Oil drops to $20 a barrel? Surely evidence of peak too.

Another useless troll who hasn't even tried to understand the thread thus far.

Whether the price is $20, or $150, peak is still happening. The geology doesn't care about Econ 101 - and that's the case whether demand is healthy or destroyed. You guys are so locked into Econ 101, you don't even stop to wonder if it still applies the same in an era of dimishing returns.

Price is low because demand has been bludgeoned by high prices for years. It's a statement about mankind's inability to afford the prices absolutely needed to maintain production growth. Production will falter if the price stays this low, no doubt about it. On the flip side, if/when prices rise again, it will drag economies down all over again. The difference this time, for this cycle, is that your heroes won't be able to QE (paper) their way over it.

I don't really get how this is such a big deal.

Oil is a finite commodity and will run out/become uneconomical. Is the question just when? Is that such a big deal? I mean, it's a big deal for the economy and environment yes, but it's not insane conspiracy theory stuff.

Is it just "OMG THE WORLD ECONOMY WILL COLLAPSE" or not?

Saudis currently flooding the market.

That is the question that's hard to get answered ITT.

Also jiggs ascribes the global slowdown to oil prices. He misunderstands demographics, reversion to the mean, structural imbalances with the euro zone, etc. to him it's all about oil and how the fed is "printing dollars", despite the fact the dollar is at a nine year high vs the euro.

He does not understand how money is created in the American monetary system and that shows through all his posts. He should really read up on modern monetary theory(try pragmaticcapitalism.com)

But best of all he has no ideas how to capitalize on any of his theory, which is most incredible. He claims to have sold his oil positions before the latest drawdown, which is simply lol.

Yeah, I guess Peak is still happening. I'll just take your word for it.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/econo...allingexplains

A great read, if anyone is interested.

Jiggs, the second most ignorant f***tard of this forum, likes to pretend that peak oil is simply about biology when prices are down.... and ignore the fact that it was used to say the end of the world was coming.

NO! NO!

Jiggs assures me that we will never run out of oil and to think we will is stupid nonsense.

At different points in my life I've been enlightened by brilliance when I had held a view that the person was an idiot, spewing nonsense. This may be one of those times.

I understand now, you get frustrated when people can't see the obvious. That's not ok actually, you need to be more patient and try harder. Let me try to help posters see where you are at with this more clearly.

The main point and why the wold economy will collapse as Jiggs will go on to explain.

Right you're on a different level, econ 701, as you will elaborate on subsequently and I will try to help other posters understand.

Econ 701, demand for oil is permantly destroyed even as prices fall when the bludgening threshold has been exceeded and that has surely happened. The world economy is highly dependent on the continued growth of oil production. When oil production growth ceases and/or goes into negative territory the world economy is ****ed.

Econ 101, you all should be able to grasp this concept.

Econ 701, listen up. Given that the health of the world economy is highty dependent on continued growth in oil production (see above) you'd think that this would help the world economy since higher prices give oil producers more incentives to produce oil Not so fast, we have peak oil and therefore the oil producers growth is at best limited for a short period and eventually it will cease. This will completely destroy the world economy.

Yeah even though the Fed has had the power to fix the economy with QE which results in printing money till the cows come home, the Fed won't be able to fix the economy next time. This one part I may be missing at this point but I'm fairly certain that the trilateral folks, the people that run the world (see spoiler), won't let the Fed fix the economy next time by printing money till the cows come home.

btw that's a blocked kick about every other game

muddled mess of sarcastic smarm and blatant straw man fallacy ... you clearly don't read well.

So, in the end, your sarcastic argument goes only this far. An concession that yes money printing has put a band-aid on a global predicament, and that because central banks have printed up this much this long, they'll obv. be able to keep doing it to infinity. You really are brilliant.

Well, at least the most obnoxious among us are no longer disputing the fact that fatal monetary policy is the only thing that has maintained BAU this long. That's a bit of progress.

Unfortunately, not a single poster here has an actual counter argument for the fact that oil price over $100 ruins economies and kills demand, nor that global production growth now relies on prices much higher than that.

It's a degree of cognitive dissonance that cornucopians have jostled with for many years now, to amusing results.

Or you could just look at EIA data since 2005. But then that would require you to produce a narrative that they're in on some conspiracy, or that conventional oil production doesn't really matter. But you're just not very advanced in this discussion, so you'll keep it pithy and squawk sideline irrelevancies.

