Oil Production: Will the Peak Hold?

[RGR]

RGR - you seem to be forgetting human nature. This is not just about quality of data and whether they have bright people working for them. For one thing, who says there is only one Saudi guess?

[RGR]

The forum is based around the idea of shortages for average people. Rising costs of production mean shortages for the man with limited budget, regardless of whether there is actually oil in Canadian shale or not.

The age of easy, cheap oil is coming to an end and theoretical "reserves" aren't going to help.

[Vortex]

I didn't realize that the forum had its own "angle"

Neither did I ....

[emordnilap]

If that means that millions of hungry human beings are priced out of the market ( as opposed to "actual shortaged" out of the market ) because of scarcity causing extreme prices, thats the system working the way its supposed to, not a failure.

That's right, that's the system we have, working just fine and dandy.

[SunnyJim]

Yeah 'the market' is a fantastic device for ensuring that all things find their way to the rich. It works well at that.

Things the market doesn't do;
1/ Use resources wisely (what is the 'best' use of an item/resource/effort). It simply allocates it to those with the most money regardless of what they want to do with the commodity.
2/ Conserve resources and eliminate waste. Current prices encorage purchace of replacement rather than repair, but as labour becomes cheap and commodities become expensive this will change. It needs to change before then though.
3/ True cost is never passed on with the item, it is socialised. Cost does not include environmental/social cost etc.

[SunnyJim]

Of course, while the market has been around along time for certain goods, before that resources were allocated not to the rich, but to the strongest! - Check out any kids playground. Size is more of a currency than wealth there.

[Miss Madam]

Of course, while the market has been around along time for certain goods, before that resources were allocated not to the rich, but to the strongest! - Check out any kids playground. Size is more of a currency than wealth there.

I'm betting that lots of the bankers making speculative bids for soft commodities and helping starve many in the third world, were delicate types at school and have some 'issues' to resolve....

[fifthcolumn]

Yeah 'the market' is a fantastic device for ensuring that all things find their way to the rich. It works well at that.

Things the market doesn't do;
1/ Use resources wisely (what is the 'best' use of an item/resource/effort). It simply allocates it to those with the most money regardless of what they want to do with the commodity.
2/ Conserve resources and eliminate waste. Current prices encorage purchace of replacement rather than repair, but as labour becomes cheap and commodities become expensive this will change. It needs to change before then though.
3/ True cost is never passed on with the item, it is socialised. Cost does not include environmental/social cost etc.

I disagree with every single point Jim.
1. Yes it does give the scarce resources to those with the most money.
Before we had this bogus system of money printed out of thin air, the rich usually had their money because they had produced something of "value" to get rich. That means using the least amount of resources to get the most money back. Buy low sell high if you will.
I consider using as little resources as possible a pretty efficient way of doing things and the alternative is communism which ISN'T very efficient.
How do you defend your position in this light?

2. The manufacturers of the products absolutely do conserve resources and eliminate waste. Otherwise they would not be profitable because their competitors would. The issue arises when it is cheaper to just dump by-products than use them because you can be damn sure that if money is to be made from waste products it will. A case in point is the tailings from silicon wafers in silicon chips. Up till recently they were just thrown out. But now they are worth their weight in gold (literally) as feedstock for solar panels. Natural gas in oil wells was originally flared off. Not anymore. There are very few processes that do not produce some kind of unusable left-overs and this is a function of chemistry or physics usually, not evil business people.

3. Yes herein lies the rub. I think though that this is a red herring.
You are saying effectively "We have a market. Waste is produced." and concluding that "If we get rid of the market we will have no waste".
I call that as bullshit.


In any event, most of the posters on this board probably agree to a certain extent with your points and this is the reason the UK is f***ed.
Because the true facts are those I have outlined unlike the wishy washy touchy feely let's all gather round our community and we will magically have no waste and all will be well.

In fact, things will be much, much worse under this scenario.
What we *need* to do is throw the government out on it's arse and get rid of the ability of the planning departments to block renewables.
This is a problem caused by GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE not the market.

[RGR]

right, that's the system we have, working just fine and dandy.

[Susukino]

I disagree with every single point Jim.
1. Yes it does give the scarce resources to those with the most money.
Before we had this bogus system of money printed out of thin air, the rich usually had their money because they had produced something of "value" to get rich. That means using the least amount of resources to get the most money back. Buy low sell high if you will.
I consider using as little resources as possible a pretty efficient way of doing things and the alternative is communism which ISN'T very efficient.

My thoughts exactly. Capitalism has its problems - the main one being that it doesn't account for various non-monetary costs - but the alternatives seem to be worse.

Suss

[SunnyJim]

I disagree with every single point Jim.
1. Yes it does give the scarce resources to those with the most money.
Before we had this bogus system of money printed out of thin air, the rich usually had their money because they had produced something of "value" to get rich. That means using the least amount of resources to get the most money back. Buy low sell high if you will.
I consider using as little resources as possible a pretty efficient way of doing things and the alternative is communism which ISN'T very efficient.
How do you defend your position in this light?

Two biggest money spinners in manufacturing Planned obsolescence and
designed failure (think fridge door shelves). Hook you in on upgrading, and sting you for replacement parts if you don't. You can do degrees in this stuff. Building a product that you will never upgrade and will never fail is a sure fire way to go out of business these days.

