Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")
- Thread starter Bernie_Gunther
- Start date
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Interesting article, Bernie. Lots there for the free-marketeers to get their teeth into - or not, if they so choose. 
Here's something I stumbled across:
CRUDE FACTS - BBC Radio 4.
A year old, well worth a listen.
Part 1 covers the geology of oil (where it comes from), and
Part 2 focuses more on the human aspect (where it goes).
Both 1/2 hour 'Real Audio' streams (sorry), presented by Howard Stableford and featuring interviews with Colin Campbell (amongst others).
Informative stuff.
--------
Here's something I stumbled across:
CRUDE FACTS - BBC Radio 4.
A year old, well worth a listen.
Part 1 covers the geology of oil (where it comes from), and
Part 2 focuses more on the human aspect (where it goes).
Both 1/2 hour 'Real Audio' streams (sorry), presented by Howard Stableford and featuring interviews with Colin Campbell (amongst others).
Informative stuff.
--------
Imagine for a moment that it's 2050. Oil is several $k a barrel in today's prices. Industrial agriculture very probably broke down catastrophically for a while there, but people have made their adjustments. Humans are pretty adaptable creatures after all, but it wasn't a bit pleasant at the time or even remotely painless.
We know now, with the benefit of hindsight, that the boards, syndicates and governments of the Earth potentially knew all about oil depletion from the 1960's onwards, they were told, and yet they did nothing. In the early part of the 21st Century the most powerful country on Earth, staring this problem in the face, invaded the second largest oil producer and then held the price of oil down at gunpoint, still overconsuming blindly until the crash.
When our children are grown, and of an age to have influence in their world, this is the world that they'll most likely have to face.
We'll have tried our best to give them what might help, I hope, but we probably can't easily imagine what their life will be like.
What will they think of us for letting this happen? Was capitalism too powerful? Was the media too persuasive? Was our oil-funded miserable ease too ennervating to permit us to do something?
What should we tell them, assuming this situation comes to pass?
No doubt: there won't be a state pension system to save us if they kick us out on our asses for letting this awful shit happen.
So we'd better start thinking about what we're going to say to them, assuming we didn't actually find any way to prevent this.
We know now, with the benefit of hindsight, that the boards, syndicates and governments of the Earth potentially knew all about oil depletion from the 1960's onwards, they were told, and yet they did nothing. In the early part of the 21st Century the most powerful country on Earth, staring this problem in the face, invaded the second largest oil producer and then held the price of oil down at gunpoint, still overconsuming blindly until the crash.
When our children are grown, and of an age to have influence in their world, this is the world that they'll most likely have to face.
We'll have tried our best to give them what might help, I hope, but we probably can't easily imagine what their life will be like.
What will they think of us for letting this happen? Was capitalism too powerful? Was the media too persuasive? Was our oil-funded miserable ease too ennervating to permit us to do something?
What should we tell them, assuming this situation comes to pass?
No doubt: there won't be a state pension system to save us if they kick us out on our asses for letting this awful shit happen.
So we'd better start thinking about what we're going to say to them, assuming we didn't actually find any way to prevent this.
Originally posted by Backatcha Bandit
I was about to give this a sly bump () to try and provoke a little neo-con response, as none of the usual champions of free-market economics seem to want to touch this one with a sh*tty stick... but... there's no need to worry about it anymore... cos...
Guys!!! Guys!!! Listen up!!!
I may have solved the global energy crisis!!!
All we need is huge dynamo, a huge elastic band, a shovel and directions to George Orwell's final resting place...
Don't know any neo-cons.
And relabiling the republican party, neo-cons is silly.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Personally, Bernie, I don't really think that there will be a whole lot of people around to either ask or answer that question, the vast majority having either starved to death or succumbed to any number of diseases or infections.
Wars will rage over the scarce resources that remain, so many of our children will probably have their innards rearranged with pieces of hot metal or similar whilst serving their country (joining the Armed Forces being, at least, a ticket to one 'meal' a day).
As 'humanity' begins it's inevitable demise, hordes of freezing, starving, desperate and bewildered people will roam the Earth burning eveything they can get their hands on, thus compounding the environmental disaster that is already beyond ignoring.
The few that survive all of that will most likely kill each other in the 'battle for survival' (just imagine how many gun toting peebees there are) fighting over any tins of dog-food that are left, sources of fresh water, etc.
So far I have seen absolutely nothing that suggests any other outcome is either likely or possible.
While you're sitting there reading this, pause to remember how we got here.
I'm sitting here pushing buttons that make my thoughts appear on a screen in front of you, wherever you happen to be on the planet.
Never before in the history of humanity has this medium for uncensored global debate, exchange of information and direct communication existed.
How long ago was it that we relied on some poor monk slaving over an illuminated script for essentially the same purpose?
What I'm saying is, it could be argued that we are the zenith of 'human achievement', we have everything we need to do the job (that of creating a sustainable mode of existance), the tools and the information all at our fingertips.
Yet the will does not appear to exist.
I welcome any ideas as to why that might be so?
When will the reality check hit most of us, I wonder...
The first time we pay more than a fiver for a loaf of bread?
The morning that we notice that the toilet cistern didn't refill when we flushed the toilet, although you're sure you paid the last £3257 water bill?
The first time we step over a body in the street?
Don't mistake my realism for pessimism.
Perhaps a suitable epitaph for the oil tribe would be: 'The Monkies who made Fire'.
Wars will rage over the scarce resources that remain, so many of our children will probably have their innards rearranged with pieces of hot metal or similar whilst serving their country (joining the Armed Forces being, at least, a ticket to one 'meal' a day).
As 'humanity' begins it's inevitable demise, hordes of freezing, starving, desperate and bewildered people will roam the Earth burning eveything they can get their hands on, thus compounding the environmental disaster that is already beyond ignoring.
The few that survive all of that will most likely kill each other in the 'battle for survival' (just imagine how many gun toting peebees there are) fighting over any tins of dog-food that are left, sources of fresh water, etc.
So far I have seen absolutely nothing that suggests any other outcome is either likely or possible.
While you're sitting there reading this, pause to remember how we got here.
I'm sitting here pushing buttons that make my thoughts appear on a screen in front of you, wherever you happen to be on the planet.
Never before in the history of humanity has this medium for uncensored global debate, exchange of information and direct communication existed.
How long ago was it that we relied on some poor monk slaving over an illuminated script for essentially the same purpose?
What I'm saying is, it could be argued that we are the zenith of 'human achievement', we have everything we need to do the job (that of creating a sustainable mode of existance), the tools and the information all at our fingertips.
