Re: Cheap oil forever!
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 06/17/04
- Next message: Michael Vilkin: "Re: Money Supply, Credit Supply"
- Previous message: Jonathan Smith: "Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism"
- In reply to: Grinch: "Re: Cheap oil forever!"
- Next in thread: susupply: "Re: Cheap oil forever!"
- Reply: susupply: "Re: Cheap oil forever!"
- Reply: Grinch: "Re: Cheap oil forever!"
- Reply: Grinch: "Re: Cheap oil forever!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 22:39:18 GMT
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:32:50 GMT, Grinch <oldnasty@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 01:46:36 GMT, royls@telus.net first asked to be
>re-introduced to the concept of"'rent seeking",
Lie.
>then finally and
>kindly provided a trend line for us clinching the case made in the
>first post in this thread.
Lie. The trend clearly refutes the claims you made in the first post
in the thread.
>>On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:37:27 GMT, Grinch <oldnasty@mindspring.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:00:32 GMT, royls@telus.net proved himself as
>>>Mr. Empirical, Master of Data, once and for all, for all of us to
>>>see...
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:50:05 GMT, Grinch <oldnasty@mindspring.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 20 May 2004 14:01:39 -0700, "Darren" <reply.to@news.group>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:40abbe59.11937049@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is going to happen is that the price of oil will
>>>>>>> continue to rise.
>>>>>
>>>>>For exactly the same reason that increasing scarcity has steadily
>>>>>driven up the cost of all other finite resources that have been
>>>>>steadily consumed by humanity at an ever increasing rate.
>>>>
>>>>Not really. In the case of oil, a small fraction of the total
>>>>resource is under enough pressure that it can be extracted just by
>>>>drilling a hole and letting it flow. This extreme ease of extraction
>>>>meant that for over 100 years up until the early 1970s, real oil
>>>>prices fell pretty consistently as technology improved and reserves
>>>>that could be tapped in that way were discovered.
>>>>
>>>>However, since the early 1970s, real oil prices have risen (as I said,
>>>>and you denied)
>>>
>>>Yup, a steady rise from $70/b in 1981 (today's money) to $14/b in
>>>1998.
>>>
>>>Your data is as good as ever, Roy.
>>
>>This is interesting. As usual, you choose to baldly lie about what I
>>have written, but in this case the proof that you are lying is right
>>there in front of your readers' eyes. Look up about 10 lines. Yep.
>>There it is. I said since the early 1970s, not since 1981, liar.
>
>1970: $16.47 per barrel
>1998: $14.00 per barrel (2004 dollars)
<yawn> Look at the chart, Grinch. In how many years since the early
70s _other_than_1998_ has the real price of oil been less than it was
_throughout_ the 1960s and early 70s?
I'm waiting.
>OK, so let me read you more carefully.
More studiedly inaccurately, you mean....
>When you wrote: "since the early 1970s, real oil prices have risen"
I was referring to the facts of objective reality, as proved by the
real oil price charts I pointed you to, and you have been lying about
ever since.
>What you *meant* was: "since the early 1970s, real oil prices have
>risen and then fallen too so by the late 1990s they were at a level
>below what they were even before the rise started .... thus
>demonstrating a trend ever upward from 1970!"
No, because that is false. In only one brief period in 1998 did oil
prices dip below the level they were at _throughout_ the 1960s and
early 1970s. Through _all_the_rest_of_the_late_1990s_ they were
higher.
>I gotcha. We understand each other now.
<yawn> I understand you, anyway. Do I ever.
>> And
>>I did not say the price rise since then had been steady, liar. And I
>>did not say the end-point of oil price history had been reached in
>>1998, liar.
>
>Well, no ... but now you do seem to need to say 1998 was the
>start-point of the rise you said started in the early 1970s, eh?
No, liar, I don't. What _you_ need to do, and have been doing, is
constantly try to pretend that the sharp price dip of 1998 was
something other than what it very obviously was: an anomaly far off
the trend.
