the question of when we realize it.

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 6:07 PM. Reason : ^]

6/14/2007 6:06:55 PM

18% of world's oil tapped
?topic=432677


if someone wants, they can request a mod to bttt it.

6/14/2007 6:15:12 PM

But if you look at the graph, oil production did not recover to 1978 levels for over 25 years. This is why prices had to shoot up so high, the oil was not just trapped in the ground, the oil infrastructure had suffered aerial bombardment. The #3 and #4 oil exporters became oil importers almost overnight, and no one saw it coming. Peak Oil is not going to be anywhere near that dramatic, so why do you assume the effects will be?

6/14/2007 6:19:42 PM

Peak Oil is not a singular event that we can pinpoint until many years later. With rising demand and dwindling supplies, we will see continuing escalation in gasoline prices. This will force consumers and businesses to explore alternative energy sources and strive to be more efficient. It also may trigger a recession.

But I doubt you will see any massive repercussions from gradually-escalating gas prices. Rather, you will see a market shift towards an electron economy, with coal and nuclear power plants providing the energy to power plug-in electric cars.

6/14/2007 6:20:27 PM

^^^ Not sure what your point is?

Quote :

"Peak Oil is not going to be anywhere near that dramatic, so why do you assume the effects will be?"

Quote :

"Peak Oil is not a singular event that we can pinpoint until many years later."

Agreed, which is why I said that when it is reached is less important than the realization that it has been reached.

I'm not saying there is going to be a petroleum doomsday where we wake up and gas is $10 / gallon, but I do think that, while we discuss oil as a finite resource, we don't really behave as if we believe it. Since 1970, the shift from largely national economies to an international economy has enhanced the importance of cheap oil.

6/14/2007 6:47:44 PM

What does it matter when we realize it? Peak oil is irrelevant to me and everyone else; today we are paying more than ever for gasoline, at the same time we are producing more than ever. All that matters to any of us are two questions: How much does oil cost today? How much do I think it will cost in the future?

In the year 1987, people did not care that oil production was only 94% of what it had been nine years earlier, all that mattered was that gasoline was cheap again.

Quote :

"Since 1970, the shift from largely national economies to an international economy has enhanced the importance of cheap oil."

I would argue the opposite: by enabling human society to produce the goods and services it wants more efficiently, globalization has made cheap oil less important. And as the past five years show, oil prices have been rendered almost irrelevant to global economic stability. As a percentage of annual income, Americans spend far less today buying energy than they did in decades past, the same goes for most of the world's people. It is because today we are so much more productive that our incomes swamp the high prices. Not to mention, the dramatically increased efficiency of our usage of oil.


When you combine these two graphs, you can begin to see why our ancestors in 1970 felt like the world was ending, while at the same time modern Americans don't seem to really notice (even with high gas prices we STILL increased consumption by 2.5%).

6/14/2007 7:16:11 PM

Quote :

"I would argue the opposite: by enabling human society to produce the goods and services it wants more efficiently, globalization has made cheap oil less important."

I disagree wholeheartedly. Cheap oil has made the movement of goods over long distances cheap allowing us to make goods in nations with low costs and ship them to the United States. Were oil to break past a certain point, distribution would break down.

While oil prices themselves may be irrelevant to global economic stability, I would be inclined to assume that it has more to do with fairly inelastic demand rather than the opposite. At the moment, the movements in the oil price have been relatively moderate but there is a threshold.

From the Energy Information Administration:


Oil consumption is rising, oil reserves are finite. As I said before, I'm not saying that one day there will be a massive oil shock or that the world is ending. As a matter of fact I'm a fan of currently higher prices since it could mitigate that possibility. As you know, however, the tendency in economics is to discount future unknowns precisely because they are unknown. This could mean that oil is currently undervalued. Either way, the assumption that our current consumption of energy is sustainable over the next 100 years is ludicrous. I'm not a hemp-hut-hippie, but I think energy efficiency and a lifestyle change are in the cards, I just believe we should encourage both individuals and the market to get ahead of the curve.



[Edited on June 15, 2007 at 11:27 AM. Reason : *I doubt oil will drop off as quickly as predicted, but a point of diminishing returns will come.]

6/15/2007 11:25:00 AM

Quote :

"I disagree wholeheartedly. Cheap oil has made the movement of goods over long distances cheap allowing us to make goods in nations with low costs and ship them to the United States. Were oil to break past a certain point, distribution would break down."