Yet the will does not appear to exist.
I welcome any ideas as to why that might be so?
When will the reality check hit most of us, I wonder...
The first time we pay more than a fiver for a loaf of bread?
The morning that we notice that the toilet cistern didn't refill when we flushed the toilet, although you're sure you paid the last £3257 water bill?
The first time we step over a body in the street?
Don't mistake my realism for pessimism.
Perhaps a suitable epitaph for the oil tribe would be: 'The Monkies who made Fire'.
You may have noticed that last week the Guardian reported on a study by the Institute of Civil Engineers, suggesting that by 2020, Britain will be getting 80% of its energy from gas pipelines and therefore at the mercy of events along the length of those pipelines.
The study predicts the likely return of power cuts leaving our homes without light and heat for long periods of time.
gnoriac
lowly seer
My guess on this - how often do you see such stuff reported in the popular media? The Grauniad's been quoted a few times on this thread, but it's readership compared to the tabloids is fairly small, and its' readers usually dismissed as the 'chattering classes'. Indeed, combine the looming energy crisis politics with relaxation over media interest control, there's a synergy in it (some would call it conspiracy...).
So we end up with wars over oil and other resources, made palatable to the public through all manner of bullshit, and a tame media that seldom investigates or calls the powers that be to account.
TinyCrendon
New Member
flippant - once again lazy ideology from you, the guy is called Matthew Simmons, he's an energy investment banker and he says the Bush admin "are not listening to me." You are right that the American admin know about this but your analysis that they want to stop it is ridiculous.
Market forces will drive the crisis, oil companies are trying to restrict research into new energy forms (its simply too late anyway) by monopolising that research and by investing in the ones that wont work, solar, wind, bio-mass, hydrogen etc. They are all laughable. (work it out for yourselves).
Oil companies have a vested interest in the crisis because:
1. when it happens oil prices will rise and they will make more profits (see this year for example- record profits from war)
2. when that happens it makes it `economcially viable` to extract smaller fields. all the numerous small fields they sit on now will be worth fifty to a hundered percent more than they are now.
So, there are two alternatives here, that Campbell and Lammerere are wrong period. In which case something else will happen.
Or that they are just 50% accurate, in which case basically the `middle class` of the world are finished and we are likely to see a large reduction in the human population. the upside is that greenhouse gasses will fall.
But whatever, its too late to do anything about it. Maybe if we had been talking about this fifty years back like Hubbert then maybe, but not now.
Ok, ive done loads of work on these guys...its coming out soon i'll let you know...but i'll give you a preview...Ali Bakhtiari, the senoir corporate planner in Iran, "it is not a probelm of tomorrow it is here today. Everything will be affected. The only people who wont notice it are the very rich, they dont care if they are paying $10 or $20 a litre, and the very poor. They have never had access to energy. Everyone else...well..." (raises eyes).
Matthew Simmons "we need a new energy to bridge the gap (between oil and renewables) but there isn't one."
Basically this is the biggest story on the planet at the moment. Its why everything else is happening. And the Brit govt know, when i cornered some of their men they took a camera out and filmed me asking questions...and thats not even 10% of it...
Market forces will drive the crisis, oil companies are trying to restrict research into new energy forms (its simply too late anyway) by monopolising that research and by investing in the ones that wont work, solar, wind, bio-mass, hydrogen etc. They are all laughable. (work it out for yourselves).
Oil companies have a vested interest in the crisis because:
1. when it happens oil prices will rise and they will make more profits (see this year for example- record profits from war)
2. when that happens it makes it `economcially viable` to extract smaller fields. all the numerous small fields they sit on now will be worth fifty to a hundered percent more than they are now.
So, there are two alternatives here, that Campbell and Lammerere are wrong period. In which case something else will happen.
Or that they are just 50% accurate, in which case basically the `middle class` of the world are finished and we are likely to see a large reduction in the human population. the upside is that greenhouse gasses will fall.
But whatever, its too late to do anything about it. Maybe if we had been talking about this fifty years back like Hubbert then maybe, but not now.
Ok, ive done loads of work on these guys...its coming out soon i'll let you know...but i'll give you a preview...Ali Bakhtiari, the senoir corporate planner in Iran, "it is not a probelm of tomorrow it is here today. Everything will be affected. The only people who wont notice it are the very rich, they dont care if they are paying $10 or $20 a litre, and the very poor. They have never had access to energy. Everyone else...well..." (raises eyes).
Matthew Simmons "we need a new energy to bridge the gap (between oil and renewables) but there isn't one."
Basically this is the biggest story on the planet at the moment. Its why everything else is happening. And the Brit govt know, when i cornered some of their men they took a camera out and filmed me asking questions...and thats not even 10% of it...
So you would agree with my pessimistic analysis I made here on the first page (and on other threads) that what we are witnessing today in America is a circling of the wagons by elites preparing to protect their rapacious way of life and the hell with all the rest of us. Chilling. But I fear true.
TinyCrendon
New Member
Basically yes, but with the provision that there are no certainties. Its not some hugely well planned conspiracy, its a messy unplanned disaster.
One can see here how the idea of `free markets` which are in fact paternalised markets inhibits planning, change and so on. From that paternalisation comes vested interest and from that control comes inaction etc etc (in some bizarre ways you could compare it to moribund Russian et al soviet economies).
There are also many people who have political clout and influence who really dont even want to think about this. And of course people like Cheney to the Mullahs of Iran etc know they will be dead of old age long before any of this happens, so what the hell...
Also let us remember here that any `iraqi bonanza` of cheap oil does only one thing, it speeds up consumption...
One can see here how the idea of `free markets` which are in fact paternalised markets inhibits planning, change and so on. From that paternalisation comes vested interest and from that control comes inaction etc etc (in some bizarre ways you could compare it to moribund Russian et al soviet economies).
There are also many people who have political clout and influence who really dont even want to think about this. And of course people like Cheney to the Mullahs of Iran etc know they will be dead of old age long before any of this happens, so what the hell...
Also let us remember here that any `iraqi bonanza` of cheap oil does only one thing, it speeds up consumption...
TinyCrendon
New Member
WASHINGTON -- Homeowners should get ready for another winter of high heating bills as tight supplies will likely prop up natural gas prices, Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) said Thursday.
Greenspan said there was little that could be done in the near term to solve the problem, caused by demand growth outpacing supply.
''I'm not aware of any short-term expedients that can be employed at this stage to significantly alter the path that will occur in prices over the next six to nine months or a year,'' the Fed chairman told members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
----------------------------------------------
Ali Bakhtiari "One of the indicators (that oil is peaking) is the volatility of natural gas prices."