>>You have chosen to lie about what I wrote, as usual, and
>>insert the word, "steadily," which I did not say. "Steadily" would
>>more accurately be applied to how oil prices declined from about the
>>1880s to 1972 (though that decline was also by no means monotonic due
>>to wars, financial panics, etc.). What was _really_ steady was the
>>price decline between about 1957 and 1972. Prices since then have
>>been far more volatile, but the trend has certainly been up. Which is
>>why I did not say they had risen "steadily." And why, as usual, you
>>had to lie about what I had written in order to have anything to say
>>about it at all.
Notice, readers, that Grinch has no response at all to the above
_proof_ that he is lying filth.
>>>> in part because of geopolitical events but primarily
>>>>because the fraction of current oil supply that can be extracted at
>>>>such very low cost has been declining.
>>>
>>>So let's see ... after steadily falling for 100+ years -- in spite of
>>>the cheapest oil being extracted and consumed first all the time at
>>>steadily increasing rates, of course
>>
>>Right, because for most of that time, "cheapest" just meant "closest
>>to the required infrastructure," not "easiest to extract" in any
>>fundamental geological sense.
>
>You just love making stuff up, eh?
Look who's talking!!!
>That's why the oil business started in Pennsylvania, where they could
>kick a dune with a boot and get oil with 1850s tech, because "easiest
>to extract" had nothing to do with it.
There were lots of places where oil was easier to extract, including
surface seeps. Titusville was near markets, railroads, etc.
>And, of course, oil companies would *never think* of placing required
>infrastructure *where* oil was easiest to extract!
They aren't the ones who build cities, railroads, canals, etc.
>They just set their infrastructure up where it was more costly and
>extracted near it, figuring they could always cut costs in the next
>century! ;-)
<sigh> You are just sad, now.
>But in any event, *whatever* definition of "cheapest" you want to use,
>even *yours*, I'm glad you agree that the **cheapest was used first
>and yet real prices fell** for over 100 years.
>
>Interesting, that.
Only to someone who has no idea of economics.
>OK, now I don't wan't you to accuse me of mangling your dates again,
>so do please clarify:
>
>Was the increase that was "_primarily because_ the fraction of current
>oil supply that can be extracted at such very low cost has been
>declining"
>
>a) The increase to $70 in 1981 from $16.47 in 1970?
>
>or
>
>b) The increase to $14 in 1998 from $16.47 in 1970, which occurred
>after all that "geopolitical" stuff in the '70s and '80s settled out
>and OPEC's rent collecting market power declined?
Neither, of course. You have simply provided a tendentious and
idiotic false dichotomy, because you are incapable of constructing (or
understanding) an honest factual or logical argument.
>I'm trying to get my primary causes straight here. ;-)
No, you aren't. You are trying to confuse and deceive your readers.
Let me clarify what you have tried to obscure:
Between 1974 and 1985, oil prices were totally dominated by OPEC.
OPEC's power was decisively broken in the mid-80s, at which time real
oil prices declined -- to about 50% _more_ than they had been
throughout the early 1970s. Since then, they have fluctuated within
an overall rising trend. So sometime between 1973 and 1985, and
probably before 1980, average extraction costs bottomed out as the
fraction of lowest-cost production reached its highest level. This
reflects the _fact_ that new field discoveries peaked in the 1960s,
and have been declining ever since.
>>>but when an new cartel arises and sends out press releases and hits
>>>you over the head with a rent-seeking stick, doubling prices
>>>immediately, *this* is a normal steady rise due to an erosion of
>>>primary supplies. ;-)
>>
>>Which of course I never said, nor implied.
>>
>>):^|
>
>Well, you said the "primary cause" of the rise after 1970
No. After 1973.
>was *not*
>rent seeking by those OPEC fellows but rising cost of getting the
>stuff out of the ground.
>
>And really, the rise that most people remember is to $70.
But that is not what we are talking about, is it? That happened more
than 20 years ago, and has nothing to do with current prices or the
trend since 1986.
>So some might draw an implication there.
They would be wrong, as you are.
>Of course, if you meant the rise to $14 from $16.47 in OPEC's last
>period of political weakness, as that better reflected a
>non-manipulated market price, that's something else.
