PDA

View Full Version : O.T. Current credit crunches and the looming recession.



amilaninia
01-11-2008, 10:45 AM
Hi all. Ever wondered what makes the everyday news? Before jumping into conclusions about what you see or hear every day in the media, ask yourself two questions:
1-What is the root cause? (Can be as far back as Centuries ago).
2-Who benefits from it (Person, Business, Government). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

amilaninia
01-11-2008, 10:45 AM
Hi all. Ever wondered what makes the everyday news? Before jumping into conclusions about what you see or hear every day in the media, ask yourself two questions:
1-What is the root cause? (Can be as far back as Centuries ago).
2-Who benefits from it (Person, Business, Government). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

bhunter2112
01-11-2008, 10:56 AM
yawn

Bearcat99
01-11-2008, 11:36 AM
The same thing applies to this thread as the one on the dollar.. it won't last long... so think about it and if you have something to say get it IBTL..

Waldo.Pepper
01-11-2008, 11:38 AM
Thanks for the advice there Bearcat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I like dollars. Please send me some to the email address in my sig.

gkll
01-11-2008, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bhunter2112:
yawn </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yawn if you want.... however 'money as debt' underpins our entire economic system. It is enabled only by continuous growth.

Haven't seen the video but I am aware of this from other venues, underpinning our continuous growth and fiat monies is cheap and expanding energy, to date from fossil fuels. We bump into problems with cheap energy, growth assumptions will become nakedly untenable, the whole thing (based on trust and expectation) is in trouble. "the whole thing" being the current economy and cheap credit which underpins it. And money itself.

So yawn away, what are you, 80 years old and therefore immune? Or fabulously wealthy and therefore immune? If you're a schmuck like me toiling from check to check maybe you should take a rooster pill or something, sit up and pay attention.

We got problems surfacing with cheap energy, we got climate change, we got a looming problem with credit and therefore a real problem for the economy, we have a war with Iran in the works... who could sleep through all that?

As a young man I used to look at other times as the exciting ones (what it would have been like to live through say the early days of the industrial revolution, the war of the roses, the dying days of the Roman empire etc etc etc...), my time looked like boring upward trends and steady improvement, nice but boring. Looks like I was wrong.

I notice Von Rat is around these days, hey von remember our little argument about 'peak oil'? 2010 and its obvious I believe was my position.... notice anything about the price of oil? Are you paying attention? I'll move my projection to '2009 and its obvious'. 2008 has significant new production but after that... looking grim. And if 'peak oil' is imminent so is the end of fiat monies, to tie it to this thread.

bhunter2112
01-11-2008, 12:16 PM
read up on "Peak Oil" then you can worry.

Airmail109
01-11-2008, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bhunter2112:
read up on "Peak Oil" then you can worry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pffft many geologists believe we have enough Oil to last the next 100 years even at projected increases in consumption rate. Some dooms day people like to tout the opposite.

We're starting to find oil in places we NEVER expected.

bhunter2112
01-11-2008, 12:25 PM
I really am not on one side or the other but even at our current rate of consumption we do not have enough oil for 100 years. All the "easy" oil has been found and has peaked or will soon. US production peaked 30 years ago. Get ready for the oil wars...oh wait a minute.

gkll
01-11-2008, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bhunter2112:
read up on "Peak Oil" then you can worry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pffft many geologists believe we have enough Oil to last the next 100 years even at projected increases in consumption rate. Some dooms day people like to tout the opposite.

We're starting to find oil in places we NEVER expected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bhunter were you saying 'peak oil' to me...?? read my post again.

Airmail got track? CERAs Daniel Yergin is about the only guy I can think of is saying no prob... check out somre recent oil exec statements, some new turnaround positions by energy agency forecasters, it is slipping out into the public realm. Where is this oil you speak of?

Last year discovery equalled consumption=1986, no year since then has found more oil in a year than was burnt. Peak discovery year was early 60's somewhere. Current rate of discovery against consumption is something like 1:3 or 1:4, bad anyways. Reserve growth is a chimera... do some reading buddy this will absolutely affect you, and within 5 years is my prediction.

When the USA peaked in oil production long about 1971 the 'reserve number' (ie proven reserves) was at some kind of all time high. However the total reserve is not the issue, the rate of production is.... and whereas we may produce significant oil for many decades we will not produce it cheaply, hence the linkage to the fiat monies this thread started as. Nor will we produce at the same rate, that will absolutely slip, and by 2020 profoundly so.

The race &lt;should&gt; be on, for cranking on other energy sources before oil declines, however since noone listened to the sound science freely available for the last 30 years we have not started this 'race' and it may be over already. Rather like GW now I think of it.

No we will wait for the Market Gods to cough up a solution, too bad the market god doesn't have a human brain and can't think, plan or forsee the obvious, just react to the train that just hit him, instead of stepping off the track. Pffft to the invisible hand of the Market Gods....

Airmail109
01-11-2008, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bhunter2112:
I really am not on one side or the other but even at our current rate of consumption we do not have enough oil for 100 years. All the "easy" oil has been found and has peaked or will soon. US production peaked 30 years ago. Get ready for the oil wars...oh wait a minute. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Table 1

Assessments of Reserves and Ultimately Recoverable Resources




URR
Discovered
URR


1997
2002
2002

Saudi Arabia
300.00
299.00
320.00

FSU
275.00
239.15
271.00

Russia

187.00
200.00

US-48
210.00
189.00
195.00

Iraq
115.00
121.00
135.00

Iran
120.00
123.00
130.00

Venezuela
90.00
88.00
95.00

Kuwait
85.00
86.00
90.00

Abu Dhabi
80.00
77.00
80.00

Mexico
50.00
54.00
62.00

China
55.00
52.00
57.00

Nigeria
40.00
50.00
52.00

Libya
45.00
48.00
51.00

Kazakhstan
30.00
40.00

Norway
27.00
31.00
34.00

UK
30.00
30.00
32.00

Indonesia
25.00
28.00
30.00

Algeria
23.00
27.00
30.00

Canada
28.00
27.00
28.00

Azerbaijan

15.00
18.00

N. Zone
12.00
15.00
15.50

Oman
12.00
13.00
15.00

Egypt
11.00
13.00
14.00

Qatar
10.00
12.00
13.00

India
11.00
11.00
12.00

Australia
7.00
10.00
11.00

Argentina
10.00
11.00
11.00

Colombia
10.00
9.50
10.00

Malaysia
8.50
8.60
10.00

Angola
9.00
8.40
9.50

Romania
7.00
6.90
7.50

Ecuador
5.50
7.09
7.50

Brazil
12.00
6.00
7.00

Syria
5.50
5.60
6.00

Turkmenistan
4.50
6.00

Dubai
5.00
4.50
4.75

Brunei
4.00
4.40
4.50

Trinidad
3.75
4.15
4.50

Gabon
3.75
3.77
4.00

Ukraine

3.40
4.00

Peru
3.50
3.26
4.00

Yemen
4.00
2.80
3.50

Vietnam
1.50
2.68
3.00

Uzbekistan
2.65
3.00

Denmark
2.00
2.40
3.00

Congo
2.50
2.18
2.50

Germany
2.30
2.30
2.40

Tunisia
1.75
1.85
2.20

Italy
1.75
1.60
1.75

Bahrain
1.20
1.38
1.60

Thailand
0.75
1.20
1.50

Sudan

0.95
1.50

Cameroon
1.20
1.27
1.30

Netherlands
1.10
1.13
1.25

Bolivia
0.70
1.07
1.20

Turkey
1.10
1.07
1.20

Croatia

0.86
1.00

France
0.90
0.88
0.95

Austria
0.90
0.90
0.95

Papua
1.10
0.80
0.90

Hungary
1.00
0.81
0.90

Albania
0.80
0.72
0.80

Sharjah
1.20
0.60
0.80

Pakistan
0.70
0.71
0.75

Chile
0.60
0.50
0.50







1777.6
1760.5
1898.2

Wepps
01-11-2008, 12:52 PM
Oh God, not another one of these "I'm an expert I took economics 101" posts.

Airmail109
01-11-2008, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bhunter2112:
read up on "Peak Oil" then you can worry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pffft many geologists believe we have enough Oil to last the next 100 years even at projected increases in consumption rate. Some dooms day people like to tout the opposite.

We're starting to find oil in places we NEVER expected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bhunter were you saying 'peak oil' to me...?? read my post again.

Airmail got track? CERAs Daniel Yergin is about the only guy I can think of is saying no prob... check out somre recent oil exec statements, some new turnaround positions by energy agency forecasters, it is slipping out into the public realm. Where is this oil you speak of?

Last year discovery equalled consumption=1986, no year since then has found more oil in a year than was burnt. Peak discovery year was early 60's somewhere. Current rate of discovery against consumption is something like 1:3 or 1:4, bad anyways. Reserve growth is a chimera... do some reading buddy this will absolutely affect you, and within 5 years is my prediction.

When the USA peaked in oil production long about 1971 the 'reserve number' (ie proven reserves) was at some kind of all time high. However the total reserve is not the issue, the rate of production is.... and whereas we may produce significant oil for many decades we will not produce it cheaply, hence the linkage to the fiat monies this thread started as. Nor will we produce at the same rate, that will absolutely slip, and by 2020 profoundly so.

The race &lt;should&gt; be on, for cranking on other energy sources before oil declines, however since noone listened to the sound science freely available for the last 30 years we have not started this 'race' and it may be over already. Rather like GW now I think of it.

No we will wait for the Market Gods to cough up a solution, too bad the market god doesn't have a human brain and can't think, plan or forsee the obvious, just react to the train that just hit him, instead of stepping off the track. Pffft to the invisible hand of the Market Gods.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

numerous publications have appeared warning that oil production is near an unavoidable, geologically-determined peak that could have consequences up to and including "war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens" (Campbell in Ruppert 2002) The current series of alarmist articles could be said to be merely reincarnations of earlier work which proved fallacious, but the authors insist that they have made significant advances in their analyses, overcoming earlier errors. For a number of reasons, this work has been nearly impenetrable to many observers, which seems to have lent it an added cachet. However, careful examination of the data and methods, as well as extensive perusal of the writings, suggests that the opacity of the work is at best obscuring the inconclusive nature of their research.