Greenspan said there was little that could be done in the near term to solve the problem, caused by demand growth outpacing supply.
''I'm not aware of any short-term expedients that can be employed at this stage to significantly alter the path that will occur in prices over the next six to nine months or a year,'' the Fed chairman told members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
----------------------------------------------
Ali Bakhtiari "One of the indicators (that oil is peaking) is the volatility of natural gas prices."
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Worth keeping an eye on the nuclear lobby - they are using this to present nuclear power as the only rational, viable alternative.
Watch as the regulations regarding the design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants are quietly relaxed... e.g:
http://cryptome.org/nrc070303.txt
[Federal Register: July 3, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 128)]
[Proposed Rules]
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
10 CFR Part 2, et al.
Early Site Permits, Standard Design Certifications, and Combined
Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants; Proposed Rule
(not exactly light reading - I'll post up some UK stuff later)
PS looking forward to reading your work... pm me if you need a proofreader.
Watch as the regulations regarding the design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants are quietly relaxed... e.g:
http://cryptome.org/nrc070303.txt
[Federal Register: July 3, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 128)]
[Proposed Rules]
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
10 CFR Part 2, et al.
Early Site Permits, Standard Design Certifications, and Combined
Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants; Proposed Rule
(not exactly light reading - I'll post up some UK stuff later)
Adz, I disagree about the timespan!
PS looking forward to reading your work... pm me if you need a proofreader.
TinyCrendon
New Member
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3060299.stm
I like this story...its starts with a storm....
Oil prices have surged to a two-month high on fears a tropical storm could disrupt production in the Gulf of Mexico.
The price of benchmark Brent crude for August delivery gained 51 cents a barrel to $29.39 in late trade.
While New York's light sweet crude August contract climbed 50 cents to $31.56 in early deals.
...and ends with something else in the last par....
A report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) pointing to a drop in production by the OPEC oil cartel in June also boosted prices, analysts said.
Kevin Norrish, of Barclays Capital, said: "What comes through in this report is that OPEC is in a position to retain control over the market (for the rest of this year),"
"It looks like they can keep things pretty much where they are now."
so are we at a new `benchmark price` of $30 a barrell?
I like this story...its starts with a storm....
Oil prices have surged to a two-month high on fears a tropical storm could disrupt production in the Gulf of Mexico.
The price of benchmark Brent crude for August delivery gained 51 cents a barrel to $29.39 in late trade.
While New York's light sweet crude August contract climbed 50 cents to $31.56 in early deals.
...and ends with something else in the last par....
A report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) pointing to a drop in production by the OPEC oil cartel in June also boosted prices, analysts said.
Kevin Norrish, of Barclays Capital, said: "What comes through in this report is that OPEC is in a position to retain control over the market (for the rest of this year),"
"It looks like they can keep things pretty much where they are now."
so are we at a new `benchmark price` of $30 a barrell?
TinyCrendon
New Member
Ok, interesting for the carve up...the usual players etc. And for the `repeated bombings` of pipelines which we have not been told about. Also that Iraq cannot sustain exports (why? because of difficulties or because its reserves are fiction?). Note all exports also go to Europe or USA and that exports cannot even reach the Oil-for-food levels...
adam
-----------------------------------------
US and UK-based oil majors have taken the lion's share of Iraq's second post-Saddam crude oil sell tender, companies and Iraqi officials said yesterday.
A Royal Dutch/Shell spokesman said the major had been awarded two million barrels of Basra Light crude in the tender, which closed on Monday, joining US ChevronTexaco and BP, who both confirmed winning earlier.
The fourth cargo went to Swiss-based trading house Taurus, the first trader to win a cargo since the US invasion. Baghdad had expressed a preference for refiners in the tender.
An official at Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organisation (Somo) confirmed the four winners.
It is the first time the British companies have been awarded Iraqi crude since the US-led invasion.
ChevronTexaco won its first Basra Light cargo in the previous tender.
Six million barrels of the crude are bound for US shores, two-thirds of that to the West Coast, while Shell is likely to take its cargo into northwest Europe, market sources say.
Taurus will load the first cargo on July 10, followed by BP around July 13, Chevron in the July 20 to 25 window and Shell on July 26 to 28, they added.
On Tuesday sources indicated that Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras, a frequent direct buyer of Iraqi crude under the old UN system, had won the fourth cargo, but that stem now appears to have been awarded to Shell.
Iraq tendered to sell eight million barrels of Basra Light crude from the Gulf port of Mina Al Bakr for lifting July 10 to 31.
At least three of the cargoes will be heading to US shores.
This is the first time Iraq has sold crude produced since the unseating of Saddam Hussein, as its first tender in June sold oil that had been sitting in storage for months.
ChevronTexaco, a big user of Iraqi oil for its US West Coast refineries, is the only company to win in both tenders, while its US rival Exxon Mobil has yet to buy a single barrel directly.
Somo continued to choose a wide array of winners, as BP and Shell joined Total, which won a cargo in the first tender.
Spain's Cepsa and Repsol plus Turkish refiner Tupras also won cargoes in the previous tender.
The loading rate comes to a paltry 363,000 barrels per day (bpd), versus pre-war capacity from the north and south of over two million bpd, underlining Baghdad's difficulties in resuming sustained production from Iraq's troubled oil sector.
Repeated pipeline bombings have hampered supplies flowing north to the Ceyhan port while "economic sabotage" in the south is also causing difficulties, oil officials say. -Reuters
adam
-----------------------------------------
US and UK-based oil majors have taken the lion's share of Iraq's second post-Saddam crude oil sell tender, companies and Iraqi officials said yesterday.
A Royal Dutch/Shell spokesman said the major had been awarded two million barrels of Basra Light crude in the tender, which closed on Monday, joining US ChevronTexaco and BP, who both confirmed winning earlier.
The fourth cargo went to Swiss-based trading house Taurus, the first trader to win a cargo since the US invasion. Baghdad had expressed a preference for refiners in the tender.
An official at Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organisation (Somo) confirmed the four winners.
It is the first time the British companies have been awarded Iraqi crude since the US-led invasion.
ChevronTexaco won its first Basra Light cargo in the previous tender.
Six million barrels of the crude are bound for US shores, two-thirds of that to the West Coast, while Shell is likely to take its cargo into northwest Europe, market sources say.
Taurus will load the first cargo on July 10, followed by BP around July 13, Chevron in the July 20 to 25 window and Shell on July 26 to 28, they added.