Garbage. OPEC has been weak since 1986.
>>The long-term world oil price charts at
>>
>>http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
>>
>>prove that your claims are flat false.
>
>Bwah! ha! ha!
>
>Roy, you've got to learn to read your own authorities before posting
>them.
I cited only the price facts found there, not the editorial opinions.
The price facts that prove you wrong.
>It's taken *war* to get prices up (and what have we got now?
>Terrorists attacking is Saudi Arabia et.al.? Is that "geopolitical" in
>your book? )
We've always got war in the Middle East...
>Continuing with your preferred authority....
Lie. Of course.
>"The Very Long Term View
>
>"If long term history is a guide, those in the upstream segment of the
>crude oil industry should structure their business to be able to
>operate with a profit, below $15.28 per barrel half of the time..."
>
>What??? Hey, that's *half* of what prices are now!
Oil companies that follow this advice and eschew production at an
average cost of $15.29-$20 would be stupid. Like you.
>*Your authority* says that. Kudos!
I cited the price _facts_, not the editorial _opinions_.
>BTW, looking though that page I don't see any support *at all* for
>your claims prices being driven up because of rising extraction costs,
>eh? Do you??
Yep. The price charts. OPEC's power was broken in 1986, but real
prices were still 50% higher than in 1972.
>Projecting a profitable $15.28/b into the future, *your authority*
>there is taking the "very long term view" that the cost of oil is
>going to stay the same as it's been.
Which looks pretty dumb, considering what the price charts show.
>Also, those charts seem to have been too complex and confusing for you
>to read clearly.
<yawn> You are just sad, now.
>Here's a nice simple clear one you might enjoy.
>http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld010.htm
<snicker> I did enjoy it. But it seems _you_ are the one who has
failed to read _your_ preferred authority...
"Note(s): Costs are calculated as the ratio of total exploration and
development expenditures to total oil and gas reserve additions
(barrels of oil equivalent), for the major energy producers reporting
to the Energy Information Administration."
IOW, when oil producers report upward revisions to reserve estimates
_even_without_doing_any_drilling_, you claim it proves that the cost
of finding oil has declined!
>>>And at the end this time reserves are at an *all time high*
>>
>>Reserves by what definition? Are you not even a tiny bit skeptical
>>about reserve figures showing no increase in reserves from 1970 to
>>1985, and then a near-50% increase over the next few years, despite
>>_fewer_ new field discoveries? Are you unaware that OPEC rewards
>>increases in its members' reported reserves with increases in
>>production quotas?
>
>Hey, Roy, aren't you even *more* skeptical about the 177 billion in
>proven reserves that just appeared in your own Alberta up there, with
>*no* new discovery at all!!!
They appeared because prices increased to over $30/bbl. That's not
"cheap oil forever."
>Tell us a piece of data, now: What's the average productivity
>increase in extraction technology in this industry??
Probably similar to that in similar industries.
>You know, as in: "with a 2% productivity increase we can extract for
>$0.98 this year what cost $1.00 last year"
>
>Give us an estimate. If it's 2% then in 50 years the industry will be
>able to extract for $0.36, and in 100 years for $0.13, what it
>extracts at a cost of $1 now.
>
>Or if the rate is 3% -- more realistic for manufacturing and minerals
>generally -- it will be able to extract for $0.22 in 50 years and
>$0.05 in 100 years, what it does for $1.00 now.
>
>Would you take 3%?.
>
>So, 0.36 to 0.05 give multiples of from about 3 to 20.
>
>Now, as I've already pointed out, we've already had a seven-year >4%
>growth boom with oil at $55 barrel adjusted for inflation and
>intensity of use.
>
>Give us a guess: From all sources, what do you imagine total oil
>reserves might be at from $165 to $1,100 per barrel?
>
>Because over the long run, 50 to 100 years, productivity gains of 2%
>to 3% will make such reserves available a real cost no higher than we
>paid during the "seven fat years" boom of the 1980s.