Some of the arguments about resource scarcity resemble those made in the 1970s. They have noted that discoveries are low (as did Wilson (1977) and that most estimates of ultimately recoverable resources (URR)[2] are in the range of 2 trillion barrels, approximately twice production to date. But beyond that, Campbell and Laherrere in particular claim that they have developed accurate estimates of URR, and thus, unlike earlier work, theirs is more scientific and reliable. In other words, this time the wolf is really here. But careful examination of their work reveals instead a pattern of errors and mistaken assumptions presented as conclusive research results.



The Hubbert Curve


The initial theory behind what is now known as the Hubbert curve was very simplistic. Hubbert was simply trying to estimate approximate resource levels, and for the lower-48 US, he thought a bell-curve would be the most appropriate form. It was only later that the Hubbert curve came to be seen as explanatory in and of itself, that is, geology requires that production should follow such a curve. Indeed, for many years, Hubbert himself published no equations for deriving the curve, and it appears that he only used a rough estimation initially. In his 1956 paper, in fact, he noted that production often did not follow a bell curve. In later years, however, he seems to have accepted the curve as explanatory.



This particular example demonstrates a major theoretical flaw underlying the curve: for a closed system, such as the US gas market, demand determines production, not geology. (High gas transportation costs mean that overseas gas plays a trivial role in the US market.) Globally, the recent slowdown in demand has suggested to some that the peak has already occurred.[3]



That the curve appears to have some validity can be easily explained: a bell (or logistic or Gaussian) curve represents exponential growth and decline, which is typical of large populations and/or persistent capital stock. Oil production can only grow slowly in any mature province, as no new field will represent more than a small proportion of existing supply. And the amount of equipment operating can usually only grow fractionally, as industry finds it inefficient to maintain the capacity necessary to double its manufacturing stock in a brief period. Conversely, even with no additional investment, production decline will be slow as existing producing capital has been paid for and is allowed to decline and depreciate, but is not immediately closed in. Therefore, exponential growth and decline is normal, and while the bell curve is not necessarily the precise path likely to be followed, its presence is hardly proof of an immutable, natural, scientifically-determined law.



Revival of the Hubbert Method


The recent authors, notably Campbell and Laherrere have apparently rediscovered the Hubbert curve, but without understanding it, at least initially. Campbell and Laherrere initially argued that production should follow a bell curve, at least in an unconstrained province. But this is demonstratively not the case in practice: most nations' production does not follow a Hubbert curve. In fact, Campbell (2003) shows production curves (historical and forecast) for 51 non-OPEC countries, and only 8 of them could be said to resemble a Hubbert curve even approximately.



The authors initially responded to this weakness by arguing that the Hubbert curve could have multiple peaks, which of course means it would not follow a bell curve at all, and destroys the explanatory value of the bell curve. As the alleged value of the Hubbert curve lies partly in demonstrating the production decline post-peak, not knowing whether any given peak is the final one renders this useless, nor would the peak imply that midpoint production had been reached (indicating URR).



Recognizing this, the theory has been modified again, to "The important message from Hubbert's work, which is often forgotten by economists, is that oil has to be found before it can be produced." (Laherrere 2001b, p. 4) In other words, the Hubbert curve, originally held as scientific and inviolable, is of no particular value. Yet the authors have not only mistakenly believed in its properties, they have not been forthcoming about their own errors.



The New Research


Campbell and Laherrere claim to have improved on the work of their predecessors and resolved many of the problems cited by critics. (Bentley (2002) provides a good summary.) They actually use a variety of methods, although readers are not told precisely what methods are employed when. Two methods determine field sizes, one, usage of geologists' estimates of field size, reported by IHS Energy, rather than proved reserves from corporate reports or the trade press, to avoid the problem of reserve growth. And second, by graphing production against cumulative production for some fields, they claim to "correct" estimates for field size.



These estimates are then used in two ways: plotting cumulative discoveries against cumulative wildcats (exploratory wells) for countries and/or regions to estimate an asymptote, or leveling off, which represents the ultimately recoverable resource for that area. These are referred to as creaming curves. And cumulative discoveries are plotted over time and then shifted into the future to match against cumulative production. When cumulative discoveries begin to peak, so, to, does cumulative production, albeit as much as several decades later.



Opaque Work, Unproven Assertions


The lack of rigor in many of the Hubbert modelers' arguments makes them hard to refute. The huge amount of writing, along with undocumented quotes and vague remarks, necessitates exhaustive review and response. A later paper will provide more complete coverage of the debate, but the focus here will be on the primary substantive shortcomings.



Perhaps because they are not academics, the primary authors have a tendency to publish results but not research. In fact, by relying heavily on a proprietary database, Campbell and Laherrere have generated a strong shield against criticism of their work, making it nearly impossible to reproduce or check.[4] Similarly, there is little or no research published, merely the assertion that the results are good. (See below.)



There are a number of points that are taken by the Hubbert modelers that are crucial to their work which have no evident empirical or theoretical support. For example, Campbell and Laherrere (1998) states that "in any large region, unrestrained extraction of a finite resource rises along a bell-shaped curve that peaks when about half the resource is gone." The first shortcoming of this argument is that no countries have unrestrained extraction' everywhere, a host of regulations and taxes, among other policies, affect the level of exploration and production. And in fact, few countries exhibit production in a classic bell curve, which is sometimes admitted by Hubbert modelers. (Laherrere 2000)



Similarly, the so-called "optimists'" claim that technology increases the recoverability of oil resources is said to be incorrect without evidence.[5] Rather, historical production curves are presented and said to reflect pre-determined production patterns determined by "the immutable physics of the reservoirs." (Campbell 2002) For example, a graph of production versus cumulative production in the Forties field is said to prove that technology added no reserves since the graph follows a fairly straight line in later years, and even the use of gas lift did not change the apparent ultimate recovery. (Laherrere (1999))



This assertion, however, is not supported with any further evidence initial field development plans, etc. While the authors appear to have direct knowledge of some field developments, most of the results apparently come from visually comparing the curves produced on their graphs and assuming the behavior is pre-determined. The curve, viewed in hindsight, is presumed to follow the path expected from initial development, with no evidence presented of that. In fact, many of the curves might vary substantially from what was initially projected as a result of changes in investment, taxes, or technology.

Some anecdotal examples are provided, as when Campbell notes that Prudhoe Bay's proved reserves have grown, but are actually just approaching the operators' initial estimates of 12.5 billion barrels (Campbell 2000). Aside from the lack of citation for this anecdote, it is assumed, not demonstrated, that the reported reserves will not surpass that number. However, BP recently put them at more than 13 billion barrels.[6] Campbell states that he has many similar examples, but does not provide them.



Technical Data


A specific, telling example of this shortcoming relates to the proprietary nature of the database being used. Most acknowledge that the Petroconsultants (now IHS Energy) database is high quality, however, since it is only available for a large fee, few have been able to access it and double-check the results which Campbell and Laherrere claim to have achieved.


Figure 1 UK Reserves, Ordered by Field Size and by Date of Discovery.



That lack of access has served as the first line of defense for the two, who often respond to criticism with comments such as (in response to Lynch) "Your problem is that you do not have any reliable database (and the experience to use it)."[7] Accepting that the IHS Energy database represents more accurate assessments of reserves than corporate reports, relying on P50 instead of P90 estimates,[8] this still leaves unanswered the question of whether or not the field size estimates will grow due to technical advances, better understanding of the geology, and so forth. Campbell and Laherrere insist that it doesn't, without providing evidence.[9] If, indeed, the estimates of field size tend to grow over time, then the creaming curves would not be accurate, as the later part of the curve would be underestimated.



Finally, those who have had access to the IHS Energy database dispute the findings of Campbell and Laherrere, including the geologists of the USGS, who relied on the database in concluding that reserve growth is not only real but substantial (600 billion barrels; see USGS 2000). Perhaps more damning, personnel at IHS Energy themselves estimate global reserve growth at 373 billion barrels and total URR at over 3000 billion barrels. Where Campbell and Laherrere foresee remaining recoverable resources of conventional petroleum limited to 1100 billion barrels, IHS estimates it at over 2200 billion, a huge difference. (Stark 2002) Perhaps the creators of the database understand it less perfectly than Campbell and Laherrere, but that is hard to accept without further evidence.



Unsubstantiated Results


Virtually all of the work by Campbell, Deffeyes, and Laherrere relies heavily on graphs, with claimed correlations but no statistical results provided. Campbell (1997), is typical, where graphs are published showing giant discoveries, historical production and projected production for 22 countries. However, nowhere is there any indication of how a few data points yield a rich, even complex trajectory. (Note that no future giant discoveries are expected.)



It also appears that the authors fall prey to statistical illusions. "Creaming curves" are published for some regions, where the fields, when ordered by size, appear to yield an asymptote which is interpreted as evidence of an approaching limit. But ordered by date of discovery, the asymptote is not as clear, as Figure 1 shows for the UK. No explanation is given as to why ordering by size is more appropriate than by date of discovery, and in fact, the asymptote appears to be nothing more than a statistical artifact that is, use of a large population, ordered by size, will frequently yield an exponential curve with an apparent asymptote. This is especially true of oil and gas exploration, where basins usually hold many more small fields than large ones.[10] And indeed, when the 2001 discovery of the giant Buzzard field, estimated at 500 million barrels (Dafter 2003) or 70 million tones, is added to the UK curve, the new asymptote will be even less obvious.


Figure 2 Creaming Curves in the UK on Different Dates.
Data is from UK Department of Trade and Industry (2001). Developed fields only.



And it is hard to accept that this method generates a robust or stable estimate, when it can easily be seen that these curves can be created at different points in time, always showing a clear asymptote, but at different levels. In Figure 2, reserve estimates for the UK fields in production on different dates are used to generate hyperbolic curves, and they clearly grow over time. Once again, it appears that by ordering the fields by size, a false asymptote is generated.