On Tuesday sources indicated that Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras, a frequent direct buyer of Iraqi crude under the old UN system, had won the fourth cargo, but that stem now appears to have been awarded to Shell.
Iraq tendered to sell eight million barrels of Basra Light crude from the Gulf port of Mina Al Bakr for lifting July 10 to 31.
At least three of the cargoes will be heading to US shores.
This is the first time Iraq has sold crude produced since the unseating of Saddam Hussein, as its first tender in June sold oil that had been sitting in storage for months.
ChevronTexaco, a big user of Iraqi oil for its US West Coast refineries, is the only company to win in both tenders, while its US rival Exxon Mobil has yet to buy a single barrel directly.
Somo continued to choose a wide array of winners, as BP and Shell joined Total, which won a cargo in the first tender.
Spain's Cepsa and Repsol plus Turkish refiner Tupras also won cargoes in the previous tender.
The loading rate comes to a paltry 363,000 barrels per day (bpd), versus pre-war capacity from the north and south of over two million bpd, underlining Baghdad's difficulties in resuming sustained production from Iraq's troubled oil sector.
Repeated pipeline bombings have hampered supplies flowing north to the Ceyhan port while "economic sabotage" in the south is also causing difficulties, oil officials say. -Reuters
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Nice one, adz.
Any idea wtf they mean by 'economic sabotage'?
Any idea wtf they mean by 'economic sabotage'?
TinyCrendon
New Member
Back - Yes, bombs. Interesting stuff since afaics only one bomb attack on a pipeline has recieved major coverage in english lang mass media...
-------------------------------------------
http://www.tradearabia.com/routes/sections/News.asp?Article=54637&Sn=OGN
Iraq is still in no position to discuss term oil contracts with customers because of lingering doubts over exports from oilfields, a senior Iraqi oil marketing official said on Sunday.
'We don't want to discuss term contracts with customers because we don't want to make any promises and then realise the availability of supplies is not enough,' the official told Reuters.
http://www.tradearabia.com/routes/sections/News.asp?Article=54363&Sn=OGN
Iraq is still struggling to restore exports from its Kirkuk oilfield as it awaits vital repairs to its crude pipeline to Turkey, says a report.
Last month, Iraq's acting oil minister Thamer Al Ghadhban admitted the growing number of sabotage attacks on oil fields was making it difficult to restore oil output as quickly as hoped.
-------------------------------------------
http://www.tradearabia.com/routes/sections/News.asp?Article=54637&Sn=OGN
Iraq is still in no position to discuss term oil contracts with customers because of lingering doubts over exports from oilfields, a senior Iraqi oil marketing official said on Sunday.
'We don't want to discuss term contracts with customers because we don't want to make any promises and then realise the availability of supplies is not enough,' the official told Reuters.
http://www.tradearabia.com/routes/sections/News.asp?Article=54363&Sn=OGN
Iraq is still struggling to restore exports from its Kirkuk oilfield as it awaits vital repairs to its crude pipeline to Turkey, says a report.
Last month, Iraq's acting oil minister Thamer Al Ghadhban admitted the growing number of sabotage attacks on oil fields was making it difficult to restore oil output as quickly as hoped.
TinyCrendon
New Member
Here is some additional stuff surrounding Americas new found interest in Africa. But which also mentions depletion. What is Gabon going to do when its resources have been taken?
Had 3.3bn b now has 700m b left...by my rough calculations that gives Gabon around 5 to 6 years left...(dont quote me on that!! )
http://iht.com/articles/6441.html
-------------------------
Nonetheless, Gabon is hoping for big discoveries in the deep water offshore, such as have been made in the neighboring continental waters of the Congo and Angola. The high costs of deepwater exploration make the prospects uncertain. But the Gulf of Guinea offshore oil region, stretching from the maritime waters of Nigeria to those of Angola, is one of the great El Dorados of the world’s oil industry today.
Barring major new discoveries, however, the production decline is certain to continue. This year’s production is expected to be below last year’s of 330,000 b/d. Gabon’s limited natural gas production is not enough to make a major difference when oil production and income decline.
President Omar Bongo has warned the population to prepare for the post-oil era. It will not be easy, since oil has become so large a part of Gabon’s economy.
Had 3.3bn b now has 700m b left...by my rough calculations that gives Gabon around 5 to 6 years left...(dont quote me on that!!
)http://iht.com/articles/6441.html
-------------------------
Nonetheless, Gabon is hoping for big discoveries in the deep water offshore, such as have been made in the neighboring continental waters of the Congo and Angola. The high costs of deepwater exploration make the prospects uncertain. But the Gulf of Guinea offshore oil region, stretching from the maritime waters of Nigeria to those of Angola, is one of the great El Dorados of the world’s oil industry today.
Barring major new discoveries, however, the production decline is certain to continue. This year’s production is expected to be below last year’s of 330,000 b/d. Gabon’s limited natural gas production is not enough to make a major difference when oil production and income decline.
President Omar Bongo has warned the population to prepare for the post-oil era. It will not be easy, since oil has become so large a part of Gabon’s economy.
nanoespresso
New Member
I guess it comes as no surprise that I disagree. Market forces worked wonderfully ( which btw is why price controls failed ).
A very simple question must be addressed? Given the massive profits to be made by OPEC by maintaining high prices, why did the embargo fail? As i recall, america did not invade Saudi Arabia at the time. The answer is simple: not selling oil was more costly than selling.
link
TinyCrendon
New Member
Nanzo - Yeah its a resonable point that OPEC got shafted by those who used the market to do so...ie the USA and Europe in the main. The big consumers.
However:
That article is from Feb 99 and you can see that the oil prices the article predicts (or quotes predictions from) at anywhere from $12 to $18 a barrell have not happened. In fact at the moment, without much furore oil is around $28-$31 a barrel (depending on where you buy it and what type it is).
OPEC are going to be increasing in terms of reserve shares from now on as production declines elsewhere.
If the market `allows` cheap oil, for example to prop up the US economy/consumer, (or anyone else for that matter) then it only speeds up consumption, a no-win situation.
Because at the point at which the decline is `recognised` by the industry (maybe it already has been they arent going to issue a press release) then the oil companies and in some respects the producer countries stand to gain huge fortunes from the increased price.
It is true OPEC would not want to stop selling oil as i see it. What would they stand to gain? However the oil that they have has a maximum production level (ie they cant get Superman to go in and suck it all out in one day) which has already been reached in the case of Saudi (9.2mbpd) and Iran.
