sigh and this 100% does not fit with peak oil. There are also other energy sources out there. This is econ 101, maybe 102 stuff.
Bull****. ****ing bull****. It's bad for certain people and certain economies, but not for ours or the world in general.
No it's actually quite easy. Like every other malthusian prediction before, peak oil will collapse to simple market forces.
speaking of malthusian.

How so? They both involve complex interactions between technology, economics. and politics and the end result is going to be difficult to predict.

No. Not if the system is complex and chaotic.

I mean, he may try to come up with predictions. But even if he is completely right about what is happening "right now" doesn't mean those predictions are going to be accurate, or that they are even predictable in the first place.

Or you don't have a model that can come up with an accurate prediction because the system is too complex.

I am pretty sure I do understand what he is arguing. And the hallmark of an internet debate fail is going to the "but you don't understandz, go back and read some arbitrarily long amount of text while I fail to point out exactly what evidence and/or argument contradicts you."

Matt R., I just remembered you from the Amanda Knox thread!

Ok, you win. PEAKKKKK OILLLLLL

I don't know what they teach in econ 101 or 102, but if they say there is going to necessarily be a perfect substitute for oil (in both quantity/availability and price) in the time frame required to not disrupt the economy then whoever is teaching econ 101 or 102 is wrong. Also, lol predictive economics (for the most part). How'd those econ 101 fundamentals do when predicting the financial crisis? Hopefully we do find a substitute but it's certainly no guarantee.

(In before "I can tell you didn't take econ 101 lol")

So our world and international economies are kind of connected, if you didn't notice. Problems in Russia and the Middle East are not "good" for us.

Wat. Do you honestly believe civilizations never go through crises? Like, it's all smooth sailing from here? Really?

Looks like the quality of your arguments has remained consistent.

Yet he makes predictions anyway and presumably wants us to take note. Most of these posts are pointing out where his predictions have turned out to be bogus. He gives us his predictions voluntarily so he doesn't get a pass because something is hard to predict accurately.

Relatively soon != one decade. If one decade is the standard then a lot of other scenarios could play out as well and we're left with so ****ing what in response. Perhaps Jiggs will weigh in and narrow this time period.

Yeah I see you are just trolling here. Ok I get it. Jiggs gets a pass on making predictions that could happen in a decade or more. Cool.

This is what they do.

What you have to understand about this contingent of cornucopians all over this forum is that most of them are subtly learning as they go along on this topic. They front arrogant skepticism, while attempting to glean information about a subject they don't fully understand. All they think they know for sure is that technology and conservation can and will save everything, and do so seamlessly and rapidly. We know that's complete horse****, because the economics of oil production growth are not there, nothing is ready to replace (even a small fraction of) fossil fuels, conservation to the degree required means the end of growth, and (most important) the crash brought on by market panic has the capability of unraveling within a few days. No matter how much data, testimony, logic and real-world examples you show them, in the end what you get is what's above - a hand-wave of sarcastic incredulity from a group of people who insist finance can trump physics.

These "peak is a myth" people get most of their scud-like arsenal - directly or indirectly - from the writings of CERA chairman, nobel-winner, and peak denial champion Daniel Yergin, an oil industry mouth piece who's entire argument relies on hope and faith. His claims have been comprehensively dismantled, foremost by ASPO founder Jean Laherrer. However, critical analysis and data don't deter the types of people who desperately want Yergin's prose to be true.

We don't need to give a to-the-hour prediction on the affects of peak oil any more than a successful tout service is obliged to provide the exact final score before a sporting event. Meanwhile, the side we supported was going against their favorite team, was getting points, and is already up 4 touchdowns with only a half to go.

Jiggs - let's try a different approach. If you're completely right about everything, what happens? Why should I care? How will it affect MY life?

And I'm not asking for "to-the-hour" predictions. I've said they can be very conservative (by your views) I'm just asking for something that can actually be quantified.