>
>Now remember, there's *six times* as much oil as is in all of Saudi
>Arabia in just *one* oil sands field. And then there is coal, tar
>sands, natural gas ... even conventional oil! I bet at a few hundred
>dollars a barrel even conventional reserves would go up some, eh?
>
>What do ya think? Give us a number for the productivity increase
>first.
>
>Really, we get 177 billion of 1.6 trillion barrels in Athabasca at a
>mere $15/b production cost.
>
>How many billion more at the equivalent of maybe $100/b. Or $500/b?
>How many Saudi Arabias might come out of Athabasca. Two? Three?
ROTFL!! Gee, Grinch, by simply applying the same "logic" to whaling
150 years ago, we really _can_ run the world on whale oil today!!
;^)
>>...Almost all of which increase in reserves occurred in the late 1980s
>>for political reasons, and represents upward revisions of the reserves
>>in known fields, not new field discoveries. The chart at the bottom
>>of
>>
>>http://wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au/teaching/N212/n212content/topics/topic5/03worldoilgas.html
>>
>>is quite revealing on that score.
>
>It's magic! I tell you, magic!
Well, I guess "magic" is one word for your claim that upward revisions
of reserve estimates without doing any drilling is "finding oil."
>Of course, as Asimov said, the effects of technology always appear as
>magic to the naive.
It was Arthur C Clarke: "A sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic."
>>>>>Although admittedly the geocentric solar system agreed much better
>>>>>with empirical observations of reality.
>>>>
>>>>What has happened to the real price of oil over the last 35 years,
>>>>Grinch? How about over the last 20 years?
>>>
>>>20 years:
>>>
>>>1984: $52 per barrel (2004 dollars)
>>>2004: $34 per barrel (average through May)
>>>
>>>You know, Roy, for a guy with such strong opinions you don't actually
>>>*know* anything. Eh?
>>
>>?? Oh, dear...
>>
>>It seems you slightly misunderstood what I was asking.
>
>What happened to the price of oil over the last 20 years??
>
>It fell.
And rose, and fell, and rose.
>Admittedly the numbers I gave above understate how far it fell and for
>how long, by giving as the end point the recent five month demand
>spike up to $34.
>
>Numbers can be misleading that way.
You should know, as you don't use them for any other purpose.
>> A starting
>>price and an ending price do not say what has happened to the price
>>_over_ the period. Oil peaked a little over 20 years ago, at real
>>prices it hadn't seen in 100 years, and then fell to a 1988 _low_
>>about _50%_higher_than_ its average price in the ten years to 1973.
>>It then rose and fell quite substantially, and at its 1998 minimum
>>(triggered by the 1997 East Asian financial panic) _briefly_touched_
>>the levels it had been at for a solid _decade_ up to 1973.
>
>You mean it fell to 15% below what it was in the early 1970s which
>*you* said was the low price point culminating the long decline.
>
>Then we get it rocketing up in 1974, and again in 1980-81
>
>Which *primarily* reflected true increased cost and scarcity, you say,
>eh? ;-)
No. You are just lying again.
>While the 20-year decline after the political events up to '81 passed
It was not a 20-year decline, liar, as the price charts prove.
>-- as OPEC lost its clout and RENT SEEKING ABILITY -- to *below* what
>the price was in the pre-73, that was just an aberration. ;-)
Yep. The price charts make it absolutely clear that the momentary
price dip in 1998 _was_ an aberration, just as the OPEC-forced peak of
1974-85 was.
>When rent-seeling diminishes, what do you expect to happen to price?
>Might it go nearer its natural level?
Sure. Which is why it was 50% above its 1972 level _even_ when OPEC
was completely broken in 1986.
>> Since that
>>_very_brief_ 1998 minimum, it has of course soared to _sustained_ real
>>prices far above the _sustained_ prices of the pre-1973 era.
>
>You mean, as *your source* said, OPEC then organized a new round of
>rent seeking -- do you know what that is? -- to get the price up.
OPEC has had little pricing power since 1986.