Laherrere also notes the "good fit" in a number of instances between cumulative discovery and cumulative production, but has apparently done no statistical analysis of the actual correlation. Some countries, in fact, do not show a good fit, including China, France, Norway and the UK.[11] In this, he appears to merely be trying to connect the peak year of discovery and the peak year of production, primarily by shifting the former curve to match what he believes to be the two peaks. Since there appears to be no particular lag time nor any way of predicting it,[12] his primary conclusion from this approach is that a peak in production comes after a peak in discovery. The utility (and novelty) of this is hard to comprehend.



And in Laherrere (2001b), where he uses cumulative discovery and cumulative production, he again claims a good fit (admitting it is more qualitative than quantitative for France and the UK), but even for non-Middle East production (excluding deepwater), the precision of the fit is debatable. (ibid., figure 13) Since no quantitative details are provided, and twenty years of data are represented by a line of an inch on the figure, the validity of the claimed correlation is difficult to judge.

Deffeyes, for his part, publishes a total of two graphs relevant to his argument about a coming peak in oil production (pp . 147, 157).

The first shows a Gaussian curve assuming two levels of ultimate recoverable reserves compared to world oil production. (The next section explains the error in this approach.) The second plots discoveries and production (in percent) versus cumulative amounts, with a line which he says moves towards an asymptote. No statistical or quantitative data is published with it, and the fit of the discovery curve looks poor, with recent large discoveries suggesting that the asymptote is not valid. Certainly for such a startling conclusion as he reaches, more evidence is needed than one poorly fitting curve.



Misinterpretation of Causality


The primary error for Hubbert modelers is the assumption of geology as the sole motivator of discovery, depletion and production. In the work of Campbell, Deffeyes, and Laherrere, they go further, equating causality with correlation. This is one of the most basic errors in (physical or social) scientific analysis.


Figure 3 Forties Production, Annual vs. Cumulative.


"Oil is ultimately controlled by events in the Jurassic which are immune to politics" (Campbell 2000) and "...discovery and depletion are set respectively by what Nature has to offer and the immutable physics of the reservoirs." (Campbell 2002) The idea that production is influenced by oil prices (which determine the amount of capital available for drilling) and by policy choices in producing governments, which decide when exploration will be allowed, and/or set production ceilings, is considered foolish.[13] And yet, they do acknowledge restrictions on operations, particularly in the Middle East.



The argument that the drop in global discoveries proves scarcity of the resource is the best example of the importance of understanding causality. While it is true that global oil discoveries dropped in the 1970s from the previous rate, this was largely due to a drop in exploration in the Middle East. Governments nationalized foreign operations and cut back drilling as demand for their oil fell by half, leaving them with an enormous surplus of unexploited reserves. It is noteworthy that none of those pessimistic about oil resources show discovery over time by region, which would support this.



And two recent discoveries, Kashagan in Kazakhstan and Azedagan in Iran, reportedly would together equal over ten percent of Campbell and Laherrere's estimated remaining undiscovered oil. Statistically speaking, this is unlikely. Laherrere's argument that the Middle East is near the end of its undiscovered oil is entirely based on the assumption that the observed fall-off in discoveries was due to a lack of geological opportunities, rather than government decision-making. (Laherrere 2001b) To an economist, the drop in exploration reflects optimal behavior: they do not waste money exploring for something they will not use for decades.



A more technical example is telling. Laherrere notes that the first 1920 new field wildcats in the Middle East discovered 723 billion barrels by 1980, while by the year 2000, a subsequent 1760 had found a mere 32 billion barrels. From this he concludes that the Middle East is essentially played out, extrapolating the falling returns to drilling and stating that "This graph shows clearly that the belief by some economists that the Middle East has a great potential left is wrong" (Laherrere 2002, p. 10). He achieves similar results for OPEC as a whole.



There are three primary errors here. First, the assumption that the discoveries in 2000 will not be revised upwards (an error as discussed above), but more important, the presumption that geology is driving the trend and thus, it is immutable. But finally, the third error is more basic: equating all wells in the Middle East, regardless of location. In fact, analysis of country drilling activity shows what should be obvious: drilling in Iran and Iraq dropped sharply in 1980, following the Iran/Iraq War, and sanctions have kept Iraqi drilling at a minimum in the past decade. At the same time, lesser provinces like Oman, Syria and Yemen have seen increased amounts of drilling. Thus, by lumping them together with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc., as "Middle Eastern," treating all wildcats as equal and extrapolating the success rate of pre-1980 and post-1980 wells yields fallacious results.[14]


Figure 4. N. Comorant Production Curve.


And Deffeyes, relying on global production and the declining growth in production as evidence of resource scarcity is falling into a similar trap. National or regional production may reflect resource scarcity, but global production is driven by demand, and the declining demand growth since the price shocks in the early 1970s is evidence of greater efficiency and fuel switching, not scarcity. He is confusing geology as the driving factor, not demand.



Production Profile to Estimate Field Size


Finally, Campbell and Laherrere use production data to estimate field size, improving' on the IHS Energy data. By graphing production against cumulative production, as in Figure 3, they claim that a clear asymptote can be seen, allowing for a more accurate estimate of ultimate recovery from the field. The first problem with this is that there is no explanation for how often the method is employed. Laherrere (2001a) has many examples from around the world, but only a few per country. And some of the figures he used in Laherrere (1999), such as East Texas, which didn't seem to conform to his argument, have not been published in later works, unlike Forties, which is.



Again, field production data is not publicly available in most instances, so the method's reliability is difficult to test. But also, there is an astonishing presumption of causality, that the production profile was determined by the geology and nothing can alter it, and that the historical curve is exactly as anticipated from the discovery of the field. Because the line appears straight, they extrapolate it to the zero point. However, this is an assumption, and as shall be seen, an incorrect one.



Fortunately, the UK publishes historical production for all fields, allowing it to serve as a test case. (UK Department of Trade and Industry) Examining this data does confirm that some fields display a clear-cut asymptote. However, out of 21 fields whose peak production was above 2 mt/yr (or 40 tb/d), only 7 show such behavior. The rest do not show a clear asymptote (as in Figure 4), or worse, show a false one, as Figure 5 indicates. Clearly, this method is not reliable for estimating field size.


Figure 5 Murchison Production, Annual vs. Cumulative.


Particularly damning is the failure of Campbell and Laherrere to admit that some fields do not generate stable production curves, or to address the implications of this. If the behavior only shows a correlation in a fraction of the instances, then how can it be based on universal physical factors? If not, then why have the authors not explained how and when it works or doesn't' and what they have done to avoid misinterpretation? What assurances are there that Forties will not plateau, as N. Comorant did?

In any large, complex problem, there is typically a lot of conflicting evidence, and it is the proper role of a scientist to consider all of it, acknowledging that which doesn't support the theory and attempting to explain it. The repeated failure of these authors to do so implies that their work in general cannot be considered reliable.



Effect of these Errors on the Research Results


The various problems have a clear impact on the results of the forecasts generated by these modelers, particularly Campbell and Laherrere. (The former has been prolific in publishing production forecasts for regions and countries.) In a classic instance, Campbell (1991) projected UK production to decline at a rate of 10% per year, the same as the Forties field (Figure 6). This implies that there would be no additional supplies from reserve growth, new large discoveries, or small and medium fields. Yet as Figure 6 shows, this was not the case despite a lack of large discoveries. Indeed, as much as 400 tb/d of 1995 production was from small fields that were discovered before 1980, but not put on production until subsea technology made them recoverable a clear example of technology enhancing supply. (Adelman and Lynch 1997)



Although Campbell claims to have updated his estimates from the 1991 book using more precise field size data from Petroconsultants, it is clear that his work is still lacking. In his 1997 book, he projected that W. European production would peak in 1999, then drop by over 7% per year. In fact, production did decline by 2.4% in 2001 from 2000, but 2002 saw a drop of less than 1%. (The IEA projects an increase for this year, but that is not necessarily reliable.)



Another instance is the use of FSU discoveries to forecast that production will, "after a small rebound during the first half of the present decade, decline significantly after." (Laherrere 2001, p. 6). Compare that to the increase of 1.5 mb/d from 2000 to 2002, which is continuing; also, see Lynch (1997) which analyzed resource and cost data to argue that FSU oil was abundant and cheap, meaning that production would grow rapidly when fiscal, legal, political and transport obstacles were cleared.


Figure 6 Forties Production and the Campbell Forecast for UK Total.


And although they claim their methods yield reliable, stable URR estimates, this is far from true. Not only have they repeatedly increased their estimates of URR (from 1575 in Campbell 1989 to 1950 in Campbell 2002), but on an individual country basis, the amount of discovered oil now exceeds their 1997 estimates of URR for 30 out of 57 countries! (Above table) If these estimates do not prove valid for as short a time as five years, how can they be expected to hold true for the long term, as claimed?


Conclusions


The many inconsistencies and errors, along with the ignorance of most prior research, indicates that the current school of Hubbert modelers have not discovered new, earth-shaking results but rather joined the large crowd of those who have found that large bodies of data often yield particular shapes, from which they attempt to divine physical laws. The work of the Hubbert modelers has proven to be incorrect in theory, and based heavily on assumptions that the available evidence shows to be wrong. They have repeatedly misinterpreted political and economic effects as reflecting geological constraints, and misunderstood the causality underlying exploration, discovery and production.



The primary flaw in Hubbert-type models is a reliance on URR as a static number rather than a dynamic variable, changing with technology, knowledge, infrastructure and other factors, but primarily growing. Campbell and Laherrere claim to have developed better analytical methods to resolve this problem, but their own estimates have been increasing, and increasingly rapidly.



The result has been exactly as predicted in Lynch (1996) for this method: a series of predictions of near-term peak and decline, which have had to be repeatedly revised upwards and into the future. So much so as to suggest that the authors themselves are providing evidence that oil resources are under no strain, but increasing faster than consumption.

gkll
01-11-2008, 01:23 PM
Oooohh Im impressed its so looong....