Absolutely false. The design and construction of super-massive ships, combined with containerization, is what made the movement of goods over long distances cheap.

I don't have the exact figures, but it consumes less oil to ship a ton of goods from China to Los Angeles than it does to truck that same ton across town. Similarly, it consumes less oil to carry a ton from Los Angeles to San Francisco by Train than it does to truck it just across town.

If oil became ungodly expensive permanently, an act of God lets say, all we would have left was the international and interstate economy. Cities and industries not connected to the sea via rail would quickly become abandoned. It would basically be the 1900's again, as far as transportation is concerned.

But even then, this is not a nightmare scenario. The railroads, confronted with new market power, would quickly grow to fill their new role as primary carriers. New rail lines would quickly be laid to every major city, old lines would be re-openned (Raleigh has plenty of rail connections). If oil is that expensive, then the lines would be electrified. There would be no limit to investment coming out of New York, ready to lay high-speed lines for passenger travel between every major city.

The problem is, we are not there yet, and I doubt we will be for well over a hundred years. The vast majority of this planet has yet to be explored for oil. Not a single exploratory well has been done in Antarctica (UN ban), in most oceans (too deep), and in most countries (socialism). Only some of Africa's coast has been explored due to political instability. If Africa gets its shit together this century then there could be more oil in Africa than Saudi Arabia, we just don't know. Not to mention, most of China and Russia are also unexplored thanks to political considerations (Communism). If either of these two countries deregulate their oil sector then we could have more oil than we know what to do with.

If we do face Peak Oil, I will not blame it on a lack of oil; I will blame it on foreign political institutions.

6/15/2007 12:15:12 PM

Point taken about the movement of goods being cheaper internationally, I'll give you that since I remember reading that somewhere as well now that you mention it. But you agree that there would be a massive shift in how we do business in the United States should a "peak oil" type situation occur. Though I do wonder how much petroleum is consumed in the production of said super-massive ships.

You're right, we haven't drilled everywhere, but the concept of "peak oil" doesn't rely on us running out of oil, but rather reaching a point of diminishing returns. Oil that cannot be cheaply recovered isn't really any good. Additionally, eventually, we will still run out of oil. Even if it is a hundred years from now.

[Edited on June 15, 2007 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

6/15/2007 12:32:45 PM

Don't forget the Athabasca Oil Sands areas in Canada:

Quote :

"Alberta Government calculates that about 28 billion cubic metres (174 billion barrels) of crude bitumen are economically recoverable from the three Alberta oil sands areas at current prices using current technology. . . These estimates of Canada's oil reserves caused some astonishment when they were first published but are now largely accepted by the international community. This volume places Canadian proven oil reserves second in the world behind those of Saudi Arabia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands

[Edited on June 15, 2007 at 12:35 PM. Reason : .]

6/15/2007 12:34:50 PM

Quote :

"But you agree that there would be a massive shift in how we do business in the United States should a "peak oil" type situation occur."

Of course, just as there would be a massive shift in how we do business if a new cheap and clean energy source was discovered (such as fusion).

Quote :

"Though I do wonder how much petroleum is consumed in the production of said super-massive ships."

Most of the energy used is in the form of electricity, followed by natural gas. But again, the question is: who is willing to pay more for oil: A company making supermassive ships in holland, or a minimum wage worker in Raleigh seeking a beach trip?

Quote :

"Oil that cannot be cheaply recovered isn't really any good."

You need to re-think this statement. If the price paid for oil goes up, the amount companies are willing to pay to extract it goes up the same amount. What you probably meant was a falling energy return, such that it takes more energy to extract the oil than the oil produces (an old argument). But this is making a fundamental mistake: the energy used to extract oil is not generated by burning oil, but usually uses electricity from the power-grid (coal) or natural gas. Such that we are burning coal and natural gas to extract oil. If we have coal and want oil, then this is an efficient use of resources, even if the energy deficit is huge.

Quote :

"Additionally, eventually, we will still run out of oil. Even if it is a hundred years from now."

My argument still stands. We already know everything we need to live with less oil. And the odds are good that in 100 years, which is an ungodly long time, we can learn to live with no oil. I have no idea how we will do it. All I know is if we are forced by circumstances to do so, we will.

6/19/2007 2:56:44 PM

Quote :

"Of course, just as there would be a massive shift in how we do business if a new cheap and clean energy source was discovered (such as fusion)."