For example, I think average growth for the G7 will be noticeably better than 1%. I have no idea what the actual number will be so I picked something conservative. Ditto for my oil production prediction.

But a 'scientific' theory that can't actually make measurable predictions is completely useless.

Edit: I'm also being a bit imprecise in my terms here. I don't necessarily care about quantifiable. What I care about is a prediction that there can be no doubt happened or not. Something like "oil is doomed" or "hybrid cars will never be enough" aren't good enough because we'll never agree on what that even means.

Notice how worst poster of all time here essentially concedes, but maintains the patriotic narrative that star-spangled America is immune to the affects. But, you know, supported by absolutely nothing.

That's not a concession jiggs. Certain people have made bets on high oil prices (but not you lulz). Those people will be hurt.

**** man, your entire argument revolves around oil prices getting too high and ****ing the entire economy over. Now, they're too low! Seems like you just want to maintain appearances.

It is kind of funny that when oil prices are too high Jiggs cries disaster, when oil prices are too low Jiggs cries disaster, and when oil prices are between $80-$120, Jiggs cries disaster.

Ummm, that's not what my "entire argument revolves around," you clown. I'm on record as stating the oil industry is doomed at most any price.

I'll expand on that below, where your ally here at least acknowledges that I never rested my "entire argument" on high prices.

Well, while I'm not exactly "crying disaster," you have it essentially right. I'm baffled as to how you don't understand at this point why the industry, at any price, is doomed. They are forced to run ever faster just to stay in place. But I'll cover it again so you can ignore the salient point, and instead shift gears to some other aspect of the discussion you can't fathom.

For your narrative to carry any weight, you need prices both low AND stable. You need it low so that consumers can afford the fuel, and everything derived, grown and delivered from oil-based products (especially food). But you need oil companies (that increasingly must dig deeper and mine wider for less efficient fuel) to still make money and not risk shrinking production. So again, if oil sunk to $40, who can produce it? And if oil surged to $110, who can afford it? Do you see global wages magically increasing soon even though global net energy (EROEI) keeps shrinking?

While we consumers and municipalities here in America can sort of "absorb" a price closer to $100 for a while longer than anyone else, most others absolutely can not. Meanwhile, we have numerous reports insisting that most producers need the world price of oil even HIGHER than $110 (see post 36).

Do you see the paradox yet?

And really, with overall energy consumption very closely related to GDP growth, all that's needed to devastate the global economy is a small decline in total liquids production. Much like water for the human body, a loss of just 10% is enough to make you very sick and perhaps kill you.

man jiggz doesn't even realize how dumb that is.... Oil industry is doomed because we can't use oil forever. Wow, deep ****ing **** bro.

Jiggs, you missed this:

Oh look more imprecise terms. Put numbers behind this.


More hand waving. Put numbers behind this. Maybe even something like:

1. If over the next 5 years average price of oil stays below $80: X will happen.
2. If over the next 5 years average price of oil is between $80-$120: Y will happen.
3. If over the next 5 years average price of oil is > $120: Z will happen.


Ditto what I said above. What does it mean to not be able to absorb a price closer to $100?

No. I see somebody that doesn't understand how supply and demand works.

A number! Now how about a number for "make you very sick and perhaps kill you".

So how about something like:

If oil production declines by 10%, average GDP growth will be below X%.
If oil production stays steady, average GDP growth will be below Y%.

Again, I don't really care if you care. I don't need to convince you if you don't wanna be convinced. This, like gravity, doesn't need your approval for it to be true. But I'm going to relay the relevant industry news that - on a daily basis - confirms my position, and people can then decide for themselves what that means going forward.

Also, that's a rather ridiculous question considering I don't know your circumstances, where you live, how exposed your finances are, etc. ... The coming market crash will affect everyone quite differently. It also doesn't need you to care.

Therein lies the problem. What CAN we agree on? Hard for me to meet your curious standards of a quantifiable prediction when I'm not even sure what you accept as a given.