1. correct, and by far the biggest reason = weak economic activity... and an admission that absolutely kneecaps 5 years of "no problem" denial arguments throughout this forum... efficiency and alternatives? not so much ... if that were sufficiently the case and alternatives and efficiency were filling the gap, growth would be back to normal ... not revised downward nearly every quarter.

2. Not really as relevant, considering decline rates in dozens of other oil-producing countries far exceed any fractional return to normalcy in Iraq and Libya.

3. The economist needs a better understanding of net energy, as U.S. production growth mostly includes half-as-efficient, 3x-as-expensive oil synthetics from shale formations. You don't seem to understand how/why that matters. As a business man, give me Saudi crude any day. In any event, their statement is misleading, as it adds liquids from natural gas. Russia and Saudi continue to produce more actual oil than the U.S.

4. And why should they curb production? They do it better, and produce a far better product. It's marginal producers who will suffer first from the depressed price, just as we predicted years ago.

None of these explanations above for the price dip counter the peak oil thesis. Not one. In fact, the first one fantastically concedes a major pillar of the global net oil depletion argument: High energy prices crush demand and slow growth. "Alternatives" will no fill the gap, because they don't provide what oil does.

that's an epic handwave attempt from jiggs at adios's pure pwnage

you keep telling yourself that. ... WoaT

His post was called out, and I await his response.

But in the meantime, if you're capable of any semblance of substance, do weigh in. Do tell us how papering over the problem can (and somehow should) be the perpetual solution? You're a big fan of the Fed monetary policy now, are you? Were you always?

Face it... the shale revolution was always a Ponzi scheme. Limitless borrowing can make a lot of innovative technology do wondrous things on the front end. It's the sustainability of that energy bubble that matters. ... And we're now seeing how vulnerable that bubble is.

People like jiggs always have an excuse as to why things never work out for then. He would be an interesting Netflix documentary.

This is like that bill nye/creationist debate where they asked each guy what could change their minds.

bill nye: "evidence"

creationist guy: "nothing"

which one I'm comparing jiggz to is an exercise for the reader.

Nobody is disputing that oil is finite or that there will be a production peak at some point in human history. There are weirdos who think petroleum is abiotic and effectively infinite, but none of them are in this thread.

Peak Oil is the doomsday theory of M. King Hubbert that the economy will collapse in an extremely specific way because global production will max out and will fall off a cliff in a highly specific way.

Without the doomsday part, it is no more interesting than Peak Blackberry.

You will note that proponents of Peak Oil believe that prices rising is a sign of the impending doom, that prices falling is a sign of the impending doom, that prices being stable is a sign of the impending doom, that increasing production is a sign of the impending doom, that decreasing production is a sign of the impending doom, that stable production is a sign of the impending doom, that increased energy efficiency is a sign of the impending doom, that Czechoslovakia dissolving into the Czech Republic and Slovakia is a sign of the impending doom, that the rise of Gangsta Rap is a sign of the impending doom, that Tuesdays arriving exactly once per week is a sign of the impending doom, and finally that Meghan Trainor's popularity is a sign of the impending doom.

Saw this on zerohedge earlier:

North Dakota Admits Half Its Shale Regions Below Breakeven

Here's a slide from a presentation made by the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources to the House Appropriations Committee....



So even at $48, half of North Dakota's shale regions are still profitable.

more than that, look how there are magically more rigs the more profitable sites.... SHOCK

ZeroHedge the champs of doom and gloom. Could be convinced otherwise, they seemed to gain their following as a result of the last recession. Essentially they've been preaching doom and gloom ever since. They've been pretty much wrong every step of the way. This article typifies the kind of stuff they write. Basically what they say is hey things aren't perfect so bad things could happen as a result. My reaction, so what?

That's an accurate assessment, but I posted it to show that half the ND shale zones are still profitable even at $48 a barrel.

Jiggs' argument has been that all shale is uneconomical below $100 and that the whole shale boom was just a QE-fueled malinvestment/bubble that was about to collapse catastrophically.

And those are profitable for NEW drilling.

What we have discovered (for the gazillionth time in history) is that business cycles actually apply to commodity/energy businesses just like every other sort of business.

$35 a barrel? Maybe $30? Who knows!

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...-collapse.html

#lolpeakearl