2. The manufacturers of the products absolutely do conserve resources and eliminate waste. Otherwise they would not be profitable because their competitors would. The issue arises when it is cheaper to just dump by-products than use them because you can be damn sure that if money is to be made from waste products it will. A case in point is the tailings from silicon wafers in silicon chips. Up till recently they were just thrown out. But now they are worth their weight in gold (literally) as feedstock for solar panels. Natural gas in oil wells was originally flared off. Not anymore. There are very few processes that do not produce some kind of unusable left-overs and this is a function of chemistry or physics usually, not evil business people.

I don't mean in the manufacturing process, I mean when the product is dumped after only a couple of years of use. I can't find a figure for the percentage of natural commodites that find their way from source (nature) to landfill within a year, but it's scary man.

3. Yes herein lies the rub. I think though that this is a red herring.
You are saying effectively "We have a market. Waste is produced." and concluding that "If we get rid of the market we will have no waste".
I call that as bullshit.

In any event, most of the posters on this board probably agree to a certain extent with your points and this is the reason the UK is f***ed.
Because the true facts are those I have outlined unlike the wishy washy touchy feely let's all gather round our community and we will magically have no waste and all will be well.

In fact, things will be much, much worse under this scenario.
What we *need* to do is throw the government out on it's arse and get rid of the ability of the planning departments to block renewables.
This is a problem caused by GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE not the market.

Not what I'm saying at all. Just pointing out that it's not perfect. I'm not proposing anything else. Don't stick someone elses agenda onto me man!!!! Chill! Where did I say we should 'get rid of the market'? Man alive. It's an evolved system, its not perfect. It's not the shiney perfect god like thing that people like to make out. It has faults.

[SunnyJim]

I disagree with every single point Jim.
1. Yes it does give the scarce resources to those with the most money.
Before we had this bogus system of money printed out of thin air, the rich usually had their money because they had produced something of "value" to get rich. That means using the least amount of resources to get the most money back. Buy low sell high if you will.
I consider using as little resources as possible a pretty efficient way of doing things and the alternative is communism which ISN'T very efficient.

My thoughts exactly. Capitalism has its problems - the main one being that it doesn't account for various non-monetary costs - but the alternatives seem to be worse.

Suss

Again, where did I say an alternative would be better?

I don't understand this defence of the markets I really don't! Point out a couple of criticisms of the 'market' and you're likely to find yourself tarred as communist and flailed in public!!!! It's like mentioning overpopulation

At least open your eyes to the fact that the 'markets' aren't perfect. Nothing is.

[Miss Madam]

Before we had this bogus system of money printed out of thin air, the rich usually had their money because they had produced something of "value" to get rich. That means using the least amount of resources to get the most money back. Buy low sell high if you will.

Errr.... so what exactly did families such as the Rothschild's actually make? (Ok I know they were bankers I'm just using them as an example). Real inventors and efficiency innovators tend to be like artists - they are often not recognised for their contribution until after their deaths, and often only in a limited financial sense (You don't see the Arkwright's in the super rich today). It seems that a lot of old money got that way by exploitation pure and simple - i.e. stealing the resources of other nations - the Conquistadors, feudalism etc etc. It's back to Jim's accurate refutation that actually many got to the top of the system by FORCE not by 'earning' their money. And now they are at the top of the pile, they really don't want any major structural change, as they will only be the worse for it. It makes me cross, it seems people just get addicted to having money for ego and power trips (definitely Freudian), not to do anything of real use or value with it... once you get to the super rich level at least.... Please don't heap praise upon them that they don't deserve!

[fifthcolumn]

Before we had this bogus system of money printed out of thin air, the rich usually had their money because they had produced something of "value" to get rich. That means using the least amount of resources to get the most money back. Buy low sell high if you will.

Errr.... so what exactly did families such as the Rothschild's actually make?

That's actually quite ironic that you would choose the rothschilds to argue against my point.
In fact the rothschilds are precisely one of the group of people who have foisted the crappy central bank paper money system we have now as opposed to the honest money system we had before.

It seems that a lot of old money got that way by exploitation pure and simple

snip.
You are pointing the finger at the right people.
Your conclusions, however, are wrong because you are mixing them up with the good guys and your solution is to F--k over the good guys.
Any system you invent whereby businesses are punished and taxes are raised will benefit the very people who you claim not to support.

I suggest you all do a bit of reading. Go look up "fractional reserve banking" and "jeckyl island".

- i.e. stealing the resources of other nations - the Conquistadors, feudalism etc etc. It's back to Jim's accurate refutation that actually many got to the top of the system by FORCE not by 'earning' their money. And now they are at the top of the pile, they really don't want any major structural change, as they will only be the worse for it.

Yes you are right. You are, however, tarring everybody with the same brush. If you want to point fingers make SURE you do it at the right people. You and Jim, however are NOT pointing fingers at only the right people, you are pointing them at EVERYONE who benefits from this system and not just those who disporportionately benefit unfairly (the banks).

Please don't heap praise upon them that they don't deserve!

I suggest you do some more reading before you make the mistake of assuming I am heaping praise on those who deserve their heads cut off.

[SunnyJim]

Don't forget the slave trade. Very lucrative. Lot's of familys made fortunes there.