Hang on im not impressed at all. This is 'debunk the Hubbert curve' stuff, fringe thinking. Hubbert curves are one of many means of assessing the issue.

Why don't you think for yourself and do some research. Note for the merest of examples the points I raised concerning discovery against production, just for fun. Did you think about these at all, or just jump to getting a big glop of stuff from somewhere to post?

Field by field production (bottom up) analyses for eg show similar to Hubbert, or do you maintain that we can produce more oil than the sum of that from fields discovered and producing, those found and under development, with a fudge for current discovery rates to assume the future? This type of analysis shows a peak in 2010 or so.

Im not impressed by a simple debunk of Hubbert's curve fitting methodology, I fit curves myself and this is not relevant. What is (somewhat) relevant is that the methodology was first used in 1956 to predict a lower 48 USA peak of 1965 or 1970 (King Hubbert made two predictions, with two assumptions). The 1970 prediction was correct. USA is currently producing ~ half what they did in 1970.

Now go ahead and post another glop I guess.... id rather hear your summary of what you know however much pithier and to the point....

Airmail109
01-11-2008, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
Oooohh Im impressed its so looong....

Hang on im not impressed at all. This is 'debunk the Hubbert curve' stuff, fringe thinking. Hubbert curves are one of many means of assessing the issue.

Why don't you think for yourself and do some research. Note for the merest of examples the points I raised concerning discovery against production, just for fun. Did you think about these at all, or just jump to getting a big glop of stuff from somewhere to post?

Field by field production (bottom up) analyses for eg show similar to Hubbert, or do you maintain that we can produce more oil than the sum of that from fields discovered and producing, those found and under development, with a fudge for current discovery rates to assume the future? This type of analysis shows a peak in 2010 or so.

Im not impressed by a simple debunk of Hubbert's curve fitting methodology, I fit curves myself and this is not relevant. What is (somewhat) relevant is that the methodology was first used in 1956 to predict a lower 48 USA peak of 1965 or 1970 (King Hubbert made two predictions, with two assumptions). The 1970 prediction was correct. USA is currently producing ~ half what they did in 1970.

Now go ahead and post another glop I guess.... id rather hear your summary of what you know however much pithier and to the point.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well what I know is that there are a hell of a lot of scattered reports coming through that people are fining a lot more oil than they expected. The saudis recently tripled theyre reserve estimates, Canada has found reserves that may be bigger than the Saudis, the russians are now saying with new technology their reserves will last until at least the end of the 21st century. Then there are nmerous new deep sea reserves being found.

gkll
01-11-2008, 01:32 PM
airmail posted:

The various problems have a clear impact on the results of the forecasts generated by these modelers, particularly Campbell and Laherrere. (The former has been prolific in publishing production forecasts for regions and countries.) In a classic instance, Campbell (1991) projected UK production to decline at a rate of 10% per year, the same as the Forties field (Figure 6). This implies that there would be no additional supplies from reserve growth, new large discoveries, or small and medium fields. Yet as Figure 6 shows, this was not the case despite a lack of large discoveries. Indeed, as much as 400 tb/d of 1995 production was from small fields that were discovered before 1980, but not put on production until subsea technology made them recoverable a clear example of technology enhancing supply. (Adelman and Lynch 1997)


Although Campbell claims to have updated his estimates from the 1991 book using more precise field size data from Petroconsultants, it is clear that his work is still lacking. In his 1997 book, he projected that W. European production would peak in 1999, then drop by over 7% per year. In fact, production did decline by 2.4% in 2001 from 2000, but 2002 saw a drop of less than 1%. (The IEA projects an increase for this year, but that is not necessarily reliable.)

END&gt;



I must admit I only read enough to recognize your post as a cut and paste 'debunk Hubbert Campbell et al' thing but the above really dates the source. Were you at all aware that UK production in fact has observably peaked in 1999, and that current decline is on the order of ~8% year? (somewhere close anyway..) So the 'debunk' has in turn been debunked, by actual events. Do some comprehensive research, eh?

Airmail109
01-11-2008, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
airmail posted:

The various problems have a clear impact on the results of the forecasts generated by these modelers, particularly Campbell and Laherrere. (The former has been prolific in publishing production forecasts for regions and countries.) In a classic instance, Campbell (1991) projected UK production to decline at a rate of 10% per year, the same as the Forties field (Figure 6). This implies that there would be no additional supplies from reserve growth, new large discoveries, or small and medium fields. Yet as Figure 6 shows, this was not the case despite a lack of large discoveries. Indeed, as much as 400 tb/d of 1995 production was from small fields that were discovered before 1980, but not put on production until subsea technology made them recoverable a clear example of technology enhancing supply. (Adelman and Lynch 1997)


Although Campbell claims to have updated his estimates from the 1991 book using more precise field size data from Petroconsultants, it is clear that his work is still lacking. In his 1997 book, he projected that W. European production would peak in 1999, then drop by over 7% per year. In fact, production did decline by 2.4% in 2001 from 2000, but 2002 saw a drop of less than 1%. (The IEA projects an increase for this year, but that is not necessarily reliable.)

END&gt;



I must admit I only read enough to recognize your post as a cut and paste 'debunk Hubbert Campbell et al' thing but the above really dates the source. Were you at all aware that UK production in fact has observably peaked in 1999, and that current decline is on the order of ~8% year? (somewhere close anyway..) So the 'debunk' has in turn been debunked, by actual events. Do some comprehensive research, eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Were you aware that the Saudis went from 400 billion reserves to 1.2 trillion. Yep the articles cut and paste, so what. Highlights a few points I like which are its not geological factors limiting oil currently, its political and economic factors. Theres plenty of harder to get oil, or oil turning up in strange places. That will be able to be drilled economically in the forseable future.

Not to mention unconventional oil (coal). When theres demand, itll become profitable.

gkll
01-11-2008, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
Oooohh Im impressed its so looong....

Hang on im not impressed at all. This is 'debunk the Hubbert curve' stuff, fringe thinking. Hubbert curves are one of many means of assessing the issue.

Why don't you think for yourself and do some research. Note for the merest of examples the points I raised concerning discovery against production, just for fun. Did you think about these at all, or just jump to getting a big glop of stuff from somewhere to post?

Field by field production (bottom up) analyses for eg show similar to Hubbert, or do you maintain that we can produce more oil than the sum of that from fields discovered and producing, those found and under development, with a fudge for current discovery rates to assume the future? This type of analysis shows a peak in 2010 or so.

Im not impressed by a simple debunk of Hubbert's curve fitting methodology, I fit curves myself and this is not relevant. What is (somewhat) relevant is that the methodology was first used in 1956 to predict a lower 48 USA peak of 1965 or 1970 (King Hubbert made two predictions, with two assumptions). The 1970 prediction was correct. USA is currently producing ~ half what they did in 1970.

Now go ahead and post another glop I guess.... id rather hear your summary of what you know however much pithier and to the point.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well what I know is that there are a hell of a lot of scattered reports coming through that people are fining a lot more oil than they expected. The saudis recently tripled theyre reserve estimates, Canada has found reserves that may be bigger than the Saudis, the russians are now saying with new technology their reserves will last until at least the end of the 21st century. Then there are nmerous new deep sea reserves being found. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saudi has not tripled their reserve estimates, no. I work with the Canadian oilsands, directly, and I know there are huge constraints on production rate. We will never produce over 4 &lt;maybe&gt; 5 million barrels a day, thats a guarantee.

Deep sea? You don't think serious students and analysts considering peak oil haven't included such? Do you have a clue what production rates are possible from deepwater off say the coast of Brazil? Do you know the expected production profile from some of this? Remember all the excitement about "Jack" that deepwater find Chevron or somebody was crowing about just before the last congressional elections? Turns out they aren't pursuing it after all, too deep, too challenging. Oops....

Next you'll be yakking about polar oil etc. As I say do some serious research mate you'll get a different picture altogether, very much different.

Sorry I sound pretty dogmatic, I have flipped from where you are to where I am now in 4 years, it takes some time to come to grips with the reality that sometime soon we get less oil every year thereafter, at a higher price. Right now at $100/bbl we got part speculation, part US dollar decline and part geologic constraint. However 4 or 5 years of continued economic health we will be at lower production and much higher prices, then it will be mostly geologic partly speculation and partly 'above ground constraints'..

'Above ground constraints' is the way the problem will be described, when it becomes obvious; if &lt;your&gt; lack of oil it is because &lt;someone&gt; won't crank on their oil reservoirs to supply your SUVs and easy motoring lifestyle you can whip up a little national frenzy and justify a little more aggressive action. If people understood that the problem was, at its root, geologic and not 'fixable' then they would be a little less supportive of overseas adventures to protect a 'non-negotiable lifestyle' (to quote Cheney et al). However that is spin, the problem is under the ground, in the end.

gkll
01-11-2008, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
airmail posted:

The various problems have a clear impact on the results of the forecasts generated by these modelers, particularly Campbell and Laherrere. (The former has been prolific in publishing production forecasts for regions and countries.) In a classic instance, Campbell (1991) projected UK production to decline at a rate of 10% per year, the same as the Forties field (Figure 6). This implies that there would be no additional supplies from reserve growth, new large discoveries, or small and medium fields. Yet as Figure 6 shows, this was not the case despite a lack of large discoveries. Indeed, as much as 400 tb/d of 1995 production was from small fields that were discovered before 1980, but not put on production until subsea technology made them recoverable a clear example of technology enhancing supply. (Adelman and Lynch 1997)


Although Campbell claims to have updated his estimates from the 1991 book using more precise field size data from Petroconsultants, it is clear that his work is still lacking. In his 1997 book, he projected that W. European production would peak in 1999, then drop by over 7% per year. In fact, production did decline by 2.4% in 2001 from 2000, but 2002 saw a drop of less than 1%. (The IEA projects an increase for this year, but that is not necessarily reliable.)