>>Now, as for the 35-year price history, for which you not so
>>unexpectedly declined to proved any response at all, you are of course
>>aware that the price from 1969 to 1973 was _always_ far below the
>>average price since then,
>
>The "average price" ???? Hello??
>
>Roy ... how does a bout of $70 a barrel from rent seeking and embargo
>affect *average* price?
Gotcha. Look at the average real price _since_1986_ when OPEC was
decisively broken. It's _still_ far above the average real price in
the 1960s and early 70s.
You are destroyed.
>Hey ... now if you *really really* think that $70 a barrel oil
>resulted *primarily* from supply constraint and increasing extraction
>cost,
I didn't say that, did I, liar?
>then you have the little problem of explaining how it fell over
>the next 20 years to $14.
It didn't. It only touched $14 momentarily in 1998. It wasn't $70 in
1978.
>An 80% fall over 20 years ain't an
>aberration!
<yawn> It also isn't what happened.
>>and that the low price attained for about 15
>>minutes in 1998 has been followed by much more typical -- i.e., much
>>higher -- post-1973 prices.
>>
>>>I mean, personally, before I went on and on with all these price
>>>claims I'd *check them* to make sure I wasn't making an ass of myself.
>>
>><snicker> No, you wouldn't. You didn't. And _you_ consequently
>>_have_ made an ass of yourself.
>
>ROTFLMAO. ;-)
>
>I *read* my sources, Roy.
<snicker> Did you read the note to your source that explained _how_
the cost of "finding oil" declined 75%?
>And I read *your* sources too. The way they agree with me, it's a
>pleasure!
You can certainly find opinions that agree with yours. Just not
facts.
>>>>>Meanwhile, we're all still waiting for our first observation of a
>>>>>mineral resource rising in price perpetually (much less running out)
>>>>>due to scarcity as a result of humanity's consumption of it.
>>>>
>>>>Do you or do you not understand that the real price of oil fell until
>>>>about 1970, and has been rising since then?
>>>
>>>1970: $16.47 per barrel
>>>1998: $14.00 per barrel (2004 dollars)
>>>
>>>Does "rising" have a different meaning in Canada?
>>
>>2004: $40/bbl. Does "since then" have a different meaning in what you
>>are no doubt pleased to call your "brain"?
>
>Bwah! Ha! Ha! Ha!
>
>In Canada "since 1970" means "in 2004"!!
It means _all_ the years since then. Not just one cherry-picked one.
>>>And looking at things another way...
>>>
>>>1981: $70 per barrel
>>
>>A peak it had not seen for 100 years...
>>
>>>2003: $21 per barrel
>>>
>>>... I'd probably say that 22 years constitutes a trend too.
>>
>>Oh? What happened to the $16.47/bbl in 1970 that you seemed to be
>>aware of just a few lines up? Or any of the other
>>_sustained_low_prices_ before 1973?
>
>What happened in 1973, Roy?
>
>Could it have been RENT SEEKING??
>
>Bwah! ha!
<yawn> Answer the question, pathetic idiot.
>Did you read your own source about 1973-81???
Yes, and many others.
>BTW, isn't it just an *amazing coincidence* how you figure that after
>130 years of general decline, extraction costs started their
>inevitable rise at the *exact same time* as this cartel, C-A-R-T-E-L,
>got together and began engaging in massive RENT SEEKING.
Given that I said no such thing, and you are lying, as usual, it is
not that amazing.
>What a coincidence, eh? Really, the inevitable rise of extraction
>costs could have begun on any one of 150 other years. What were the
>odds?
Garbage. Discoveries peaked in the 1960s. The low of average
extraction costs really couldn't have occurred before that.
>Today the Saudis are sitting on 260 billion barrels of oil that they
>can extract for a cost as little as $2/barrel, keeping it *off the
>market* to jack up prices ... and the problem keeping prices up is
>there's no oil left in the world with low extraction cost!!!!
<yawn> More stupid strawmen.
>>>Compared to *that*, do you think a one year price spike constitutes a
>>>trend?
>>
>>Look at the chart, Grinch. And you evidently think a one-year price
>>_dip_ constitutes a trend...
