Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → I was correct, who will admit it?
Totally not blowing another hour and a half in another movie like that. Pass.
Totally not blowing another hour and a half in another movie like that. Pass.
Well, one relevant point made by the film is that there's no longer need to debate the issue of peak oil, collapse, etc. evidence of if going on now is all around us, in our everyday lives, as well as in the media.
thats the claim, but there proly mainly interested in the arguments in that movie so you should filter out those.
^^ this
Einstein wrote:Peak oil can have 2 meanings, matters who you speak to.
1) that half the actual oil in the world has been consumed
2) that we have maxed out how many barrels of oil can be drilled per day/year in the World.
Some use both but that is less common.
Peak oil for me is when production cannot (for whatever reason) keep pace with increases in demand. We've been at peak oil for quite a while. Why is this even an issue. You mean you didn't know? It's clear from a quick google search.
http://www.petrostrategies.org/Graphs/W … Demand.htm
http://www.energyinsights.net/cgi-scrip … 000085.htm"According to the IEA's 2013 projections, growth in global oil demand will be significantly outpaced by growth in production capacity over the next 5 years." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
I asked it because, in order to engage in these debates, we have to make sure everyone is on the same page on what the issue is. If, for example, I were to ask you 50 posts into the debate "What is peak oil," and you replied "squirrel pee," it would be clear you and I wasted 50 posts.
FOR EXAMPLE... looking at your 3 links... I see one link that actually provides the definition of "peak oil," one that provides mappings of world oil supply/demand... and one that points out what "peak oil" is, simply by pointing it out on the graph.
Would you like to know which one of those defined peak oil? Oh, this is going to be fun!!!!
"Peak oil, according to M. King Hubbert's Hubbert peak theory, is the point in time when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production is expected to enter terminal decline."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
Your link that points out "peak oil" on a graph simply pointed out the point where oil production maxed out... a definition which would fit both your claim of what "peak oil" is and what your link which actually defines "peak oil" says.
So yes... out of 3 links... your ONLY LINK that provides a definition for "peak oil" provides a definition which is in direct conflict with your definition (under your definition, if production increased 1% and demand increased 2%, we would have reached peak oil. That's not the case with the Hubbert theory you cited).
Oh, I should add that your second link clearly looks like it hasn't been updated since 2009 (so its projections of production completely missed all the new production Flint is pointing out). How can I tell? Because the site graphs say "and predicted to..." and they all have a point (around 2009) in the graph where the graph flattens out (i.e., the graph stops including short-term shifts up and down because it can't predict short-term changes).
Zarf wrote:An indicator? Yes. The primary indicator? Not even close.
Actually, I'd argue that oil prices are the major determining factor of costs of production and distribution of everything, and, as such, the major determinant of all prices.
My opinion is that this outpacing of demand over production is resulting from peak oil, and that this is causing rising prices while the downturn in the economy continues. In other words, an outright depression caused by peak oil. And as this gives rise to increasing uncertainty and tentativeness among investors, which only exacerbates the problem with the economy.
Collaborative efforts by nations to print money their way out of this 'recession' are futile. Investors simply aren't buying it, you see, because they know what's going on.
And the kicker is that all of this provides oil forecasters their justification for forecasts of lower future demand for oil, giving them a way to coverup of the fact that they can't increase production because we've reached peak oil.
In other words, peak oil occurs, resulting in demand outpacing production, causing the global economy to stagnate as it has been, allowing forecasters who are funded by oil producers to justify speculation that continued problems with the economy will lower demand for oil, just the justification for not increasing production that oil producers paid for.
Explain the 1990s, then. Oil prices were steady at around $20 per barrel... and yet... we had perpetual (sometimes relatively high) inflation.
For me peak oil is where total ER minus EI is highest cause that is all that matters. Increasing efficiency has been a minor player so far and I guess it stays that way, but I can't predict the future.
Looking only at quantity of raw barrels means you simplify to much to have a good image.
Explain the 1990s, then. Oil prices were steady at around $20 per barrel... and yet... we had perpetual (sometimes relatively high) inflation.