Yes, but that argument is flawed. If controlable fusion is announced this afternoon, we would still have oil to fall back on should it prove to be less than ideal.

Quote :

"Most of the energy used is in the form of electricity, followed by natural gas."

Yeah, I really don't know and haven't been compelled to find out. The tools used in building said superfreighter would still consume large quantities of petroleum products, not necessarialy as energy, but as lubrication, plastics, etc.

Quote :

"You need to re-think this statement."

Correct, I should have said, "Oil that cannot be recovered at a cost that is market feasible does no good."

Quote :

"My argument still stands. We already know everything we need to live with less oil."

I'm not sure we know everything, but I know it can be done. I'm just arguing that it makes more sense to move towards a less oil dependent economy while a comfort zone exists.

6/19/2007 3:16:21 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure we know everything, but I know it can be done. I'm just arguing that it makes more sense to move towards a less oil dependent economy while a comfort zone exists."

To rephrase, a "comfort zone" always exists; they're called marginal consumers. As the price for oil is auctioned at ever higher prices, some market actors quit buying, so the market clears no matter what happens.

But to your first statement, how do you intend to move early? Headlines asside, oil is plentiful today. *IF* you succeed in sequestering demand somewhere, such as banning SUVs or higher CAFTA standards, we will still be producing lots of oil, only now we will not be consuming as much for transportation; the market will just adjust to use lower priced oil other ways. People might start swapping out their central heaters to run on fuel oil, air travel picks up, plastics become even more pervasive.

Markets work to make sure we use all that we have; no more, no less. If you want to cut consumption, then you need to lock-up production as OPEC has done. A carbon extraction tax would help cut U.S. production; and an import tarriff could help keep out imports, reducing productive use of oil in America, but it will just make oil cheaper for the Chinese, which will then begin using oil in their own unproductive ways.

To put it another way, if you want everyone to begin acting like we've run out of oil, then we need to run out of oil; no amount of government push for renewables is going to change that (otherwise we'll just consume both).

6/19/2007 5:15:48 PM

True, less consumption means that the price will fall and it will become a more attractive resource, but I do think that the government should encourage research into alternative technologies. It'd be a head start worth having. Even if it was not economically feasible for mass consumption, it could be distributed more quickly in the event that it was needed.

Quote :

"Markets work to make sure we use all that we have"

If markets function efficiently. It could be argued that the market today does not effectively capture all the costs associated with all sorts of consumption. When markets were local, it was possible to push hidden costs down river, off shore, or underground. The floating islands of trash in the Pacific are perfect examples of this. As the globalization shrinks the world and humans have a bigger direct impact on their world and that cost will begin to be reflected in the costs of goods. Which, really, just proves your point.

6/20/2007 10:53:31 AM

No, it would be a head start YOU would like to have. Why should I be forced to pay for research that at most makes you feel better?

Any research we can do today we will be able to do in 50 years time for 1/10th the cost. It is wasteful to perform it today, when we don't need it, when it can be completed in much less time with much less effort in the future, when it will actually be useful.

That said, why do you assume the "research" has not been done already? How would you know it had been done? If, in fact, renewables will never be as good as oil is today, we should not be surprised to see renewables rare in an oil rich world.

What exactly do you want to see developed? We already know how to make all the renewables you mention; all we miss is the know-how of actually doing it (gaining economies of scale). So, what I guess you must be saying is you want to go ahead and build huge production facilities just for the experience, and then shut them down until oil becomes expensive enough to operate them cost effectively. But this is rediculous: we would not only be making the present generation poorer (they built factories that do nothing), but harming future generations (they are using factories that are 50 years out of date).

From an engineering standpoint, renewables can never be as efficient as fossil fuels; so use fossil fuels while you have them, stop wasting effort on dead-end technology. Of course, from an engineering standpoint fusion could become more efficient than fossil fuels, so effort expended here makes sense, as it could work out to help the present generation.

6/20/2007 1:39:32 PM

Quote :

"Any research we can do today we will be able to do in 50 years time for 1/10th the cost."

Only because the groundwork is laid by today's research. That is like claiming that since aircraft are so much more efficient today than they were when the Wright brothers built the flyer, that we should have just waited until now. Or am I missing your point?

Quote :

"We already know how to make all the renewables you mention"

I haven't mentioned any yet that I can recall. I'm not in the energy field so I can't give you the run down on which projects will give us the greatest return on investment just yet, but I am not opposed to competitions private companies through grants, tax breaks, or prize competetions (such as the one NASA recently used to help design a better glove).