END&gt;



I must admit I only read enough to recognize your post as a cut and paste 'debunk Hubbert Campbell et al' thing but the above really dates the source. Were you at all aware that UK production in fact has observably peaked in 1999, and that current decline is on the order of ~8% year? (somewhere close anyway..) So the 'debunk' has in turn been debunked, by actual events. Do some comprehensive research, eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Were you aware that the Saudis went from 400 billion reserves to 1.2 trillion. Yep the articles cut and paste, so what. Highlights a few points I like which are its not geological factors limiting oil currently, its political and economic factors. Theres plenty of harder to get oil, or oil turning up in strange places. That will be able to be drilled economically in the forseable future.

Not to mention unconventional oil (coal). When theres demand, itll become profitable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Airmail the problem is flow rates not reserves. When you know what I mean when I say this we can have a conversation.

Show me a source (other than the Head of Aramaco PR guy yakking for the cameras) that shows 1.2 trillion.. Official is 260 billion plus give or take, never heard of 400 either.

Flow rates and EROEI are the keys, plus the export land model. Anyways have a good one mate, the next few years will show the goods. As I posted 2008 has new production should match existing and observable declines, after that it does not look good.

Luckily we in North America waste like 3/4 of the energy we use, we got some space to back up, for sure. However the economy and the fiat money system aren't going to like it at all, the relevance to the original thread context...

S! mate and keep your head up

Airmail109
01-11-2008, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
Oooohh Im impressed its so looong....

Hang on im not impressed at all. This is 'debunk the Hubbert curve' stuff, fringe thinking. Hubbert curves are one of many means of assessing the issue.

Why don't you think for yourself and do some research. Note for the merest of examples the points I raised concerning discovery against production, just for fun. Did you think about these at all, or just jump to getting a big glop of stuff from somewhere to post?

Field by field production (bottom up) analyses for eg show similar to Hubbert, or do you maintain that we can produce more oil than the sum of that from fields discovered and producing, those found and under development, with a fudge for current discovery rates to assume the future? This type of analysis shows a peak in 2010 or so.

Im not impressed by a simple debunk of Hubbert's curve fitting methodology, I fit curves myself and this is not relevant. What is (somewhat) relevant is that the methodology was first used in 1956 to predict a lower 48 USA peak of 1965 or 1970 (King Hubbert made two predictions, with two assumptions). The 1970 prediction was correct. USA is currently producing ~ half what they did in 1970.

Now go ahead and post another glop I guess.... id rather hear your summary of what you know however much pithier and to the point.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well what I know is that there are a hell of a lot of scattered reports coming through that people are fining a lot more oil than they expected. The saudis recently tripled theyre reserve estimates, Canada has found reserves that may be bigger than the Saudis, the russians are now saying with new technology their reserves will last until at least the end of the 21st century. Then there are nmerous new deep sea reserves being found. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saudi has not tripled their reserve estimates, no. I work with the Canadian oilsands, directly, and I know there are huge constraints on production rate. We will never produce over 4 &lt;maybe&gt; 5 million barrels a day, thats a guarantee.

Deep sea? You don't think serious students and analysts considering peak oil haven't included such? Do you have a clue what production rates are possible from deepwater off say the coast of Brazil? Do you know the expected production profile from some of this? Remember all the excitement about "Jack" that deepwater find Chevron or somebody was crowing about just before the last congressional elections? Turns out they aren't pursuing it after all, too deep, too challenging. Oops....

Next you'll be yakking about polar oil etc. As I say do some serious research mate you'll get a different picture altogether, very much different.

Sorry I sound pretty dogmatic, I have flipped from where you are to where I am now in 4 years, it takes some time to come to grips with the reality that sometime soon we get less oil every year thereafter, at a higher price. Right now at $100/bbl we got part speculation, part US dollar decline and part geologic constraint. However 4 or 5 years of continued economic health we will be at lower production and much higher prices, then it will be mostly geologic partly speculation and partly 'above ground constraints'..

'Above ground constraints' is the way the problem will be described, when it becomes obvious; if &lt;your&gt; lack of oil it is because &lt;someone&gt; won't crank on their oil reservoirs to supply your SUVs and easy motoring lifestyle you can whip up a little national frenzy and justify a little more aggressive action. If people understood that the problem was, at its root, geologic and not 'fixable' then they would be a little less supportive of overseas adventures to protect a 'non-negotiable lifestyle' (to quote Cheney et al). However that is spin, the problem is under the ground, in the end. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I quote

"Saudi Arabia now has 1.2 trillion barrels of estimated reserve. This estimate is very conservative. Our analysis gives us reason to be very optimistic. We are continuing to discover new resources, and we are using new technologies to extract even more oil from existing reserves." - Saudi Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Al-Naimi

I'm not saying peak oil isnt a problem, my opinion just is that oil decline will be more gradual than what you mainly hear in the papers.

This articles also interesting http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06191/704785-28.stm

Airmail109
01-11-2008, 02:11 PM
This is also interesting

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:KtktNvAQE5oJ:geology...n&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:KtktNvAQE5oJ:geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/pdfdoc/usgsoil.pdf+3+trillion+barrels&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk)

gkll
01-11-2008, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
Oooohh Im impressed its so looong....

Hang on im not impressed at all. This is 'debunk the Hubbert curve' stuff, fringe thinking. Hubbert curves are one of many means of assessing the issue.

Why don't you think for yourself and do some research. Note for the merest of examples the points I raised concerning discovery against production, just for fun. Did you think about these at all, or just jump to getting a big glop of stuff from somewhere to post?

Field by field production (bottom up) analyses for eg show similar to Hubbert, or do you maintain that we can produce more oil than the sum of that from fields discovered and producing, those found and under development, with a fudge for current discovery rates to assume the future? This type of analysis shows a peak in 2010 or so.

Im not impressed by a simple debunk of Hubbert's curve fitting methodology, I fit curves myself and this is not relevant. What is (somewhat) relevant is that the methodology was first used in 1956 to predict a lower 48 USA peak of 1965 or 1970 (King Hubbert made two predictions, with two assumptions). The 1970 prediction was correct. USA is currently producing ~ half what they did in 1970.

Now go ahead and post another glop I guess.... id rather hear your summary of what you know however much pithier and to the point.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well what I know is that there are a hell of a lot of scattered reports coming through that people are fining a lot more oil than they expected. The saudis recently tripled theyre reserve estimates, Canada has found reserves that may be bigger than the Saudis, the russians are now saying with new technology their reserves will last until at least the end of the 21st century. Then there are nmerous new deep sea reserves being found. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saudi has not tripled their reserve estimates, no. I work with the Canadian oilsands, directly, and I know there are huge constraints on production rate. We will never produce over 4 &lt;maybe&gt; 5 million barrels a day, thats a guarantee.

Deep sea? You don't think serious students and analysts considering peak oil haven't included such? Do you have a clue what production rates are possible from deepwater off say the coast of Brazil? Do you know the expected production profile from some of this? Remember all the excitement about "Jack" that deepwater find Chevron or somebody was crowing about just before the last congressional elections? Turns out they aren't pursuing it after all, too deep, too challenging. Oops....

Next you'll be yakking about polar oil etc. As I say do some serious research mate you'll get a different picture altogether, very much different.

Sorry I sound pretty dogmatic, I have flipped from where you are to where I am now in 4 years, it takes some time to come to grips with the reality that sometime soon we get less oil every year thereafter, at a higher price. Right now at $100/bbl we got part speculation, part US dollar decline and part geologic constraint. However 4 or 5 years of continued economic health we will be at lower production and much higher prices, then it will be mostly geologic partly speculation and partly 'above ground constraints'..

'Above ground constraints' is the way the problem will be described, when it becomes obvious; if &lt;your&gt; lack of oil it is because &lt;someone&gt; won't crank on their oil reservoirs to supply your SUVs and easy motoring lifestyle you can whip up a little national frenzy and justify a little more aggressive action. If people understood that the problem was, at its root, geologic and not 'fixable' then they would be a little less supportive of overseas adventures to protect a 'non-negotiable lifestyle' (to quote Cheney et al). However that is spin, the problem is under the ground, in the end. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I quote

"Saudi Arabia now has 1.2 trillion barrels of estimated reserve. This estimate is very conservative. Our analysis gives us reason to be very optimistic. We are continuing to discover new resources, and we are using new technologies to extract even more oil from existing reserves." - Saudi Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Al-Naimi

I'm not saying peak oil isnt a problem, my opinion just is that oil decline will be more gradual than what you mainly hear in the papers.

This articles also interesting http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06191/704785-28.stm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes that is the quote I was thinking of... he is as it turns out speaking of total reserves and not recoverable. And the Sauds are relentless optimists hidden behind a veil of secrecy. Independent views of the Sauds potential are not nearly so optimistic.

There is an increasingly small pool of countries that have not observably and provably peaked... it is getting very thin on the ground. Anyways I could yak forever, however I will back away now and just repeat myself...

S! mate and keep your head up

Airmail109
01-11-2008, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
Oooohh Im impressed its so looong....

Hang on im not impressed at all. This is 'debunk the Hubbert curve' stuff, fringe thinking. Hubbert curves are one of many means of assessing the issue.

Why don't you think for yourself and do some research. Note for the merest of examples the points I raised concerning discovery against production, just for fun. Did you think about these at all, or just jump to getting a big glop of stuff from somewhere to post?

Field by field production (bottom up) analyses for eg show similar to Hubbert, or do you maintain that we can produce more oil than the sum of that from fields discovered and producing, those found and under development, with a fudge for current discovery rates to assume the future? This type of analysis shows a peak in 2010 or so.

Im not impressed by a simple debunk of Hubbert's curve fitting methodology, I fit curves myself and this is not relevant. What is (somewhat) relevant is that the methodology was first used in 1956 to predict a lower 48 USA peak of 1965 or 1970 (King Hubbert made two predictions, with two assumptions). The 1970 prediction was correct. USA is currently producing ~ half what they did in 1970.