Strangely Iran and the USA have somehting in common here. They dont tax oil enough which spurs giant consumption levels and enormous amounts of wastage. In the USA it is consumer and business consumption of energy mixed in with paternalist market reforms (see the `free market`) which has allowed the disasterous state of US energy at the moment (see Calif etc, Gas prices etc), increased costs for Joe Schmo, record profits for Dick Cheney's mates . And Iran `flares` its wells to such an extent that they waste several nuclear power plants worth of energy each year. They are now IMPORTERS of gasoline from Saudi as they charge around $US8c a litre (!!!) at the pump. Bonkers. There its not Dick Cheney's mates its the Mullah's mates.
In one, rather perverse way, the market may `enable` smaller oil fields to be developed. As the price of oil begins to spike small oilfields which have never been developed (especially heavy crude - costs more to refine) may be `worthwhile`but only in a very short term sense (ie they are small hence there isnt much oil there).
But remember even Iraq, if there was no other oil and current consumption levels remain static, would be DRY within four years.
I can go on... But I better do some work/fit solar.
However:
That article is from Feb 99 and you can see that the oil prices the article predicts (or quotes predictions from) at anywhere from $12 to $18 a barrell have not happened. In fact at the moment, without much furore oil is around $28-$31 a barrel (depending on where you buy it and what type it is).
OPEC are going to be increasing in terms of reserve shares from now on as production declines elsewhere.
If the market `allows` cheap oil, for example to prop up the US economy/consumer, (or anyone else for that matter) then it only speeds up consumption, a no-win situation.
Because at the point at which the decline is `recognised` by the industry (maybe it already has been they arent going to issue a press release) then the oil companies and in some respects the producer countries stand to gain huge fortunes from the increased price.
It is true OPEC would not want to stop selling oil as i see it. What would they stand to gain? However the oil that they have has a maximum production level (ie they cant get Superman to go in and suck it all out in one day) which has already been reached in the case of Saudi (9.2mbpd) and Iran.
Strangely Iran and the USA have somehting in common here. They dont tax oil enough which spurs giant consumption levels and enormous amounts of wastage. In the USA it is consumer and business consumption of energy mixed in with paternalist market reforms (see the `free market`) which has allowed the disasterous state of US energy at the moment (see Calif etc, Gas prices etc), increased costs for Joe Schmo, record profits for Dick Cheney's mates
. And Iran `flares` its wells to such an extent that they waste several nuclear power plants worth of energy each year. They are now IMPORTERS of gasoline from Saudi as they charge around $US8c a litre (!!!) at the pump. Bonkers. There its not Dick Cheney's mates its the Mullah's mates.In one, rather perverse way, the market may `enable` smaller oil fields to be developed. As the price of oil begins to spike small oilfields which have never been developed (especially heavy crude - costs more to refine) may be `worthwhile`but only in a very short term sense (ie they are small hence there isnt much oil there).
But remember even Iraq, if there was no other oil and current consumption levels remain static, would be DRY within four years.
I can go on...
But I better do some work/fit solar.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Cheers again, adz.
You touch on it briefly, but can you tell us anything about the comparative differences in the way different oil producing nations tax crude oil at source and at point of consumption?
I posted earlier the startling little factiod regarding the way the way we in the UK effectively give our oil away for free...
How does this differ around the world, and what are the effects?
[whinge mode]
I'm probably starting to sound like a stuck record here, but can we please try to stop talking of resources being 'economically' recoverable.
Resources deep below the ground may be 'too expensive' to recover, but this is a consequence of the input of ENERGY required to realise them.
Economics are entirely inconsequential to a kw/h worth of oil below the ground that requires a kw/h of energy to 'bring it to the market', no matter how many dollars you throw at it.
Repeat after me: 'Economics are subsiduary to Energy, Economics are subsiduary to Energy, Economics are subsiduary to Energy...
[/whinge mode]
Nano, me old china...
I was kind of hoping you might be able to address a few of the points regarding the 'market signals', as raised by Bernie.
I long ago dismissed the 'free market solution' as pure bunkem, but there may be many people reading this who are relying on you to give them at least something to challenge the conclusions drawn so far.
You touch on it briefly, but can you tell us anything about the comparative differences in the way different oil producing nations tax crude oil at source and at point of consumption?
I posted earlier the startling little factiod regarding the way the way we in the UK effectively give our oil away for free...
How does this differ around the world, and what are the effects?
[whinge mode]
I'm probably starting to sound like a stuck record here, but can we please try to stop talking of resources being 'economically' recoverable.
Resources deep below the ground may be 'too expensive' to recover, but this is a consequence of the input of ENERGY required to realise them.
Economics are entirely inconsequential to a kw/h worth of oil below the ground that requires a kw/h of energy to 'bring it to the market', no matter how many dollars you throw at it.
Repeat after me: 'Economics are subsiduary to Energy, Economics are subsiduary to Energy, Economics are subsiduary to Energy...
[/whinge mode]
Nano, me old china...
I was kind of hoping you might be able to address a few of the points regarding the 'market signals', as raised by Bernie.
I long ago dismissed the 'free market solution' as pure bunkem, but there may be many people reading this who are relying on you to give them at least something to challenge the conclusions drawn so far.
nanoespresso
New Member
He he he…
Bernie, Bandit, and Adam.
Ah. Honestly, my life would be soooo boring without you guys.
Where to begin?
Bandit, you seem single-mindedly determined to lure me into an argument over whether petroleum is limited, as though if I were to admit that yes, oil is a non-renewable resource, this miraculously proves that market forces are not the solution.
Well of course oil is non-renewable, it’s a physical entity which when consumed, is no longer valuable. This fact would be true regardless of the economic system in place, be it capitalism, anarchism, socialism, whateverism….
Entering a debate about whether oil will eventually run out, or whether this will fundamentally change our economies is pointless… of course it will.
The question that needs answering is how best to prepare for this eventuality? I’ve said it once before, and I’ll mutter it again: markets.
And markets measure value, not energy. I know you dislike this concept, but I can’t understand why. It’s fundamental. A barrel of oil next to me is worth more than a barrel of oil on the other side of the planet. A barrel of oil given to me now is worth more to me than one given to me in ten years time. Value, value, value.
What makes oil valuable is it’s potential energy yes, but also the usefulness of the media ( ie: easily consumed and transported ). Economists understand this, which is why they do not value equal amounts of energy equally. This is important because as we approach the days of reckoning, in order to minimize the cost to society, we must determine the value of the choices we have to choose from. Of course socialists understand this, however they prefer to assign value by some arbitrary and inefficient method. Markets have always been a more effective, and in the long run, less volatile means of assigning value.