Why? What's the point? You are in denial of the facts. I shouldn't have to state the obvious again and again and again. Sick of it.
Inflation in the 90's was due to healthy rise in prices of goods due to economic growth.
Inflation in a 'recession', however, due to high oil prices and money-printing is a whole different ballgame.
And you know this.
Why ask?
I'm done. I'll just keep sharing articles and films in that one thread here, but other than that, I'm not debating anything anymore.
I'm finished with this troll-flame fest.
Really? So that canadian pipeline across the Canada/U.S. border was a figment of mustard? More gravy than grave then? Actually lot of those federal lands are State owned lands. And you need permission from the State. Most of the federal lands which are to be drilled on are nature conserves or federally controlled parks.
Knock yourself out.
To expand on my original thought: Flint's original argument was too regional. Petrol prices in Auckland are still at high rates, not quite historic highs but still around the $2.20 mark for premium & $2.10 for 91.
http://www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork/tm … ces/ti005/
Oil/Petrol demand & supply is a global issue and babbling on about a regional drop is not worthy of a victory dance, with or without pants.
peak oil itself is, as Zarf has pointed out, a much more interesting concept, esp if you talk about conventional oil or non-conventional oil. I haven't researched much on Flint's current "claims" but remembering some of his past claims (which this references) most of the new oil he was talking about is only marginally in the "conventional" oil category, some being in the non-conventional oil sector (such as deep sea / ultra deep sea / artic oil). Peak oil should possibly be better defined in terms of conventional oil, as there is plenty of other sources of oil - the question does need to be asked if it is worthwhile getting them (esp from an enviornmental point of view)
Gas prices at central Oregon coast as of today, Low of $3.51 with high of $3.66. Around 50-75 miles east of my position gas prices are .30 cents lower....
What were the gas prices in your town again?
I mean, we're a great tourist spot, but why would they keep gas prices so high? We EXPORTED gas to other nations. EXPORTED, but our gas prices are still high. There's no reason for it. They can't say, there's not enough gas, so the demand is high, but the amount is low. That makes no sense. We exported gas to other countries, but there is a low amount, but high demand in the U.S.
That's a Big Oil/Big gasoline lie. There should be no excuse why gasoline is so high.
Record breaking earnings for the last four years, during the Great Recession? I remember when barrels of oil were trading $30-$40, 8 years ago. Today was what ? $91 some odd dollars per barrel? And those idiots on wall street, those speculators, are attempting to look at ANY news report world wide that would allow them to pump up the prices of barrels of oil?
Supply and demand my ass. This is nothing more than a market scam, and business interests taking priority over the needs of the global village. You have a handful of greedy market comptrollers attempting to take the rest of the world for a ride, but at a very high cost.
Think about it. M23 rebels talk about disarming and giving up the fight, with peace talks in the works...oil prices surged upgwards...there was no other newsworthy market....
So why did a rebel group say they're giving up the fight, and prices surge? Talking about diamonds, copper, gold, minerals, maybe a few oil fields. But if peace is achieved, that means that you have a stable region, without the chance of blockades, obstruction, or destruction of those minerals. So fighting would come to a halt, stability increases...OUTPUT would increase, thereby lowering the price of goods.
Or so we wrongly conclude. Output increases, but with cheap labor, and then you use the excuse of...using an excuse of raising prices, just to raise prices. It's nothing more, than greed.
The market see's stability, THEY PANIC, because now they had already made promises to their brokers that the prices would stay up and keep going up. NOW, they are looking for some excuse as the prices begin to drop. Except this time, there was no excuse.
PEACE TOMORROW, PRICE SURGE TODAY!
Demand and supply. Sometimes we have more supply, than demand, and people look for excuses to get more money out of the deal.
Record breaking earnings for the last four years, during the Great Recession?
I think the answer you're looking for lies within your sentence.
http://news.msn.com/us/train-carrying-c … in-alabama
Just watch Oil Prices & Gas prices.
Imperial Forum → Politics → I was correct, who will admit it?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.