Now go ahead and post another glop I guess.... id rather hear your summary of what you know however much pithier and to the point.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well what I know is that there are a hell of a lot of scattered reports coming through that people are fining a lot more oil than they expected. The saudis recently tripled theyre reserve estimates, Canada has found reserves that may be bigger than the Saudis, the russians are now saying with new technology their reserves will last until at least the end of the 21st century. Then there are nmerous new deep sea reserves being found. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saudi has not tripled their reserve estimates, no. I work with the Canadian oilsands, directly, and I know there are huge constraints on production rate. We will never produce over 4 &lt;maybe&gt; 5 million barrels a day, thats a guarantee.

Deep sea? You don't think serious students and analysts considering peak oil haven't included such? Do you have a clue what production rates are possible from deepwater off say the coast of Brazil? Do you know the expected production profile from some of this? Remember all the excitement about "Jack" that deepwater find Chevron or somebody was crowing about just before the last congressional elections? Turns out they aren't pursuing it after all, too deep, too challenging. Oops....

Next you'll be yakking about polar oil etc. As I say do some serious research mate you'll get a different picture altogether, very much different.

Sorry I sound pretty dogmatic, I have flipped from where you are to where I am now in 4 years, it takes some time to come to grips with the reality that sometime soon we get less oil every year thereafter, at a higher price. Right now at $100/bbl we got part speculation, part US dollar decline and part geologic constraint. However 4 or 5 years of continued economic health we will be at lower production and much higher prices, then it will be mostly geologic partly speculation and partly 'above ground constraints'..

'Above ground constraints' is the way the problem will be described, when it becomes obvious; if &lt;your&gt; lack of oil it is because &lt;someone&gt; won't crank on their oil reservoirs to supply your SUVs and easy motoring lifestyle you can whip up a little national frenzy and justify a little more aggressive action. If people understood that the problem was, at its root, geologic and not 'fixable' then they would be a little less supportive of overseas adventures to protect a 'non-negotiable lifestyle' (to quote Cheney et al). However that is spin, the problem is under the ground, in the end. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I quote

"Saudi Arabia now has 1.2 trillion barrels of estimated reserve. This estimate is very conservative. Our analysis gives us reason to be very optimistic. We are continuing to discover new resources, and we are using new technologies to extract even more oil from existing reserves." - Saudi Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Al-Naimi

I'm not saying peak oil isnt a problem, my opinion just is that oil decline will be more gradual than what you mainly hear in the papers.

This articles also interesting http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06191/704785-28.stm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes that is the quote I was thinking of... he is as it turns out speaking of total reserves and not recoverable. And the Sauds are relentless optimists hidden behind a veil of secrecy. Independent views of the Sauds potential are not nearly so optimistic.

There is an increasingly small pool of countries that have not observably and provably peaked... it is getting very thin on the ground. Anyways I could yak forever, however I will back away now and just repeat myself...

S! mate and keep your head up </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL problem with the oil industry is everything is to scattered, no reliable central sources. Everyone says something different. The GW debate is far easier to get to grips with comparitively. Will research it more, althouh it'll make my head explode no doubt. Currently my opinions are based on a friend who's designed drills and operates them for Haliburton. I trust him, as he doesnt exactly love the industry.

DuxCorvan
01-11-2008, 02:22 PM
Why is having money so fun and talking about it so boring?

gkll
01-11-2008, 02:33 PM
Sorry about being sharp on this.... I have great impatience with the sheeple these days, and more with politics and media. We march like lemmings and propagate like yeast, for bad ends it is starting to appear.

However I can offer up "the oil drum" as an excellent source for detail on how this all works. Varying opinions can be found there for sure, and whacko moonbat stuff as well, but there is much much good info and analysis. Also the energybulletin.net for day to day reporting, both optimistic and doomer. It can be sorted out.

I like the bottom up approach where you sum the existing fields, add those in the pipeline with their startup dates, and then consider future production as a trend based on recent history.

Im outta here, have fun.

buzzsaw1939
01-11-2008, 03:56 PM
OMG... some one sees the world through my eyes, I was starting to think I was all alone!

Sheeple!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif I love it! Thanks the freash ammo! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Von_Rat
01-11-2008, 04:11 PM
oh god, not another "end of the world as we know it" thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

im 51 years old and every few years since i can remember, the world was ending for one reason or another.

i think its somthing in the human pschye that finds comfort in this. they should call it the chicken little syndrome.

Von_Rat
01-11-2008, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I notice Von Rat is around these days, hey von remember our little argument about 'peak oil'? 2010 and its obvious I believe was my position.... notice anything about the price of oil? Are you paying attention? I'll move my projection to '2009 and its obvious'. 2008 has significant new production but after that... looking grim. And if 'peak oil' is imminent so is the end of fiat monies, to tie it to this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i vaugely remember it.

i think it obvious that the reason oil is so high today has to do with speculating and the war in the middle east.

gkll
01-11-2008, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I notice Von Rat is around these days, hey von remember our little argument about 'peak oil'? 2010 and its obvious I believe was my position.... notice anything about the price of oil? Are you paying attention? I'll move my projection to '2009 and its obvious'. 2008 has significant new production but after that... looking grim. And if 'peak oil' is imminent so is the end of fiat monies, to tie it to this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i vaugely remember it.

i think it obvious that the reason oil is so high today has to do with speculating and the war in the middle east. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take it from your response that you read nothing between your quote above and your response, eh? Sure its long who can be bothered....

We are bumping into geologic limits on the rate of oil extraction, coupled with speculation and the fabled above ground constraints, however only the above ground will get play... as geologic is depressing and therefore bad for investor confidence and does not furthermore provide justification for foreign adventures....

When we had our little argument lo a couple of years back what was the price of oil? Maybe $50 or so? Now it is $100.... its all those foreign guys keeping the taps closed on purpose plus evil traders on wall street eh? Read the rest of the thread Rat, I like your sig, you seem to have promise. Check it out, maybe it is not all doomer moonbat stuff..... maybe we are actually bumping up against limits on oil production partly irremediable and based on geology.

Maybe we can have this discussion again in a couple of years, things should be clearer then. But not 2008, that is looking like another year of flat production (we have been unable to grow oil production since 2005). 2009 will probably show a noticeable drop of 2-3%, and the economy can't grow with that constraint.

gkll
01-11-2008, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by buzzsaw1939:
OMG... some one sees the world through my eyes, I was starting to think I was all alone!

Sheeple!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif I love it! Thanks the freash ammo! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Words are free, and sheeple didn't come from my brain.... but it fits eh

Pirschjaeger
01-11-2008, 05:01 PM
www.zeitgeistmovie.com (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com)

Fritz

Von_Rat
01-11-2008, 05:03 PM
actually i did read it. and i agree with Aimail101.

if the reserves are there and the price goes hi enough you can bet they'll find a way to extract it.

then again if the price goes to high then alternate fuels, like coal oil or agrifuels become ecnomonically competative, and you'll see a switch to those fuels. i believe i stated the same thing in that old thread.


war encourages speculation and rising prices, it has nothing to do with evil traders or foreign guys. its just how the world works.

JG52Uther
01-11-2008, 05:11 PM
Credit is the root of all evil.Follow the current British fashion:
1)borrow loads/max the credit cards.
2)stick 2 fingers up to the banks
3)go bankrupt

100,000 people a year (and rising) in the UK are taking this route.

partic_3
01-11-2008, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i think it obvious that the reason oil is so high today has to do with speculating and the war in the middle east. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it may be obvious but it is also wrong. It is primarily a function of massive inflation and inelastic supply. See here - http://www.safehaven.com/article-9191.htm.
- and maybe start to worry.

Airmail109
01-11-2008, 07:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Credit is the root of all evil.Follow the current British fashion:
1)borrow loads/max the credit cards.
2)stick 2 fingers up to the banks
3)go bankrupt

100,000 people a year (and rising) in the UK are taking this route. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Are we really seen like this by other countries?

Bearcat99
01-11-2008, 10:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
I have great impatience with the sheeple these days...... We march like lemmings and propagate like yeast, for bad ends it is starting to appear.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man o man that has a ring to it... [i]we march like lemmings and propagate like yeast..."

gkll
01-12-2008, 12:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
actually i did read it. and i agree with Aimail101.

if the reserves are there and the price goes hi enough you can bet they'll find a way to extract it.

then again if the price goes to high then alternate fuels, like coal oil or agrifuels become ecnomonically competative, and you'll see a switch to those fuels. i believe i stated the same thing in that old thread.


war encourages speculation and rising prices, it has nothing to do with evil traders or foreign guys. its just how the world works. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you'd be surprized to know I agree with you that we'll find a way to extract what we have found. And that alternative fuels will be pursued as well... thats not the point though...

We will be pumping oil prob 100 years from now. That is &lt;not at all&gt; in conflict with declining flow rates starting soon. Really.


me and my peak oil whacko moonbat consipiricist buddys have been right on price quite a number of years running... not perfect but pretty fair. But the official numbers are terrible, terrible. Listening to the pundits you'd have been real surprised for years in a row now... and if youd based investment on the basis of their predictions youd have lost your shirt

Sure some of the price is the (probable?) war with Iran, lot of people are spooking the price, they see war clouds. And some is speculation too no doubt. But much is pure supply issues. And that will increase.

Of course we get actual war with Iran, oil goes to $200 a barrel. Follow the money on that one.... LOL

Long to middle term we can get things sorted, maybe. Im hoping. Human beings with brains are going to have to sort this one out though, neither the High priests of the Market nor lo the mighty Market God himself can handle this one. We're gonna need a plan.

Von_Rat
01-12-2008, 12:33 AM
i think you'd be suprised at how we' find a way to cope.

when huge amounts of money are involved, or national welfare, people tend to be able to literally move mountains.

just look at the germans during ww2 and what they accomplished in a short period of time with hydroization (is that term right}, despite getting bombed.

i think plans are already being laid, isnt BP already getting into alt fuels?

top down planning is usually the worst way to go, although sometimes it may be necessary.

if im not mistaken the u.s. war industry mobilzation was mostly handle by industry itself. with of course goverment incentives and prodding.

speers reorganzation of german industry was also handled by letting industry decide the best ways to improve production.

high prices wont end civilzation, it would take lack of supply (read reserves) or alternnatives to do that.