I'm not advocating building large scale factories, you're the one that brought that up, but you don't need large scale factories to continue research into, say, solar power and creating a more efficient PV cell. No, solar energy will never produce the energy per unit that a barrel of oil does, and fusion is a more promising source of energy but that doesn't mean that solar energy could not have its place. Indeed, it is merely a way of harnessing the power of fusion.

By your argument, the space program in the 1960s should not have been attempted on account of the fact that it was not economically efficient at the time. However, the benefits of space exploration have trickled down to everyday live in a myriad of ways which have increased our day-to-day productivity. No corporation would have attempted such a gamble in the 1960s however because the immediate profits weren't there.

Again, I'm not arguing for an unnecessary phasing out of fossil fuels, I'm arguing that we should look beyond the near term and accept the fact that relatively small investments in research now will pay off benefits in the future.

Global oil consumption is rising faster than supply is rising. This is due to factors beyond how much oil exists under the surface, but the accessibility of that oil will play a factor. As surpluses drop the market becomes more susceptible to shock. As the largest petroleum based economy in the world (right now, China is closing in on that one as far as consumption is concerned) and one whose infrastructure is dependent on the availability of cheap oil, we're more likely to feel any of these shocks.

Yes, theoretically, if oil became too expensive we'd collectively move towards nodes of distribution but we'd have to deal with the structural friction and short term recession that would come with that. Unfortunately the world isn't as fluid as classical economic models would like it to be.

6/20/2007 2:18:36 PM

Quote :

"Any research we can do today we will be able to do in 50 years time for 1/10th the cost."

I assume that this is because the low (or no) availability of oil will cause a vast increase in the amount of money people and businesses are willing to pay towards research into alternative energies, thus creating a bigger economic incentive to conduct said research than what currently exists today. However, I think that JCASHFAN makes a valid point that it doesn't hurt to have the groundwork laid down beforehand. Most of the world's economy is built upon oil resources, is it not? Fuels, lubricants, plastics, etc. But what happens when oil becomes prohibitively expensive for everybody? Suddenly our economy goes to shit because its driving force is no longer there. At least by getting a head start into alternative energy research, we can reduce/mitigate the effects of this inevitable wreck.

6/20/2007 2:31:51 PM

Quote :

"I assume that this is because the low (or no) availability of oil will cause a vast increase in the amount of money people and businesses are willing to pay towards research into alternative energies"

Absolutely not. In the future it will be cheaper to develop cost effective alternatives to oil because it will be the future; we will have access to techniques, markets, knowledge, and materials undreamed of today that were developed to solve existing problems in other industries.

Quote :

"By your argument, the space program in the 1960s should not have been attempted on account of the fact that it was not economically efficient at the time."

Yep. The space program was a net loss for humanity as a whole. At that time they had no use for space, it was not until better electronics were invented in the late 70s that satellites became useful. In the early-70s, a private company could have developed all the satellite based techniques and know-how NASA generated in the 60s for a fraction of the money. This is my belief, and it does not affix any value to the joy and patriotism space exploration generated, so take it or leave it.

Quote :

"I'm arguing that we should look beyond the near term and accept the fact that relatively small investments in research now will pay off benefits in the future."

And I am arguing that is not the case. These small investments will produce nothing that would not have otherwise been produced; all it did was shift the cost of research from future private investors to present tax-payers.

Quote :

"Global oil consumption is rising faster than supply is rising"

You should realize that is not possible. We cannot consume oil that is not being produced. Give or take a few percentages, the world has consumed every drop of oil produced every year for the past 100 years, no more, no less.

Quote :

"Unfortunately the world isn't as fluid as classical economic models would like it to be."

But it is dramatically more fluid than you give it credit for. The Hurricanes of 2005 were sudden, unexpected, and dramatically cut U.S. oil production by 25%; the recession was over in a month. The Iran-Iraq war was sudden, unexpected, and dramatically cut worldwide oil production by 6%, production did not come back online for seven years.

Recessions are not caused by economic change, there has been a lot of economic change due to China so far in the 21st century; recessions are caused by confounded expectations. When oil production starts dropping, no one is going to be surprised by it, so it cannot cause a recession. At no point is anyone going to be surprised, oil production falls methodically a few percentage points every year; if it fell 2% last year, it'll fall something close to 2% this year.