Adam,
Your post was concerned about how geo-politics effects oil prices, as opposed to physical limitations. Here, I am even less concerned, as market forces will force both sides of the demand/supply equation to come to a consensus. Simply put, they need each other. The OPEC crisis put America into a deep rescission, thus vastly hurting demand for oil, and spawning new efforts to both reduce consumption, and increase supply. As a result, SA’s percentage of American oil imports fell.
However, as the world’s largest producer, even if SA does not sell directly to America, it will influence the price Americans pay at the pump, for oil is a commodity, just as it will effect the price Europeans, Japanese, and Indians pay… It’s a globalized market. What differentiates us is the tax.
[ edited to change 'with' to 'without'... how embaressing... You know i love it ]
Bernie, Bandit, and Adam.
Ah. Honestly, my life would be soooo boring without you guys.
Where to begin?
Bandit, you seem single-mindedly determined to lure me into an argument over whether petroleum is limited, as though if I were to admit that yes, oil is a non-renewable resource, this miraculously proves that market forces are not the solution.
Well of course oil is non-renewable, it’s a physical entity which when consumed, is no longer valuable. This fact would be true regardless of the economic system in place, be it capitalism, anarchism, socialism, whateverism….
Entering a debate about whether oil will eventually run out, or whether this will fundamentally change our economies is pointless… of course it will.
The question that needs answering is how best to prepare for this eventuality? I’ve said it once before, and I’ll mutter it again: markets.
And markets measure value, not energy. I know you dislike this concept, but I can’t understand why. It’s fundamental. A barrel of oil next to me is worth more than a barrel of oil on the other side of the planet. A barrel of oil given to me now is worth more to me than one given to me in ten years time. Value, value, value.
What makes oil valuable is it’s potential energy yes, but also the usefulness of the media ( ie: easily consumed and transported ). Economists understand this, which is why they do not value equal amounts of energy equally. This is important because as we approach the days of reckoning, in order to minimize the cost to society, we must determine the value of the choices we have to choose from. Of course socialists understand this, however they prefer to assign value by some arbitrary and inefficient method. Markets have always been a more effective, and in the long run, less volatile means of assigning value.
Adam,
Your post was concerned about how geo-politics effects oil prices, as opposed to physical limitations. Here, I am even less concerned, as market forces will force both sides of the demand/supply equation to come to a consensus. Simply put, they need each other. The OPEC crisis put America into a deep rescission, thus vastly hurting demand for oil, and spawning new efforts to both reduce consumption, and increase supply. As a result, SA’s percentage of American oil imports fell.
However, as the world’s largest producer, even if SA does not sell directly to America, it will influence the price Americans pay at the pump, for oil is a commodity, just as it will effect the price Europeans, Japanese, and Indians pay… It’s a globalized market. What differentiates us is the tax.
[ edited to change 'with' to 'without'... how embaressing... You know i love it
]Hi guys, thought I'd add my tuppence worth, if ya don't mind. Don't worry I'll keep it short ...
There's a good joke about economists that I think sums up Backatcha's slagging off of them. There's a physicist, a chemist and an economist stuck on a desert island. They are standing on the beach, wondering how to get off the island.
The physicist says "We could magnify the rays of the sun to light a fire and attract a passing ship's attention."
The chemist suggests "We could mix the sand with the rock to form a sealant for a log raft."
The economist, strokes his chin, lost in thought. Eventually, he starts: "Assume we have a boat ..."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More seriously, not all economists are ideologues, whatever some people say. There are many who are sensible. Just because economics has been dominated by certain, and historically odd, beliefs for the last two or three (possibly four) decades doesn't mean that the whole subject is a whole load of bunkum.
I think many of you would like the approach of economists like Keynes, Galbraith and Krugman.
Onto energy. There is an argument to say that the US is on a "deadender" strategy when it comes to its focus on oil, and there are indications that it is beginning to understand the cost that this has on its society. It is commonly understood amongst many that the US is over-reliant on foreigners (the Middle East for oil, Asia for debt), and this is likely to be a big campaigning device next year (though my guess is that the US public will only actually buy it in 2008, after a second Bush term has shown that the US cannot have its cake and eat it).
Contrary to the "deadender" strategy of reliance on unstable foreign countries for oil (ie Colin Powell's new best friends in, er, Kazakhstan - where the president locks up journalists and has just, well, moved the capital a few hundred miles), and the even more dead strategy of nuclear fuel (which makes sense as long as you put all the post-energy creating costs in a box marked "externalities" and dump it on the state), there are renewables.
There is a whole new economy beginning to take off in renewables and carbon trading, and some European states are realising it. Even - belatedly - Britain, which a few days announced an enormous scheme to develop wind farms. There is serious pressure from European oil companies, particularly Shell and BP, for this market to develop - as they think this is the post-oil paradigm, the new market that they wish to dominate.
However, personally I think this has to wait until Bush's two terms are over in 2008, and the US public realise that Bush was selling them a deal that looked great on the outside, but was actually a load of horse crap.
There's a good joke about economists that I think sums up Backatcha's slagging off of them. There's a physicist, a chemist and an economist stuck on a desert island. They are standing on the beach, wondering how to get off the island.
The physicist says "We could magnify the rays of the sun to light a fire and attract a passing ship's attention."
The chemist suggests "We could mix the sand with the rock to form a sealant for a log raft."
The economist, strokes his chin, lost in thought. Eventually, he starts: "Assume we have a boat ..."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More seriously, not all economists are ideologues, whatever some people say. There are many who are sensible. Just because economics has been dominated by certain, and historically odd, beliefs for the last two or three (possibly four) decades doesn't mean that the whole subject is a whole load of bunkum.
I think many of you would like the approach of economists like Keynes, Galbraith and Krugman.
Onto energy. There is an argument to say that the US is on a "deadender" strategy when it comes to its focus on oil, and there are indications that it is beginning to understand the cost that this has on its society. It is commonly understood amongst many that the US is over-reliant on foreigners (the Middle East for oil, Asia for debt), and this is likely to be a big campaigning device next year (though my guess is that the US public will only actually buy it in 2008, after a second Bush term has shown that the US cannot have its cake and eat it).
Contrary to the "deadender" strategy of reliance on unstable foreign countries for oil (ie Colin Powell's new best friends in, er, Kazakhstan - where the president locks up journalists and has just, well, moved the capital a few hundred miles), and the even more dead strategy of nuclear fuel (which makes sense as long as you put all the post-energy creating costs in a box marked "externalities" and dump it on the state), there are renewables.
