IEA warns of Oil Pinch

[phobos]

Ok I dont post much but as a lurker I couldnt resist this snippet:

http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/07/10/ ... oil-pinch/

[Andy Hunt]

Very nice . . .

It is somewhat worrying that the most optimistic energy agency in the world is giving the world economy just 5 years to live.

[biffvernon]

The photo at the top looks familiar

[Ralph]

Very nice . . .

It is somewhat worrying that the most optimistic energy agency in the world is giving the world economy just 5 years to live.

So much for "most optimistic" being optimistic enough!!

So now maybe we should quadruple "most optimistic" estimates just to know how long things will go on and still be fine?

[RenewableCandy]

Liquid fuels aren't the problem, no one can say they will ever be cheap like they were up until they become less cheap (late 60's, early 70's) but we have plenty of them at higher prices, and therefore we have plenty of the basics for building out solar, nuke, tidal, windmills, whatever.

What it fails so spectacularly to see is that the higher prices are the problem, and their cause is the peaking of conventional resources.

What puzzles me is why it is going to so much trouble. It is not (writing as) a human being (hence my choice of pronoun, btw), so that rules out Psychology as an explanation. Unless one can say that the entire industry, on whose behalf it is writing, suffers collectively from some equivalent of a mental problem.

[odaeio]

Am not at all sure that "Ralph" is "a" human being - more like a "team" of rather intelligent human beings tasked with systematically destroying "doomer" and/or P.O. web sites. MSM can be controlled, but this is necessary in order to keep the internet sheeple as asleep as possible. I am well impressed with the intelligent way it is being done, really good job - but not quite working on me though......

Since this is not revealing itself to be a political campaign, my half-hearted belief in the Bildeberg/NWO/greater "conspiracy" theories is bolstered all the more.....

[RenewableCandy]

I, on the other hand, am not impressed at all. It is trying too hard, to the point where the result becomes embarrassing. It has now reached the level of the man who, after ages of desperate trying, asks in exasperation "but, why won't you sleep with me?".

It is actually rgr. You can tell from the writing style and also from the same range of inconsistent positions displayed in the posts:
1. PO will never happen
2. PO will happen sometime in the future but not our problem
3. PO will happen but it's irrelevant
4. PO has happened and it was irrelevant

I'm waiting for it to refer to PO as a "factoid", but now I've given that one away it probably isn't going to happen

[Ralph]

Liquid fuels aren't the problem, no one can say they will ever be cheap like they were up until they become less cheap (late 60's, early 70's) but we have plenty of them at higher prices, and therefore we have plenty of the basics for building out solar, nuke, tidal, windmills, whatever.

What it fails so spectacularly to see is that the higher prices are the problem, and their cause is the peaking of conventional resources.

What you call a "problem" an economist calls a cost/supply curve, what an engineer might refer to as infill drilling opportunity, and what a geologist would say is just the natural progression of things deeper into the resource pyramid.

None of those are problems, they are just THINGS. In response to those THINGS, all sorts of cool things happen along the way, things change, people try out a new business model, folks adapt to the new stuff, and peak oil sites go belly up in embarrassment for having not researched the history of the topic before going out and making all the same mistakes of their fore bearers.

TEOTWAWKI just doesn't happen to be a consequence of any of this, but that is a good thing!

What puzzles me is why it is going to so much trouble.

To explain Econ 101 to Doomers? Why, it is no trouble at all Candy!

[Ralph]

Am not at all sure that "Ralph" is "a" human being - more like a "team" of rather intelligent human beings tasked with systematically destroying "doomer" and/or P.O. web sites.

Gimme a break. Ruppert did that, Matt did that, the TOD editorial board did that, Lars at ASPO did that, I am quite happy to just reference them as near term examples of what happens when people make wild predictions first, and then try and come up the learning curve faster than reality can discredit them.

[Ralph]

It is actually rgr. You can tell from the writing style and also from the same range of inconsistent positions displayed in the posts:
1. PO will never happen

British bullshit. Of course PO will happen, Hubbert certainly didn't get the finite production rate inside a finite system concept wrong at all, and I agree with him completely.

