Oh how the trolls have come out of the woodwork conjuring my name with oil price dropping the past month.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/11...lling-1482058/

Posters like Row Coach force themselves to believe this dip is a sign of a long term glut and the return of glory days of 3-4% growth. Mainly because they have so much invested in trolling the issue, there's no turning back now.

The problem is that lower oil prices crush investment in unconventional production. It's this enormously expensive, unsustainable crap-grade production here in the U.S. which is the only thing that has maintained lukewarm global total liquids growth the past 9 years, since conventional production peaked. When those companies start going belly up (and it's already beginning), you'll see the price shoot back up, and likely beyond.

The Saudis allegedly flooding the market for a few weeks (to punish Russia and Iran), along with reduced global demand are NOT signs that all is well. Quite the opposite, as the IMF and World Bank's downward revision of global growth forecasts confirm.

But just like in 2008, when oil price dipped over $100 in 2008, and shot right back up... these prices, barring recession, will return to their $100-110 ceiling.

ITT, I will await any single poster here who can:

- show how shale production can continue to increase, exponentially, and offset conventional depletion despite a 1) 40-80% annual decline rate for the average fracked well, and 2) the sudden trickling exodus of foreign investment in U.S. shale plays.

or

- show what countries are ready to ramp up production in order to offset decline elsewhere and still meet the planet's 91.4 million barrel per day appetite (and growing)

or

- whatever alternate narrative you care to present that shows how global growth can return to "normal" when the oil majors have all declared they need global oil price closer to $125-150...

Let's get it on, Row Coach... Please do tell the forum how "Maybe not everyone can afford $100 oil or $200 oil or $300 oil but some people can," and do include how the .1% will be able to support the entire global economy with their demand.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...hale-boom.html

I'm not sure why you edited my handle to say include "conspiracy" ... nor why you, a strident denialist, just posted a link supporting my entire argument... But there's no "conspiracy" about it.

Did you actually read the story?

..................wrong thread

Jiggs, I'm glad you started this thread.

Can we start at the top? In particular, what's the short summary of your position and most importantly the consequences.

For example, I think most people agree that oil is a finite resource and will generally get more expensive the more oil we use. But I think most people also agree that the market will compensate reasonably well and this isn't a civilization ending issue. Do you disagree with the second part?

Why Harold Hamm - the billionaire CEO of Continental Resources - Isn’t Worried About Plunging Oil Prices
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christop...ng-oil-prices/

Empty talk, not market fundamentals, moved the price, says Hamm. ”It’s not supply-demand related.” On the contrary, “this is one country, the Saudis, attempting to dictate world oil prices.”

...

“The market is not in glut,” says Hamm. “It’s a case of the emperor has no clothes.”

Yo, Jiggs. That article doesn't support your argument.

Well, there's an enormous gulf between civilization ending and "the market will compensate reasonably well," neither of which I've suggested.

A short summary? OK... Well - as long predicted over 15 years ago - oil has become too expensive for the average consumer/small business to afford, too expensive for municipal budgets to absorb, and yet not near expensive enough for oil companies to increase drilling and maintain production growth. ... The fallout from that gap is increased pollution, increased energy-related violent conflict (including Ukraine, which is ALL about gas/oil), and a slow breakdown of the quality of life that we've become used to, including food inflation. ... Meanwhile, there is no replacement ready to make up for all the uses oil provides, and there are mounting tensions between superpowers, including at least two who are actively angling to scrap the U.S. dollar for oil trade.

the Forbes one? Ummmm, yeah, it kinda does. You should probably read it beyond the headline.

Meanwhile, your article doesn't support yours. At all.

I didn't mean to suggest you were advocating for "civilization ending". Just trying to figure out where you are on this spectrum.

Could you quantify this more? Like in the absolute sense - I'd agree with some of this. In the medium term oil is almost certainly going to get more expensive. This will likely lead to a relative decrease in quality of life, and increase in energy-related violent conflict. But the actual magnitude of this seems quite debatable. Furthermore, the effect of alternative energy sources (both environmentally friendly and other non-renewable sources) seems quite likely to be able to make up for increased energy demands in the medium term.

.

Can you consolidate the purpose of caring about what happens with oil into one sentence that takes into account the fact that alternate energy sources are just going to replace it as the price goes up?

