![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
its been claimed for years we would fall but rome is eternal
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
Moderator: Peak Moderation
must be a nice comfortable rock you live under.Ralph wrote: You don't get to claim "permanent decline" during a period of growth in economic output. People in America changing their behavior and buying less fuel for their cars, allowing them to export more. Growth in liquid fuels production is not permanent decline. More folks in the UK continuing to buy cars, and having the fuel to operate them is not permanent decline. Less growth…is not decline.
correct, because there was plenty of fuel left to dig up.Ralph wrote: Decline….when it has happened before…was not PERMANENT.
Reality check here. The US has not been an exporter of oil for thirty-five years. Currently importing a net 7.5 million barrels each day. Some export of finished product and some crude swaps of course but no net exports on the bottom line.Ralph wrote:[
You don't get to claim "permanent decline" during a period of growth in economic output. People in America changing their behavior and buying less fuel for their cars, allowing them to export more. .
Sure. So we've got plenty of fuel left to dig up. Are these facts so really hard to find? This one has been in circulation for more than half a decade, did everyone just not notice?ceti331 wrote:correct, because there was plenty of fuel left to dig up.Ralph wrote: Decline….when it has happened before…was not PERMANENT.
Lies, damn lies and statistics. finding the right stats, explained with the wrong logic, you can get any point across.Ralph wrote: Sure. So we've got plenty of fuel left to dig up. Are these facts so really hard to find? This one has been in circulation for more than half a decade, did everyone just not notice?
Are you advocating that peak oilers will stop soon, or warning me of your intentions and methods for how you intend to refute the work done by the IEA?ceti331 wrote:Lies, damn lies and statistics. finding the right stats, explained with the wrong logic, you can get any point across.Ralph wrote: Sure. So we've got plenty of fuel left to dig up. Are these facts so really hard to find? This one has been in circulation for more than half a decade, did everyone just not notice?
Selective memory…or knowledge…is this the part where you cherry pick only "economic problems" you like, versus all the others?ceti331 wrote: We dig up fuel, we burn it , its gone.
we have economic problems , eg housing bubble->2008 -> …
It is not the most reasonable explanation. It is the explanation you LIKE. Completely different than what it actually WAS.ceti331 wrote: The most reasonable explanation, by far, is that the approach of peak oil crashed the financial systtem. The housing bubble was collective realization that infrastructure cannot be improved, so hoarding good locations to live (which are set to shrink as it goes into decline) is a good idea.
You are free to call BS on whatever you wish…when you have a more solid reference on the amount of things left to be dug up and burned, then you can pretend that you have a source that doesn't have your natural bias that revolves around refusing to face the facts of the matter.ceti331 wrote: So, if you find some figures that say "look, we've got plenty", i call BS, it doesn't match whats happening in the big picture.
I recommend you stop immediately, and learn a new career? Sorry…not really sure what to tell you, but opening up your reading list to the experts in the field, paying attention to organizations that spend more money measuring these things than the GDP of small countries, pay attention to the science being done on the topic, I would recommend all of them. Gotta start somewhere I suppose.cet1331 wrote: Some half truths, some ommisions, maybe even some outright lies (politicians and businesses can do this), but there's plenty of ways to get the same result as lying without *technically* lying, there's entire careers based around this skill.
Hey, I'm with you there. Just not on pretending that housing idiots became housing idiots because of oil supplies. Guys like vtsnowedin didn't even FLINCH in the face of near quadrupling prices, versus some of the rest of us who ran away from long commutes and the ensuing CO2 emissions so fast that we left our friends and neighbors wondering what happened.ceti331 wrote: The whole up-phase of the housing bubble is evidence enough that we're in serious trouble. The fact people thought house prices were ever set to rise. PERMANENT SCARCITY.
The IEA, correctly, doesn't care about EROEI any more than the oil companies do. The amounts listed on the IEA reference are actually quite reasonable, and could be quite a bit larger, as determined by the scientists who work on this type of thing, rather than just well educated Brits without experience on this topic, but who want what they want, facts be damned.PS_RalphW wrote:I'll just point out one more time, that graph the Raven keeps posting is pure fiction. Oil already costs $110 /barrel and has for years, but arctic production has barely started in Russia, and is all but abandoned by the oil majors, who are uniformly cutting capital expenditure, because they cannot find oil to develop at $110/barrel. None of the last three categories
(oil shales (kerogen) gas to liquid or coal to liquid ) are remotely economic at $110 and probably won't be at any price. Their EROI are too low.
Also, the 1T barrels displayed for MENA resource is also a blatant fiction.
They probably have less than half that.
I could go on, but I have work to do.
The US is scheduled to become the worlds largest natural gas producer this year perhaps? Our cat has bounced higher than anyone else on the planet….40 years after peak natural gas in America.RenewableCandy wrote:Yes: Dead cat bounce.
The UK's dependence on foreign imports of natural gas isn't a new phenomena and neither is a politician choosing to blame the private sector for rising prices which have more to do with international market forces than supposedly profiteering utility bosses. Since 2005, the UK has been a net imported of natural gas after stocks in the North Sea began to peter out. This has exposed British consumers to the "vagaries of global gas markets", according to Graham Freedman, senior analyst European Gas & Power at Wood Mackenzie.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... trica.html
May I recommend more research into the worlds largest gas producer, less guessing from the well educated who can't be bothered to google first.PS_RalphW wrote:That gas production graph ends in 2010. Since that date growth has levelled off considerably. The US still has a lot of shale gas, but not at the current wellhead price. If the US required environmental standards mandated currently in the UK, littyleshale would be economic at twice the current price.