what is beyond a doubt is that I know far more about economics than you do about energy and its affects on economics. ... here's perfect proof:

LOL indeed... Oh, wait, this was a serious inquiry? ... You're aware that the price of oil affects the price of just about everything, yes? Including food, medicine, plastics, shipping, ... business' bottom line? Or did you skip that part of your recent education?

Look, Paul... I'm gonna try and take on all serious skeptics in this thread. But obv. I gotta do it mostly alone, so time will be limited. If this is the best you have to offer, forgive me for skipping right over you. Come back when you have a better grasp of the subject material. You just made all your "no problem" allies cringe with that one.

OK, so where are they? ... Oil has been historically expensive for over six years, and has spiked ahead of normal inflation for 12-15 years.

Dude, you aren't even giving an adequate argument. If you expect better arguments give better ones.

The cost of oil usage per unit of food is lulzy to bring up.

Just going from wikipedia for the uk 2012 figures

wind ~7% up from 1.5% in 2008.
bio-energy 3.4% up from 0% in 2008
oil at 1.5% down from 7% in 1990
(gas, coal and nuclear make up the bulk)

Big headline the other day that wind provided 14.2% of all power over a 24 hour period. (It was very windy)

paid $2.77 today. The end is nigh

Show some work, why is it lulzy to bring it up?

Seems that there a big correlation between the price of food and Oil.

Do you read?

I always figured if oil ever got too expensive and standards of living actually began regressing dramatically, people would quickly get over their fears of nuclear power while alternatives caught up.

Jiggs, this idea of differentiating between convention and unconventional oil sources is silly. You're trying to have it both ways by talking about these massive price increases and not enough production. But if we see massive oil price increases then the production of nonconventional sources is profitable - and so it will happen.

It's just wrong to say that price will go up massively and production won't be able to keep up.


I don't think the global situation is in general any worse than it was for the majority of the 20th century (and in general I'd argue its significantly better). Seems silly to think its caused just because of peak oil. At the very least you need to actually put forward an argument and evidence for this position of yours.


I'm saying that consumption and production are very tightly linked and price is how that 'razor thin' margin is maintained.

So are you saying the bad outcome of peak oil that you're talking about is a global economic situation like we've had since 2008? That certainly wouldn't be ideal, but its far from catastrophic.

Sorry if I've missed stuff, just skimmed a bunch of this thread since I haven't had much time lately.

Yes, obviously much better than you do.

Is this serious, is this really what people think, that that any link between oil price and food price is just a correlation fallacy. Surely no one is that ignorant?

Not serious.

Results are in!
Feel free to integrate these results into whatever predetermined narrative you want.

No you don't, because you wouldn't have made that post. I didn't say food prices and oil prices aren't correlated.

Oil price will fall to $70 US a barrel in 2015, Goldman Sachs says
World is producing more than it needs, thanks to boom in shale oil, bank says

But that's not conventional oil! So..., um..., what was it again?

I don't think $70 oil is sustainable right now, many shale plays start to get uneconomical at that level and the Saudi budget doesn't quite balance.

Talk about peak oil or oil prices being the proximate cause of most things wrong with the world or supply not meeting demand or a need to switch to permaresiliant communities or the end of capitalism as we know it or whatever is massively overblown, but that's been evident for years to anyone paying attention.

The point that short-term fluctuations in prices don't tell us everything about the supply of oil are largely correct as well, but somewhat ironic to be told that here after OP spent years telling us for years how oil was on a continuous march higher and how various Middle East unrest was going to shoot oil prices to the moon any day now and unravel the economic order as we know it because supply is so limited.

Cool stories... Percentage of what, exactly? Total electricity? Home heating? A link is standard fare when making claims.

In any event: Let us know when wind, bio and nuclear can move freight, fertilize crops or kill insects.

Meanwhile, you don't appear to be alluding to a very swift increases to alternatives for a country long past production peak as the North Sea continues to receive hospice care.

thanks...

I don't really need to. The narrative is buttressed by the increase in global banking insolvency, among endless other correlations.

It goes oil price spike, then massive global asset correction. Not the other way around.

A "boom in shale oil" growth that even the EIA says is over by 2016.

I love when economists toss around the "glut" term, as if this is the new normal, or even the case beyond the next 12-24 months.

Again, you can sprint for a few hundred yards in a marathon. Does that mean you can expect to maintain that velocity the whole 26+ miles?

Saudi can blast ever more sea water into their reservoirs and expand drilling for a few weeks and flood the market (in their ongoing proxy war with Iran and Russia). Big deal. Unfortunately, there is far more unspoken evidence that the KoS is near exhaustion and growing desperate.

LOL... cept, who's going to be able to buy it?

I've asked this question seemingly a hundred times, and you guys never seem to have an answer for it. I mean, I think Row Coach amusingly said there'd still be demand for oil at $300/bl., but that was as deep as it ever went, and supported by nothing. Maybe the 1%'ers who can still afford it can build Elysium or something and carry on. But, well, peak oil will still have happened.

I guess yours is a "let them eat cake" assessment as well? I was hoping not.

LOL!!!! ... I have. Several dozen times, actually. ... and was banned for it.

Two things are quite different this time around:

- the era of unprecedented cash injections in order to prop up the great ponzi scheme is over
- unconventional production wasn't facing imminent decline

We said at the time that the cheaper conventional oil production volume was not gonna grow any more (it hasn't), and that the fracking boom was a short-term blip (confirmed). It has gone almost exactly according to forecast analysis, by everyone from the Post Carbon Institute, to the 2008 Pentagon JOE report.

That doesn't address my point. Nice dodge.

No, I have two responses:

1. The price isn't hitting $300 any time soon.
2. As price goes up there are lots of incentives to get other energy sources. Even the rich will be dedicating a ton of resources to cheaper energy sources. That benefits everyone and brings the cost of energy down. And its the cost of energy that is important, not oil.

Not this time and not in this forum. I haven't read anything else from you. You seem more than willing to talk about production and price history ad naseum. Why can't you lay out your arguments here?


We already talked about conventional/unconventional production being a stupid distinction. It's just how much production will there be at a given price point. Since you're already claiming oil is going to get really expensive that means we don't have to worry about production keeping pace.

Let's say you're right about the propping up of stuff. Why wouldn't they keep doing it? What's stopping them from propping up the ponzi scheme for another 2 decades?

It not swift I was just responding to your request to see some new alternatives to oil emerging.

How quickly they will emerge I don't know and how big the oil problem is I don't know. That's why I asked you what you think the impact is over the next few generations even assuming fairly decent decision making - I'm trying to get some sort of handle on the scale of the problem.

PEEEEEAAAAAK OIIIIIIIIIIIILLLL

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dum...ge=2&link=sfmw