Badsight-
01-12-2008, 12:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
However 4 or 5 years of continued economic health we will be at lower production and much higher prices, then it will be mostly geologic partly speculation and partly 'above ground constraints' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>QFT


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
high prices wont end civilzation, it would take lack of supply (read reserves) or alternnatives to do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>no . on its own oil wont end mass lives

it takes armies to wipe out large numbers quickly

or bombs

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Horus didnt start a global movement :-)

Messaschnitzel
01-12-2008, 02:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Credit is the root of all evil.Follow the current British fashion:
1)borrow loads/max the credit cards.
2)stick 2 fingers up to the banks
3)go bankrupt

100,000 people a year (and rising) in the UK are taking this route. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same thing was happening in the U.S. as well. This is the result:

"On April 20, 2005, President Bush signed into law the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA"). BAPCPA made substantial changes to the Bankruptcy Code."

Now, it is much more difficult to be able to walk away 100% from debt. Don't worry though. More likely sooner than later the same thing will happen in the U.K.

Pirschjaeger
01-12-2008, 03:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Horus didnt start a global movement :-) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Part one doesn't really fit in with part two and part three but I guess due the title it was sort of necessary. Besides, Horus wasn't the original anyway. He was a rip-off from Mesopotamia.

But one and two are quite interesting, especially regarding Hitler's fuel supplier.

About a month or so ago another member sparked my interest in American politics. A little further searching and I found it was somewhat like a soap opera. To my amazement, it's been turned into a strange form of entertainment. It's almost a reality show. Imagine, all the hype and the election is almost a year away. WTF?

Anyways, I hope the American people vote for their constitution. That would be the American thing to do, me thinks.

Fritz

Badsight-
01-12-2008, 03:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Besides, Horus wasn't the original anyway. He was a rip-off from Mesopotamia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>& the guys in that area were working off the original statement :-)

what most seem to fail to grasp is why this counter-productive evolutionay trait is so ingrained in our psyche . it came from somewhere & was repeated in differing civilisations

but i digress , the US political system can be intriguing . from an outsiders POV , its crazy!

a real month by month trial-by-media

americans really only have the 2 partys , they both are as bad as the other . & whichever gets in the status-quo carries on

what im really surprised at , isnt a woman getting the votes that she is - but that a african american whose from a muslim family (& with the hussien name!) is in the race with her

10 years ago id have found the former hard to believe alone , besides the latter!

every country has its backwards racist hicks

but the ones living in the states must be having fits

JG52Uther
01-12-2008, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Credit is the root of all evil.Follow the current British fashion:
1)borrow loads/max the credit cards.
2)stick 2 fingers up to the banks
3)go bankrupt

100,000 people a year (and rising) in the UK are taking this route. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Are we really seen like this by other countries? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't know mate.I am British http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
I think it is harder to do in other countries,but here in the UK its not hard at all.

Airmail109
01-12-2008, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Credit is the root of all evil.Follow the current British fashion:
1)borrow loads/max the credit cards.
2)stick 2 fingers up to the banks
3)go bankrupt

100,000 people a year (and rising) in the UK are taking this route. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same thing was happening in the U.S. as well. This is the result:

"On April 20, 2005, President Bush signed into law the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA"). BAPCPA made substantial changes to the Bankruptcy Code."

Now, it is much more difficult to be able to walk away 100% from debt. Don't worry though. More likely sooner than later the same thing will happen in the U.K. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know.

House prices are so astronomically huge over here compared to in the states, that any government that tried to introdce such a bill would soon loose a LOT of popularity. People arnt going to want the worry of even more problems if they choose to borrow to buy a house.

I'ts not been talked about at all over here.

JG52Uther
01-12-2008, 08:06 AM
Well I am surprised that the government here has not been pressurised by the banks to step in.Most people are in and out of bankruptcy within 6 months here now.

gkll
01-12-2008, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i think you'd be suprised at how we' find a way to cope.

when huge amounts of money are involved, or national welfare, people tend to be able to literally move mountains.

just look at the germans during ww2 and what they accomplished in a short period of time with hydroization (is that term right}, despite getting bombed.

i think plans are already being laid, isnt BP already getting into alt fuels?

top down planning is usually the worst way to go, although sometimes it may be necessary.

if im not mistaken the u.s. war industry mobilzation was mostly handle by industry itself. with of course goverment incentives and prodding.

speers reorganzation of german industry was also handled by letting industry decide the best ways to improve production.

high prices wont end civilzation, it would take lack of supply (read reserves) or alternnatives to do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still say you need a plan, based on the logically forseeable. Otherwise a gap opens up. Most of the analysts &lt;are&gt; assuming alternative fuels, ie the declines spoken of are &lt;including&gt; max effort on alternative fuel, it is a 'liquid fuel' issue not a crude oil issue. All I have said should have been qualified as such.

The market reacts too late, it reacts to the event (decline) as it happens and not before. And decline is too fast to be made up by alternates. Lot of problems making the transition when the economy is concerned with a fundamental like 'can't grow.... MUST grow.... doh!' ie the economy may tank as the basis of ongoing expansion is removed.

Carter back in the late 70's had some fabled 'fireside chat', he wore a cardigan and urged Americans to turn down the thermostat'. He was laughed out of office and Reagan took the solar panels off the roof. However in wretched hingsight Carter was exactly right, with several decades sustained effort we could be well into the new systems... cest la vie now though.

So a gap opens up between supply and demand for liquid fuels and the money and energy for a transition are spent keeping the lights on and providing fuel for agriculture, all the alternative stuff not capable of immediate use may not happen.

Its a timing thing. You need as I say human brains to forsee the obvious and make a plan.

Once the price signal is strong governments should largely step back and let initiative develop the details, sure. However prior to the price signal... well that IS (should have been...) the real transition period. Too late now I fear, it may not be catastrophic but it will be uncomfortable as the 'non-essential' parts of the economy successively fail for lack of energy. Dont take up a career as part of the mult-billion dollar cosmetics industry, we won't need those anymore. Stay away from a private business in grooming and dressing exotic cats either. Stick with the basics we are short on time. Food fuel shelter communications, clean water that sort of thing.

Von_Rat
01-12-2008, 01:08 PM
all im saying is if the pressures great enough the transition wont take decades. in ww2 economies transformed almost overnite. in germanys case this included energy sources.


it might be a little painful, but then change always is.

Badsight-
01-12-2008, 01:43 PM
so your saying change is coming , but dont worry

corporations & governments will become so desperate that they will find the solutions

that is sounding entirely like the ostrich

Messaschnitzel
01-12-2008, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
The same thing was happening in the U.S. as well. This is the result:

"On April 20, 2005, President Bush signed into law the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA"). BAPCPA made substantial changes to the Bankruptcy Code."

Now, it is much more difficult to be able to walk away 100% from debt. Don't worry though. More likely sooner than later the same thing will happen in the U.K. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know.

House prices are so astronomically huge over here compared to in the states, that any government that tried to introdce such a bill would soon loose a LOT of popularity. People arnt going to want the worry of even more problems if they choose to borrow to buy a house.

I'ts not been talked about at all over here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll bet that if the situation gets worse there in the U.K., there will be something done about it. Here in the States, banks will still mail unsolicited offers to anyone. The temptation to pick up a low interest rate credit card is great, especially when one is already in financial bad shape. The devil is in the details of the fine print on the back of the offer that apparently no one bothers to read when applying for the card.

Details such as if one misses an electrical or telephone payment, the interest rate on the card will reset from 2.8% to 21+%. Banks and other lending institutions are partly responsible for the current credit and housing situation in the U.S. Private individuals who take up these ridiculous offers are also responsible in part.

As I have stated before, I believe in personal responsibility. If I see or hear of an offer for anything, I am immediately suspicious. A lot of people have fallen for these types of offers, such as zero down, zero or low interest payments for a $650,000 home loan that they cannot realistically afford in the first place. Doesn't this make anyone suspicious when they hear of such an offer, or was P.T. Barnum correct in his famous statement?

I think that like here, the banks in the U.K. will eventually do something about it by either influencing politicians through bankruptcy laws, or like here, with bankruptcy laws and banks themselves restricting credit. I believe that the lending institutions have finally realized for at least momentarily, that there is not much profit in extending credit to potential defaulters in the hope that sheer numbers of card holders will make up the difference. Keep in mind that greed drives banks, not altruism. As soon as the storm blows over, the banks will conducting business as usual.

Von_Rat
01-12-2008, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
so your saying change is coming , but dont worry

corporations & governments will become so desperate that they will find the solutions

that is sounding entirely like the ostrich </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


look at history, its how the world works.

it may not be perfect, but it does work out.


change is always coming, if you worry about it to much you wont live long.

may i remind you the ostrich has been around alot longer then we have. it must be from not worrying so much. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Von_Rat
01-12-2008, 02:13 PM
jeez alot of doom and gloom threads, and posters on these forums lately.

you guys are a depressing bunch.

it must be the winter weather. try some vitimin d or whatever. maybe with a side of lithium.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

DuxCorvan
01-12-2008, 02:16 PM
Well, guess what, I'm 36 and I'm living with my elders. And it's not a choice. I just can't afford to buy or rent an apartment in the town where I work with my salary. It's necessary to have a working gf or wife to do that, because due to the low salaries and incredibly high price of housing in Spain, you need TWO salaries: one to eat and the other one to pay the rent/mortgage. I'd need to earn five times my salary, or have an existing mortgage for 120 years to pay a common flat, one where I don't need to lose weight to close the door, where I'm not immediately stabbed in the back if I step on the street, or where I don't need Scotty to teletransport me if I want to be at work in time.