>
>What's the one year dip? 1970 to 1998, or 1981 to 1998?
1998 alone. One year. Remember? The _only_ recent year you admit
existed, and the _***only***_ year since 1973 when real oil prices
were _ever_ anything but _higher_than_ they were for the
_15_straight_years_ from 1959-73?
>Geeze -- you quote $40/b in support of a "trend"... and that didn't
>last even *one month*!
The peak couldn't matter less. What matters is that aside from a few
minutes in 1998 (the only year you claim existed since 1981), prices
have been well above the level they were at _all_through_ the 1960s
and early 70s.
>>>Roy, it looks to me like your long-term "trends" consist entirely of
>>>the three years 1973, 1981 and 2004 ...
>>
>>Look at the chart, liar.
>
>Ok, OK. Hmmm... I see two huge spikes from *rent seeking* in 1973 and
>1981, and down, down, down otherwise to $14 in 1998.
That is a flat-out lie.
>Then I see a rise all the way back to $20 in 2001 -- no higher than it
>was in 1949
Certainly. 1949 is another cherry-picked year, like 1998.
>-- which rise had to be manipulated through another round
>of *rent seeking*, well, at least according to *your authority*
Funny how you are so eager to believe the opinions that agree with
yours, but not the facts that don't....
>Then I see price bouncing around there for three years ($21 in 2002)
>followed by a *price spike* in 2004 when *simultaneously*, the
>economies of the US, Japan., China and India boom, there is a war in
>the Mideast and terrorists striking the oil industry in Saudi Arabia
>
>What do you see?
I see that except for _one_ year, 1998, prices over the nearly two
decades since OPEC was decisively beaten in 1986 have _always_ been
well above the level they were at for _15_straight_years_ up to 1973.
>>>Now here's a question for you:
>>>
>>>Three years ago there was a big milk surplus down here, and a
>>>recession too, prices fell real low, so a lot of farmers got rid of
>>>their milk cows and went into something else.
>>>
>>>This year there is a *boom* and milk demand is *way up* -- and the
>>>price of a gallon of milk has risen by *much more* than that of a
>>>gallon of gasoline! It's true!! And with summer the price of ice
>>>cream has shot up even more than that!! You can look it up!
>>>
>>>Now, reading the "trend" of this one-year price spike and its deeper
>>>meaning, do you conclude the nation is finally and forever running out
>>>of cows?
>>
>>One year does not make a trend
>
>Right! And *one month* at $40, does not make a trend.
>And *five months* averaging $34 does not make a trend.
Then why do you cite the same one single year, over and over again ad
nauseam?
>>-- not even 1998, unfortunately for
>>you.
>
>But...
>1949: $20.
>1998: $14.
Two cherry-picked data points. You know: the only kind you ever cite.
>Or since you don't like that how about...
>
>1949: $20
>2002: $22.50
1949 is another cherry-picked year, as the price chart shows oh so
clearly.
>> Contrary to your claims, 1998 was not the last year oil would
>>ever have a price, and the _momentary_ bottom touched in that year
>>(which, contrary to your claims, was not the all-time low -- that was
>>reached in the early 1930s)
>
>In the Great Depression? Was that because extraction costs fell? ;-)
No. Was the momentary dip of 1998 because extraction costs fell?
>>>Are you saying that they *could* provide a few days worth?
>>
>>No. Why do you feel you always have to lie about what I write? I'm
>>not sure exactly how much energy there is in all the whale oil
>>remaining in the world, but it's certainly no more than a few days'
>>petroleum consumption worth.
>>
>>The point is, you said the experts who said the world was running out
>>of whales and could not continue to use them as a source of energy for
>>very much longer were not looking at the facts. But they were. They
>>were right.
>
>No, they were *wrong*
No, they were _right_, as you yourself have admitted.
>Better brush up on that reading comprehension for the Mensa renewal.
>
>(Notice I am not saying you *lie* about what I wrote, just that you
>have trouble with comprehension. I'm a nice guy.)
You are a servant of Darkness.