Look at it another way; when you think of a recession, what do you think of? Unemployment? If the time has come to shift society to new fuel sources, that will require the construction of a new power grid, pipelines, roads, factories, processing facilities, office buildings, etc. etc. We will need to retrofit every gas burning car to burn bio-diesel or use electricity. All this requires labor, which means jobs, which means no recession. A recession is a monetary phenomenon; not an economic one.

Quote :

"At least by getting a head start into alternative energy research, we can reduce/mitigate the effects of this inevitable wreck."

Fine, call your broker and invest every cent you have in companies developing alternatives to oil, such as ADM. They will use your money to develop the technology and when the time comes that I want it, ADM can charge me for it. ADM and you (their investor) will become fabulously wealthy, and the rest of us will have alternatives available when the time comes.

What I don't understand is when you suggest the tax payers should pay for the research and then when the time comes ADM and you (their investor) get to charge us for it and become fabulously wealthy. This is the usual corporatism, the government pays for it and private businesses get to reap the profits. Well I call bullshit; let the capitalists pay for their own product development.

6/20/2007 5:03:42 PM

Quote :

"You should realize that is not possible. We cannot consume oil that is not being produced. Give or take a few percentages, the world has consumed every drop of oil produced every year for the past 100 years, no more, no less."

It is absolutely possible. As we know, part of the recent volatility of oil is the fact that surpluses of oil were regularly generated by OPEC nations and our refineries were operating below capacity. A shock could be absorbed by these surpluses. At present this is not the case. No, we can't consume more than max capacity, but demand can outstrip supply. Again, my phrasing was poor, I should have said "Global oil demand is rising faster than supply is rising."

Quote :

"Absolutely not. In the future it will be cheaper to develop cost effective alternatives to oil because it will be the future; we will have access to techniques, markets, knowledge, and materials undreamed of today that were developed to solve existing problems in other industries."

Because the groundwork was laid for this research by less profitable research earlier on.

Quote :

"If the time has come to shift society to new fuel sources, that will require the construction of a new power grid, pipelines, roads, factories, processing facilities, office buildings, etc. etc. We will need to retrofit every gas burning car to burn bio-diesel or use electricity. All this requires labor, which means jobs, which means no recession. A recession is a monetary phenomenon; not an economic one."

All of this also requires the diversion of monetary resources from other forms of consumption to a shift in the structural underpinnings of the country. Can we do it? Yes. But this would be a shift on a massive level.

I also think that our current economic resilience is based less on solid financial principles and more on the (to me) baffling willingness of the American consumer to buy against all odds. A negative savings rate may be positive economically in the short run, but it is not a healthy long run prospect.

Quote :

"What I don't understand is when you suggest the tax payers should pay for the research"

I'm a bigger fan of government offering incentives for private research than I am out and out research by the government. However, I am not opposed to it.

It seems like we're reaching a point where this will go in circles, so this will be the last I'm going to say about it. Feel free to have the last word.

6/20/2007 9:50:50 PM

Quote :

"Because the groundwork was laid for this research by less profitable research earlier on."

Facts not in evidence. What research was conducted by NASA, other than space suits and other as yet unused knowledge, that would not otherwise have been conducted by private business?

Quote :

"All of this also requires the diversion of monetary resources from other forms of consumption to a shift in the structural underpinnings of the country."

It wouldn't be the first time. Railroads, electricity, computers; every time circumstances demand a shift the American people come through with the cash. People are willing to invest if providence promises them a great return, as the end of oil would. What we would need to fear is as early investors in alternative energy sources wreap huge profits for their foresight, the rest of us tend to over-invest as late comers eager to get in on the game and end up creating a financial bubble. It has happened with every major economic change in western history: coal, canals, ships, steel, railroads, oil, electricity, aviation, console games, internet, etc. It is inevitable, and hopefully my grandchildren will be smart enough to buy in early and sell out early. But on average, I doubt it.

Quote :

"I also think that our current economic resilience is based less on solid financial principles and more on the (to me) baffling willingness of the American consumer to buy against all odds."

Where would you have us put our money? China? Interest rates have been low, so there was no evident shortage of investment capital. Having everyone throw money into the bank is useless unless there is something for the banks to productively do with it. That said, a "savings rate" is absurd, in order for me to save money someone else must borrow it.

Quote :

"I'm a bigger fan of government offering incentives for private research than I am out and out research by the government. However, I am not opposed to it."