There is a whole new economy beginning to take off in renewables and carbon trading, and some European states are realising it. Even - belatedly - Britain, which a few days announced an enormous scheme to develop wind farms. There is serious pressure from European oil companies, particularly Shell and BP, for this market to develop - as they think this is the post-oil paradigm, the new market that they wish to dominate.
However, personally I think this has to wait until Bush's two terms are over in 2008, and the US public realise that Bush was selling them a deal that looked great on the outside, but was actually a load of horse crap.
TinyCrendon
New Member
Backy - The different levels of taxation are indeed different. The countries that are going to suffer the most during depletion are those who tax the least, but also industries (especially airlines) who pay low fuel tax. Those who tax the least are the USA adn Iran, say in Europe it would be Spain (not 100% sure on that, maybe Italy too dont know their pump prices).
Bernie - Yes energy and economics are differnet...er...thingies. (technical term) Thats why I put them in brackets. Words lke `viable` etc etc.
Nanborg - Personally I cant see how `markets` will intervene in any possible way other than their normal one. Basically they cannot keep the price down, they can only `value` it differently according to consumption/availability and stocks. Again bascially, the price is going to go up and go up hard. Lets say that the general OPEC desired price is around $24 pb at the mo. Its a bit high right now but that mainly due to current considerations like Iraq, Nigeria, Hurricane Claudette etc. (I think so anyway, some people actually think oil production peaked in 2000, like Prof Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton and depletion is here now...bloody American radicals )
The low end estimates of post depletion prices (actually pre depletion but not long before as it were) is $45pb. Rene Baquis the special advisor to Total says it will be $75 - $100pb. The alternative to that market supply/demand factor ( rasied price due to depletion) is that someone artificially keeps the price down. That would be a huge disaster too. Because it only spurs consumption.
Also the method of keeping the price down is what? Probably armed force or economic threat. So that scenario goes...depletion>price rises>price forced down by...er..force>supurred consumption>hideous social meltdown. That hideous social meltdown comes when some countries have access to oil and others dont. Take India and China, they need huge amounts, but mainly at a very low level, things like car engines, tractors etc. Their populations, as with so many others, arent going to take that lying down.
It certainly is possible that the USA and EU could force cheap prices for a while, but not long, and it only creates a bigger problem coming even faster at the end...
edited to reply to freke - nice post dude, top joke i like that one. renewables is a good place to invest in . However there are serious considerations about renewables and their ability to replace oil.
Basically if depletion comes before renewables can supply the required energy then renewables will also spike in price. Because they are made from metals, plastics and so on...they need transporting and lubricating and parts need replacing etc. All of whose costs will bounce with depletion.
And you are right about economics, we should define what we mean when we talk about them (all of us on this thread i mean) because its a bit vague no? What i mean by `free market` is the Thatcherite/Reganite/Rothbardian/Bush-ian wankfest of anti social paternalist society-smashing activity we have now, not a planned and thought out set of trading rules applicable to all, which we dont have.
The ASPO chaps are amazing/amusing in that respect, there you get these big old oil chaps in their tans and suits standing up and proposing economic change so radical it would make Bush eat a whole bag of Pretzels.
Bernie - Yes energy and economics are differnet...er...thingies.
(technical term) Thats why I put them in brackets. Words lke `viable` etc etc.Nanborg - Personally I cant see how `markets` will intervene in any possible way other than their normal one. Basically they cannot keep the price down, they can only `value` it differently according to consumption/availability and stocks. Again bascially, the price is going to go up and go up hard. Lets say that the general OPEC desired price is around $24 pb at the mo. Its a bit high right now but that mainly due to current considerations like Iraq, Nigeria, Hurricane Claudette etc. (I think so anyway, some people actually think oil production peaked in 2000, like Prof Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton and depletion is here now...bloody American radicals
)The low end estimates of post depletion prices (actually pre depletion but not long before as it were) is $45pb. Rene Baquis the special advisor to Total says it will be $75 - $100pb. The alternative to that market supply/demand factor ( rasied price due to depletion) is that someone artificially keeps the price down. That would be a huge disaster too. Because it only spurs consumption.
Also the method of keeping the price down is what? Probably armed force or economic threat. So that scenario goes...depletion>price rises>price forced down by...er..force>supurred consumption>hideous social meltdown. That hideous social meltdown comes when some countries have access to oil and others dont. Take India and China, they need huge amounts, but mainly at a very low level, things like car engines, tractors etc. Their populations, as with so many others, arent going to take that lying down.
It certainly is possible that the USA and EU could force cheap prices for a while, but not long, and it only creates a bigger problem coming even faster at the end...
edited to reply to freke - nice post dude, top joke i like that one. renewables is a good place to invest in
. However there are serious considerations about renewables and their ability to replace oil.Basically if depletion comes before renewables can supply the required energy then renewables will also spike in price. Because they are made from metals, plastics and so on...they need transporting and lubricating and parts need replacing etc. All of whose costs will bounce with depletion.
And you are right about economics, we should define what we mean when we talk about them (all of us on this thread i mean) because its a bit vague no? What i mean by `free market` is the Thatcherite/Reganite/Rothbardian/Bush-ian wankfest of anti social paternalist society-smashing activity we have now, not a planned and thought out set of trading rules applicable to all, which we dont have.
The ASPO chaps are amazing/amusing in that respect, there you get these big old oil chaps in their tans and suits standing up and proposing economic change so radical it would make Bush eat a whole bag of Pretzels.
Cheers adzp. I'm a little confused about this thread though.
Are the anti-market comments here based on the belief that the markets cannot (or will not?) account for the depletion of oil through the price mechanism?
Surely if the market mechanism works (that's a big if!), then price signals would make other energy sources more attractive compared with oil and other fossil fuels (ie renewables) and would trigger investment/r&d into alternatives for oil (ie hydrogen cars or some equivalent that worked)?
Now, as its inevitable that, if demand stays constant and/or rises, that the price of oil will rise, and this is highly likely to trigger the above-mentioned effects, what's your beef anti-market guys? That they'll be a gap between oil depletion and replacement? That the market mechanism is failing to pass on signals that should trigger alternatives (if so, that's surely an argument for more market participation, ie arguing against OPEC, not less)? That oil alternatives are not being built up fast enough (though remember UK plans for wind farms announced a few days ago; look here)? That we should all (ie the US) cut oil usage even though prices (the dominant mode of evaluating supply and demand) don't reflect its rarity?