>What I *said* was that the experts predicted fuel prices would rise
>and supplies would fall "bringing the Industrial Revolution to a
>grinding halt" because the wales *would* be killed off and coal
>*would* run out in Britain.
>
>But the wales were *not* killed off,
Uh, yes, actually, in point of fact, they were. The most hunted
species were in fact hunted to the brink of extinction (made possible
by that "increased productivity" of whalers that you now claim would,
if sustained, somehow increase the number of whales rather than
accelerate their extermination).
>Britain did *not* run out of
>coal, and rising prices did *not* bring the Industrial Revolution to a
>grinding halt, it continued on rather notably well. Zero for three.
>
>Now, what have we learned?
You? Nothing. As usual.
>The USGS says there's 80 years of conventional oil left with a
>probable production peak around 2040 or so.
Ignoring the fact that US production peaked more than 30 years ago...
>Gee, do you suppose that deca-trillions of barrels of oil in tar
>sands, coal, natural gas, etc and so on, might be able to produce
>enough to cover that gap, as technology makes economic extraction of
>reserves that we'd think of as having a cost of $165 to $1,100 a
>barrel today?
Possibly. But that's not exactly "cheap oil forever."
>Especially being that entire economies have *already* run on the
>stuff?
Not modern ones, and not very well.
>>>Trend or not?
>>
>>Certainly these data demonstrate a trend: your unmistakable trend to
>>dishonestly presenting cherry-picked data, on the few occasions you
>>present any data at all.
>
>Yeah, ain't it remarkable how one can cherry pick data from recent
>years showing prices in the same ballpark or less than the $20/b of 55
>years ago? 1994: $20 1999: $20 2001: $23 .... I mean, being that
>the price trending has been *up* for *so long*, with extraction
>costs relentlessly rising?
_All_ those prices are well above the _sustained_ prices recorded over
more than a _decade_ up to 1973.
>>Look, just go to the price charts at http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm,
>>Grinch, and tell us what you see. And for once in your life, try to
>>be honest.
>>
>>Oh, and I'll leave you with a question:
>>
>>1932: $9/bbl
>>1968: $18/bbl
>>2004: $36/bbl (2004 dollars)
>>
>>Your cherry-picked data showed a price decline of 30% in 50 years.
>
>No, Roy, wrong again.
It is fact.
>Mine showed *no significant rising trend*, especially not one due to
>scarcity or extraction cost after counting for the effects of the
>*rent seekers*.
As long as you assume there have been no years since 1998.
>I neither claim nor care about a falling trend.
Lie.
>My only concern -- as expressed *extensively* in the first post of
>this thread, if you actually trouble to recall -- is that oil stay
>under $55 a barrel or so, adjusted upward for continuing decline in
>use in proportion to GDP.
That's maybe possible in the medium term. But it's not what most
people would call, "cheap oil forever."
>>data are not cherry-picked. I just chose the all-time low price, and
>>the most recent price, and the price at a date midway between those
>>times.
>
>Bwah! ha! ha!
>
>"Not cherry picked" he says, projecting a straight-line trend from a
>Great Depression all-time low to a boom & rent seeking 19-year high!
$36 was not the high.
>Just for the record, when you are *really* not cherry picking you run
>a trend line from one cyclical high to another cyclical high, or from
>a cyclical low to another cyclical low.
Oil price cycles are too disturbed for such methods.
>So our *trend* is ....
>
>Constantly Diminishing Cost of Oil in terms of GDP!
That is entirely possible, given reasonably benign economic policies
in the USA (which are by no means guaranteed) and no big disruptions
like regime change in Saudi Arabia (also by no means guaranteed).
-- Roy L
- Next message: Michael Vilkin: "Re: Money Supply, Credit Supply"
- Previous message: Jonathan Smith: "Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism"
- In reply to: Grinch: "Re: Cheap oil forever!"
- Next in thread: susupply: "Re: Cheap oil forever!"
- Reply: susupply: "Re: Cheap oil forever!"
- Reply: Grinch: "Re: Cheap oil forever!"
- Reply: Grinch: "Re: Cheap oil forever!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