Why not? I've given you numerous reasons to be against it, yet you did not seem to object to my reasoning, just my conclusion.

Quote :

"It seems like we're reaching a point where this will go in circles, so this will be the last I'm going to say about it. Feel free to have the last word."

It appears so.

6/20/2007 10:24:46 PM

http://tinyurl.com/24chzl

6/21/2007 3:14:51 PM

for whatever its worth, i sold all my TSO, am going to sell my remaining VLO soon, and i own UCR, DIG, and USU as my energy plays.

7/12/2007 1:02:11 AM

I couldnt find a more complex graph that those above

7/12/2007 10:23:17 PM

incase there were any doubts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html

9/17/2007 3:22:06 PM

Quote :

"The problem is, we are not there yet, and I doubt we will be for well over a hundred years."

If we don't have to worry about for a hundred years, we don't have to worry about it.

9/17/2007 3:42:00 PM

Quote :

"incase there were any doubts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html"

Then why is all of Iraq's oil going to China and Europe? The only people who benefited from the Iraq war were the Federal Reserve and Israel; both of which are more important to Greenspan than the United States. Greenspan is a Jewish person who was Chairman of the 'Federal' Reserve. He is trying to deflect 100% of the true blame onto people who only deserve partial blame for it all.

9/17/2007 4:44:17 PM

^ damn, you look familiar.

have we met?

9/17/2007 5:57:41 PM

Quote :

"^ damn, you look familiar. have we met?"

You must be mistaking me for the people in the Ron Paul thread because I am like every other Ron Paul supporter who wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve and stop policing the world.

9/17/2007 9:05:32 PM

Get rid of the Federal Reserve, eh? Do you seriously want to live in a world without a lender of last resort? You can argue that the inflation target should be zero, or perhaps even slightly negative, but abolishing government control over the money supply would be counter-productive; especially since the Federal Reserve is perfectly constitutional.

9/17/2007 10:36:19 PM

Quote :

"You must be mistaking me for the people in the Ron Paul thread "

no, i was thinking of the "Jooz are Taking Over the Worldz" people.

are they in the Ron Paul thread as well?

9/17/2007 10:47:14 PM

Quote :

"Greenspan is a Jewish person who was Chairman of the 'Federal' Reserve."

Why do you mention he is Jewish? Is there a reason for this detail. I mean it would seem the end of your sentence has more pertinent information. Am I missing something here, fill us in...

9/18/2007 12:34:15 AM

i just noticed how he quoted "Federal" when talking about the "Federal" Reserve.

looks like we've got layers of dirty-kike conspiracies at the uppermost levels of our "government"

9/18/2007 2:00:36 AM

you low IQ neanderthals need to stop blaming the jooz for everything. seriously, it got old a long time ago.

i don't have time to school you on the cleverness of Roman public policy, and how Pontius Pilate really needed a bloke named "Judas" to bring Christ in.

you retards will believe anything.

now, back to tmy thread:

http://tinyurl.com/yqh44d

10/2/2007 4:17:05 PM

bummer...i just posted that in the stock market thread

10/2/2007 7:40:52 PM

Quote :

"Why do you mention he is Jewish?"

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=494034&page=1#10720868

10/3/2007 6:04:22 AM

Quote :

"Its running out "

That's really good news for people who believe Al Gore.

10/3/2007 2:11:53 PM

So Petrobras finds a gigantic oilfield, and the Venezualan public don't want a dictator. looks like we'll be getting more oil from our own hemisphere, so there's less reason to mess with Iran and Russia for now.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.brazil02dec02,0,1375165.story

that plus the agencies realising that we don't need a lame duck to get us into another military quagmire (which the Dems won't be in favor of once they take over), leads to an incredibly timely report revealing that they haven't been seeking weapons since 2003.

also, with increased supply, the Dow transports will provide a floor on how much the averages will drop on any given market downturn.

don't get me wrong. i don't see conspiracies, only patterns of behavior.

12/4/2007 12:05:43 PM

Petrochina is making mainland finds, Petrobras found some stuff off their coast, and there's unfound stuff in Sudan; but UAE is scheduled to run out in 2016, and other gulf states may follow:

http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206800281

2/21/2008 1:26:02 PM

http://www.business24-7.ae/cs/article_show_mainh1_story.aspx?HeadlineID=5523

4/14/2008 2:16:03 PM

So they're underproducing by almost 3million bpd because 'the market doesn't neede it.'

4/14/2008 4:33:48 PM