Re economists. Joseph Stiglitz (see here for a review of him live) is a good economist - though, it seems, very boring in real life. He wrote a good piece about the political meaning of economics in the guardian today. If he was more dynamic in person he'd be the true poster child of the anti-globalisation movement, IMHO.
Are the anti-market comments here based on the belief that the markets cannot (or will not?) account for the depletion of oil through the price mechanism?
Surely if the market mechanism works (that's a big if!), then price signals would make other energy sources more attractive compared with oil and other fossil fuels (ie renewables) and would trigger investment/r&d into alternatives for oil (ie hydrogen cars or some equivalent that worked)?
Now, as its inevitable that, if demand stays constant and/or rises, that the price of oil will rise, and this is highly likely to trigger the above-mentioned effects, what's your beef anti-market guys? That they'll be a gap between oil depletion and replacement? That the market mechanism is failing to pass on signals that should trigger alternatives (if so, that's surely an argument for more market participation, ie arguing against OPEC, not less)? That oil alternatives are not being built up fast enough (though remember UK plans for wind farms announced a few days ago; look here)? That we should all (ie the US) cut oil usage even though prices (the dominant mode of evaluating supply and demand) don't reflect its rarity?
Re economists. Joseph Stiglitz (see here for a review of him live) is a good economist - though, it seems, very boring in real life. He wrote a good piece about the political meaning of economics in the guardian today. If he was more dynamic in person he'd be the true poster child of the anti-globalisation movement, IMHO.
TinyCrendon
New Member
freklord - its the second of your points that there is no energy `bridge` between oil and renewables...that the price of renewables will also be hit by oil depletion...
The impact of oil depletion will effect EVERY industry from farming chickens to football to renewable energy sources. Hydrogen fuel cells are a case in point, they are made from plastics and metals. It would have been great to have loads and loads of them ready, but in order to do that we should have had this thread about fifty years ago.
Also take into account the external/knock on costs of oil depletion. Who is going to pay to replace their car/tractor/turbine engine? Not the big state owned ones but yours. (answer you are if you can afford it). Near 100% of ALL goods are transported (car, lorry, ship etc) many over long distances (70% of EVERYTHING has been shipped at one stage or another).
Of course oil will continue to be produced fro decades, but at what cost. See the comment above from Matthew Simmons...er...cut and paste Matthew Simmons "we need a new energy to bridge the gap (between oil and renewables) but there isn't one."
Im not offering any solutions thats true (re market etc) thats because afaics there arent any. Only the super rich will be exempt, to some extent the super poor (the majority of the global population now of course - 4bn under €2 a day) because they never had energy anyway. But imo the idea of the `middle class` will be finished.
Also see at the moment the coup in Sao Tome (over oil production) and the sharp drop in Nat Gas futures prices because the USA are stockpiling for this winter. (BBC and O&G respectively)
----------------
Stiglitz is a very good example of the notion that `economics` does not have to be on the Thatcherite/Reganite/BushyBlair smash and destory model which imo is fundementally `political` rather than `trade` orientated (ie aimed at destroying society for the benefit of the powerful)
The impact of oil depletion will effect EVERY industry from farming chickens to football to renewable energy sources. Hydrogen fuel cells are a case in point, they are made from plastics and metals. It would have been great to have loads and loads of them ready, but in order to do that we should have had this thread about fifty years ago.
Also take into account the external/knock on costs of oil depletion. Who is going to pay to replace their car/tractor/turbine engine? Not the big state owned ones but yours. (answer you are if you can afford it). Near 100% of ALL goods are transported (car, lorry, ship etc) many over long distances (70% of EVERYTHING has been shipped at one stage or another).
Of course oil will continue to be produced fro decades, but at what cost. See the comment above from Matthew Simmons...er...cut and paste Matthew Simmons "we need a new energy to bridge the gap (between oil and renewables) but there isn't one."
Im not offering any solutions thats true (re market etc) thats because afaics there arent any. Only the super rich will be exempt, to some extent the super poor (the majority of the global population now of course - 4bn under €2 a day) because they never had energy anyway. But imo the idea of the `middle class` will be finished.
Also see at the moment the coup in Sao Tome (over oil production) and the sharp drop in Nat Gas futures prices because the USA are stockpiling for this winter. (BBC and O&G respectively)
----------------
Stiglitz is a very good example of the notion that `economics` does not have to be on the Thatcherite/Reganite/BushyBlair smash and destory model which imo is fundementally `political` rather than `trade` orientated (ie aimed at destroying society for the benefit of the powerful)
freklord? eh? I hope you are not insinuating anything ....
I was not trying to be pro- or anti-market in my above post, just a little unclear of the exact reason why you were arguing against the markets. I think I am a little clearer now.
Not my specialism to argue that the markets cannot (as opposed to will not) provide that bridge - though I'm sure Nano can fill that gap (and then BB will pick it apart ...)
as you were ...
I was not trying to be pro- or anti-market in my above post, just a little unclear of the exact reason why you were arguing against the markets. I think I am a little clearer now.
Not my specialism to argue that the markets cannot (as opposed to will not) provide that bridge - though I'm sure Nano can fill that gap (and then BB will pick it apart ...)
as you were ...
TinyCrendon
New Member
freknibbles - no i wasnt insinuating anything.
from today .........
WASHINGTON, DC, July 16 -- In its latest half-yearly statistical report, the American Petroleum Institute Wednesday said gasoline demand growth in the past 6 months was the weakest it has seen since the 1990-91 recession. Demand was equally grim for jet fuel: during January-June, there was an "unprecedented" double-digit, 2-year decline in jet fuel demand, API said.
Reasons for the latest decline included higher retail and oil prices, the sluggish US economy, and bad weather that slowed travel, API cited. Total product demand slipped 0.2% in the second quarter compared to the same period last year, API said.
Additionally, total petroleum imports of oil and products now account for 63.5% of the US market—a new high.
---------------------
from today .........
WASHINGTON, DC, July 16 -- In its latest half-yearly statistical report, the American Petroleum Institute Wednesday said gasoline demand growth in the past 6 months was the weakest it has seen since the 1990-91 recession. Demand was equally grim for jet fuel: during January-June, there was an "unprecedented" double-digit, 2-year decline in jet fuel demand, API said.
Reasons for the latest decline included higher retail and oil prices, the sluggish US economy, and bad weather that slowed travel, API cited. Total product demand slipped 0.2% in the second quarter compared to the same period last year, API said.
Additionally, total petroleum imports of oil and products now account for 63.5% of the US market—a new high.
---------------------
Similar threads
- Poll