Try the bloomberg one. And, no, it doesn't support your theories in the way you think it does.

It is a big mistake to think a dip means there's not a problem. The price will always ebb and flow a lot and it doesn't mean the tide isn't going out in dramatic fashion.

it's your seemingly apocalyptic vision I struggle with. Can you give a fairly concise statement about what you think the world economy will do for the next several decades or are you really just saying it will be a lot worse than it would have been if oil was a lot more plentiful?

World Economy is kinda screwed right now even with interest rates which would have been seen as insanely low in other decades, quantitive easing and massive direct stimulus by some economies such as China. We are basically mainlining the economy with ultra crack and its response does not amount to much more than meh, and then, can I have some more? The credit crunch was was 6 years ago and whilst there has been some improvements since then, we still have low wage growth often below inflation in may western countries, near triple dips in the Euro zone and faltering growth in USA and China, all with IRs at near 0 and all the other good stuff.

Now the perma slump is in imo more to do with debt overhang and inefficient and socially unjust financial/banking arrangements but it does not seem to be completely unreasonable that peak oil is maybe involved.

grunching...

actually, grunching implies I read the OP, right? I only read the thread title, let me guess, cliffnotes are, "price of oil goes up, that proves peak oil; price of oil goes down, that ALSO proves peak oil" right?

Not quite. Seems to be "price of oil goes up, that proves peak oil; price of oil goes down, that's because of some outside factor X,Y,Z and has nothing to do with peak oil".

Yeah, I read the Bloomberg one. Did you? Basically every paragraph in it says shrinking price will hurt production prospects for shale oil. Did you link the wrong story?

If not, try and be less cryptic and sum up what you think it says. You either don't understand my argument, or you don't understand you own story as it relates to my argument.

Apocalyptic, even. Please link to where that happened.

Maybe. If you stop misrepresenting what I've ever said.

Yes, as soon as you show how that's a "fact," and what source it will be that's ready to replace it. Please include more than just the use for transportation fuel for 800 million combustion engine vehicles.

I suppose magnitude is debatable. But as I said in the ATF forum, and many other threads on this subject is that I don't have to decribe what the world will look like when global production begins decline. Let's all admit it's happening, first, and then we can all guess what it will mean.

What's not debatable is that world supply can no longer comfortable meet world demand, and it's doing so with razor thin spare capacity. Certainly not at an acceptable price that keeps complex societies that have to suddenly "go without" from breaking down. What's also not debatable is that world crude exports are in decline, and have been for many years now.

Now, what is the protocol for excluding some utterly useless contributors who can't ever engage in the subject matter and exist here solely to troll? (pvn, for instance)

Sorry that was clumsy. I was trying to get a concise statement from you of the impact of peak oil as you see it rather than the way your views seem portrayed by others.

Accurate is that fluctuations in the short term dont tell us much.

However fist pumping for 85$ a barrel seems like an event that could happen in the context of peak oil. If oil was plentiful would we really be fist pumping for a relatively still expensive price?

Anyway my monies is on yea there is probably some constriction in supply in relation to demand which causes problems no way as bad as Jiggs makes out but no way as meaningless as his critics make out.

Well, I don't know, man. I don't really understand why people keep asking me this. The world will react to degrowth in endless combinations of ways. Impossible to predict, but none of it BAU.

[opinion]

• World powers will need cooler heads more than ever (i.e., no chickenhawks). Otherwise, war is likely.
• The IMF and World Bank will keep revising downward forecasts for global growth (this is already happening)
• International travel will shrivel up for all but the elite (seeing the beginnings of this already)
• Globalization will slowly draw down as freighting costs increase.
• Austerity measures will increase.
• Localized permaculture communities will be optimal.
• Wall St., which has learned nothing from 2008, will see its most toxic assets exposed again
• Carbon emission will finally shrink, to some degree (unless the ecocidals win and we turn back to coal)

[/opinion]

Okay lets not worry about how they will react to degrowth. I'm still trying to get a handle on whether you think peak oil means degrowth is inevitable and how severe it must be over the next several decades.

Assume reasonably good decisions are made to start with so we are just looking at how degrowth has to be at best. I'm not expecting precise answers just trying to get an idea.