Do you agree that energy consumption is what enables growth?
Do you understand EROEI and net energy in general?
Do you believe energy density is relevant?
Do you agree conventional oil production has peaked and can not go any higher?
Do you agree there are hard limitations on unconventional production growth?
Do you believe different forms of energy can be 100% interchangeable?
Do you even believe 2008's debt bubble had anything to do with rising energy prices?

Answer some of those questions first. Because right now, I'm not even sure what we can agree on. You're more vague than I am.

This is a fairly ******ed assessment of what I said. You're officially irrelevant to this discussion. I'll let JJ provide the adult conversation you clearly lack. Take care, ikes. But good job maintaining your forum-worst batting average.

But gravity has a precise definition. I can observe the relevant motion of two objects and determine if that observation matches the definition of gravity.


There's going to be a coming market crash? That sounds like the start of a prediction! And that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. I don't need to know my personal details, I meant what are the big picture things that will probably affect me (like the market crashing).


Great, your turn.

lol I'll agree that it is ******ed... it's also exactly your position.

Clearly the supply of oil is not a problem at this time but it could be real soon now.

http://wastelandweekend.com

PEAK OIL

And so does peak oil, regardless of how you guys try and morph the definition to fit your "no problem" platform. It's about flow rates (amount you can produce), not reserves. We can no longer increase the production of conventional oil, and unconventionals are no fix for that shortfall.

There sure is. And my unwillingness to give you a precise date, to the day, doesn't mean I'm not fairly confident of that statement. Next 1-4 years, I'd say, depending on how far money printing can keep the illusion going, and based on the 2015 peak oil date I've stood by for over 7 years.

If Everything Is Just Fine, Why Are So Many Really Smart People Forecasting Economic Disaster?

Right now, like I say, we are looking at stocks that have been pressed to long-term expected returns that are really dismal. But more important than that, in every market cycle that we’ve seen with the mild exception of 2002, we’ve seen stocks price revert back to normal rates of return. In order to get to that point from here, we would have to have equities drop by about half.

So then logic follows that without ever greater consumption, overall growth is not possible. Unless you can allude to a magic new energy source that can move freight while burning more efficiently than conventional oil's roughly 20:1 return on investment.

Prove that you understand by offering a short summation so that we don't move forward with assumptions that don't match.

Oh, what part?

Yeah, ummm, it's not what "I call" it. It's a standard definition from the IEA - and the industry as a whole - that has to do with the relative density measured in degrees of API gravity. The higher API the better, because it burns more efficiently in terms of BTU per unit, it's easier to extract and refine, and it flows through pipelines fairly effortlessly. Conventionals are generally considered to be above 30 API. Unconventionals (tar sands, oil from shale, coal-to-liquids, on other assorted crap) are thicker and dirtier, and measured at under 22 API. There's no vague definition here.

So, you agree that there are hard limits, you're just not sure what those hard limits apply to because you feel "unconventional" is a vague definition. So, by default, you suspect it must be a long way off. Got it.

How about this: Can you agree there are economic limitations to producing heavy, dirty crude? That the vast majority of what's "proven" to exist will have to be left in the ground?

You seem to be hedging here. You feel that "no" is the right answer (because it is), but you don't wanna commit to it because then the free markets can't "win." The statement has nothing to do with timeframe. There are certain things that oil provides that other sources do not.

Then do feel free to flesh out your "yes" a bit, and let's take a look.

Jiggzzz, do you buy all your silver, ammo, and water filters from that website? Good to know that doomsday prepers are really smart dudes in your book.

I skimmed through that and don't see objective predictions. I see a nice straw man about me asking for to the day predictions but nothing else.

I answered your questions, but you are still too scared to come up with any actual predictions.

Hell you through a 'coming market crash' in recently. Could you give me an order of magnitude of what to expect from losses and rough timeline (within 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, ?).

Anyway what's the point of talking about a theory that just makes vague hand waving proclamations of doom. It's like trying to convince one of the world is ending people they're wrong even when their dates come and go.