2. PO will happen sometime in the future but not our problem

Graphic of increasing production already provided. So the FACTS say that peak oil is somewhere floating off in the future, me referencing it is just what anyone trying to understand the problem finds out first.

3. PO will happen but it's irrelevant

More Brit bullshit. Real crude prices have been trending upwards since the early70's for a reason, in economic terms that is quite a substantial price signal, and even though it hasn't achieved a volume peak that price signal has ALREADY proven relevant. Otherwise every American would still be driving finned 6000# beasts getting 10mpg.

Get with the program, if you want to misrepresent someone, at the very least be creative about it, or try to understand the positions before attaching random straw men to a poster hoping that such ad hominem tactics aren't noticed for what they are, a glaring lack of knowledge on both the topic in general and the positions of a poster specifically.

[RenewableCandy]

Liquid fuels aren't the problem, no one can say they will ever be cheap like they were up until they become less cheap (late 60's, early 70's) but we have plenty of them at higher prices, and therefore we have plenty of the basics for building out solar, nuke, tidal, windmills, whatever.

What it fails so spectacularly to see is that the higher prices are the problem, and their cause is the peaking of conventional resources.

What you call a "problem" an economist calls a cost/supply curve, what an engineer might refer to as infill drilling opportunity, and what a geologist would say is just the natural progression of things deeper into the resource pyramid.

Now you're just being thick. Of course high prices, for any commodity, are a problem for people who can only afford the lower prices and who haven't yet got (or can't afford) an alternative. And it is obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that this problem is getting worse.

This is the real world, not an economics textbook.

[kenneal - lagger]

..........In response to those THINGS, all sorts of cool things happen along the way, things change, people try out a new business model, folks adapt to the new stuff, and peak oil sites go belly up in embarrassment for having not researched the history of the topic before going out and making all the same mistakes of their fore bearers ........

and half the world, the supposed more affluent half of the world, spends years in recession and is only partially baled out by the printing of vast sums of money.

I'm not sure that that THING is very cool though!

[Ralph]

What you call a "problem" an economist calls a cost/supply curve, what an engineer might refer to as infill drilling opportunity, and what a geologist would say is just the natural progression of things deeper into the resource pyramid.

Now you're just being thick.

From which perspective? I am more than happy to answer from just one, or all three.

Of course high prices, for any commodity, are a problem for people who can only afford the lower prices and who haven't yet got (or can't afford) an alternative.

As it has been since the beginning of time…..

And it is obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that this problem is getting worse.

As it has been since the beginning of time….

You could just use the word "inflation" though.

This is the real world, not an economics textbook.

It is. And in the real world, the US is going gang busters on natural gas, attracting industry and manufacturing because of it, keeping prices low and reasonable, and the Brits choose to sit on theirs. You then don't get to blame resource scarcity for your CHOICES in doing so.

It doesn't matter who or what is claimed to be in your way, it is your CHOICE to NOT do something about it because it obviously doesn't bother you (collectively) enough yet. When it does, then we'll see how the real world deals with your rich folks sitting on natural resources that the country needs.

[Ralph]

..........In response to those THINGS, all sorts of cool things happen along the way, things change, people try out a new business model, folks adapt to the new stuff, and peak oil sites go belly up in embarrassment for having not researched the history of the topic before going out and making all the same mistakes of their fore bearers ........

and half the world, the supposed more affluent half of the world, spends years in recession and is only partially baled out by the printing of vast sums of money.

I'm not sure that that THING is very cool though!

Nobody enjoys suffering through the consequences of their actions, be it Americans and borrowing from China or Greeks suffering through what it takes to pay their piper.

And recessions have been happening long before the followers of Colin Campbell decided to pretend that they are only caused by oil prices.

And printing money also predates the modern oil hysteria movement, and what once was talked about around here…that didn't work out as planned either, now did it?

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... t+currency

Don't know about all your "devalued cash" but those of us who went into the market in 2009 aren't thinking about "devalued" at this point.