And I'm one of the fortunates: mine is a really steady job. Most jobs around here are equally bad paid, but besides they're just short-term contracts. No bank gives you a sh*t with that.

So stop trying to look in trouble: I'm a single not-so-young man who has to pay a room in a hotel every time he picks up a sweetie.

I feel like I'm bringing a hook*r.

Von_Rat
01-12-2008, 02:24 PM
we all have problems. at one time i had ones almost exactly like yours.

guess what, it worked out in the end.


but i guess your saying, my life sucks so im going on the internet to cry "the end is near" in a bunch of threads. that makes sense. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

actually i always thought of you as a more light hearted kinda guy.

Messaschnitzel
01-12-2008, 02:46 PM
I haven't seen anything posted about a future industry/government push for nuclear energy here on the forum. I think that it is unfortunately inevitable that even with the reluctance of Americans about nuclear energy, they would be more open to the idea once there were any sustained energy difficulties in the future. Most people here in the States like a lifestyle of comfort and convienience. I have a feeling that this will be the quick and dirty solution to part of the energy problem that faces the U.S. today.

The selling points would be:

ATOMIC ENERGY
-no foreign fuel supply dependence
-a steady and reliable energy supply
-conserves petroleum supplies for other uses
-no air pollution
-spent fuel rods (don't worry about that, we have a sekrit speshul place to dispose of them out in the desert.)

FOSSIL/GREEN FUELS
-dependence on foreign supplies
-future shortages/price increases
-shrinking world supply

Messaschnitzel
01-12-2008, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Well, guess what, I'm 36 and I'm living with my elders. And it's not a choice. I just can't afford to buy or rent an apartment in the town where I work with my salary. It's necessary to have a working gf or wife to do that, because due to the low salaries and incredibly high price of housing in Spain, you need TWO salaries: one to eat and the other one to pay the rent/mortgage. I'd need to earn five times my salary, or have an existing mortgage for 120 years to pay a common flat, one where I don't need to lose weight to close the door, where I'm not immediately stabbed in the back if I step on the street, or where I don't need Scotty to teletransport me if I want to be at work in time.

And I'm one of the fortunates: mine is a really steady job. Most jobs around here are equally bad paid, but besides they're just short-term contracts. No bank gives you a sh*t with that.

So stop trying to look in trouble: I'm a single not-so-young man who has to pay a room in a hotel every time he picks up a sweetie.

I feel like I'm bringing a hook*r. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Dux, why don't you look for a place and get some roomates to share rent. Then you can bring a different woman home every night of the week. Your roommates will look up to you as a god. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I have been on my own since I was 16 years old. Over the years, I would live and work in various parts of the the San Francisco Bay Area where the average single bedroom apartment was $1,000.00 per month in the 1990's, and a 3 bedroom house that I shared with 2 roommates in 2000 was $2,000.00 per month. In other words, I could not afford an apartment on my own, so I had to have roommates to be able to live somewhere.

I don't know if you have ever had roommates before. Getting new roommates can be a crapshoot. Sometimes you get some good ones and bad ones.

partic_3
01-12-2008, 04:45 PM
Cheer up, DuxCorvan, my understanding is that as a result of its spectacular housing bubble Spain is entering a depression that it won't come out of in the foreseeable future. That should fix house prices! Well, there is all that inflation around to keep nominal prices there or thereabouts but as long as you have all your savings in gold you should be OK. The great asset inflation is over. The trick is to look at value in terms of real things, gold, iron, wheat, rather than whatever debased local currency you happen to use. All the world's central banks are massively increasing money supply to avoid a world wide melt down. This is not a sub-prime credit crises, it's not even just a credit crises, it is a world wide bank solvency crises. As bad as you may think it is, it is really a lot worse.

DuxCorvan
01-12-2008, 06:08 PM
You know, the problem is I work for the Government. We have limited Union rights, so they can sh*t on us whenever they want.

If there's a crisis, the first thing they do is cutting funds and expenses. And since not paying roads, schools, pensions for the retired, etc. is a bad political move, the first thing they freeze to rise treasury funds without anyone givin' a d*mn is... public servant salaries.

Our salaries grow less than half the Price Index every year, and if crisis leads housing prices to fall -something I have not seen in 30 years, because here housing speculative investment is the rule in times of crisis- so do my incomes.

@Messaschnitzel: Roommates at 36? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I prefer my elders, thnx. They sometimes CLEAN and SLEEP.

@Von_Rat: I'm quite light hearted. A pound or so. Never weighed it, though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Airmail109
01-12-2008, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
You know, the problem is I work for the Government. We have limited Union rights, so they can sh*t on us whenever they want.

If there's a crisis, the first thing they do is cutting funds and expenses. And since not paying roads, schools, pensions for the retired, etc. is a bad political move, the first thing they freeze to rise treasury funds without anyone givin' a d*mn is... public servant salaries.

Our salaries grow less than half the Price Index every year, and if crisis leads housing prices to fall -something I have not seen in 30 years, because here housing speculative investment is the rule in times of crisis- so do my incomes.

@Messaschnitzel: Roommates at 36? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I prefer my elders, thnx. They sometimes CLEAN and SLEEP.

@Von_Rat: I'm quite light hearted. A pound or so. Never weighed it, though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man you guys must be having it rough, here in the UK an average house would probably buy 2-3 houses in Spain.

gkll
01-12-2008, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

im 51 years old and every few years since i can remember, the world was ending for one reason or another.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im 47 and I remember no such thing. Not at all. Casting my mind back over my life for say 30 years and nothing sticks out. Y2k was positively humorous, oh sure some systems absolutely had to be fixed, but wow... consultant heaven.... and the duct tape.... and poly, 6 months water supplies ... ah hahahahaha it was truly hysterical for a bit there.


What I &lt;do&gt; remember was as a kid, mushroom clouds... I saw Dr Strangelove and it seemed real, I missed the humor. Stop Drop and Cover showed up in school grade 2 or something... God knows why they showed it to us... then I read 'On the Beach' and that stuck for years &lt;everything&gt; gone... wow.

However, no Rat, for me the possibility of GW was the first thing really caught my attention outside of nuclear war. I spent considerable time trying to sort it out, the science, some of this as part of my job, from about 2000 on. Then I bumped into the 'end of cheap energy' thing (my brother is a geologist, suggested I didnt know what I was talking about when I suggested the Sauds would 'you know, open a tap...', say 2002). Linkages to the monetary system caught my eye, I educated myself further. Now I note disturbing trends in real vs official power structures here at home and abroad. One of Canada's prime ministers, in the recent past, took 300,000k, in cash, in a hotel room, from a known influence peddler, just weeks out of office. Ahem. And the media softsells it. This &lt;should be&gt; front page and sustained until we sort it out and clean it up. Front page and relentless. We got problems, lucky we are total paper, paper only, when it comes to voting. Theres that.

I &lt;think&gt; I am maturing and really opening my eyes to the true nature of the world (i may be going insane.... haha ha muah ha eh heh heh(((. it is very exciting, is that the word? No, &lt;challenging&gt; thats the word...

Individual response to peak oil and GW are 90% the same. Learn how to do without liquid fuels. And look to problems in supply in this or that commodity as societal/industrial systems dependent on liquid fuels fail to deliver as expected... which are these that really matter to me? etc etc

Individual response to interesting emergent trends, some of long prior standing, in our political/economic system, is &lt;beyond&gt; the individual entirely... there is no response. Caution and care in interpreting official or pundit positions on this or that law/regulation/treaty pronouncement, a simple recognition of the dissonance between the spoken and shown, and the actual act itself.

However this is all rather boring, mainly and with relief I note I am far from alone on this forum, I read others posts here with great interest... some old buds from previous discussions, do they see some of this too? yes, they do.... good.

2008 through 2015 will be written up in the history books. There &lt;are&gt; 'break points' or pivotal periods in history, absolutely. I always wanted to live through one. Looks like I get my wish.... LOL. Heads up! Incoming....

Von_Rat
01-12-2008, 11:54 PM
lets see,,,,, i remember there was a ice age coming, oh and oil was supposed to run out about what 20 years ago. then there was the population explosion thing. hmm what else pesticides use was gonna destroy the food chain, epidemics caused by escaped germs from germ warfare labs wiping us out. there was supposed to be a worldwide famine decades ago. air pollution was going to kill us all. ditto water pollution.

and of course y2k and nuclear war that you mentioned. oh nuclear winter too, cant forget that. do you remember carl sagan saying that the 91 iraqi oil fires were going to trigger nuclear winter.

all these things had some experts claiming they were going to end the world as we know it, and we had to act NOW. some of them we did have to act on, but civilzation as we know it wasnt going to end if we didnt.

i guess you werent reading the papers to much when you were younger if you missed all these.

its late im sure ill remember more tomorrow.

fabianfred
01-13-2008, 12:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Credit is the root of all evil.Follow the current British fashion:
1)borrow loads/max the credit cards.
2)stick 2 fingers up to the banks
3)go bankrupt

100,000 people a year (and rising) in the UK are taking this route. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe this is called 'Stealing'..... don't think they are getting away with it.... the law of karma is not corruptable...

Messaschnitzel
01-13-2008, 12:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
@Messaschnitzel: Roommates at 36? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I prefer my elders, thnx. They sometimes CLEAN and SLEEP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had roommates until I was 41. with a few exeptions, most of the time through the years they were around the same age and temperament as I was. As far as cleaning is concerned, that is easy. Right off the bat, sit down and have a discussion about what gets cleaned, and when it is quiet time. An advantage is to get the lease in your name, so you can be able to bounce people who refuse to abide by the agreements that were made.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Our salaries grow less than half the Price Index every year, and if crisis leads housing prices to fall -something I have not seen in 30 years, because here housing speculative investment is the rule in times of crisis- so do my incomes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't feel as if you are going down the "drain in Spain", alone. You'll have plenty of company here in the States. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Heck, I'm not making anywhere near the money that I was making 10 years ago, and now am having to bust my @ss working a lot harder for what I am getting. And I know that I am not the only one in this situation.

Even if the economy of the U.S. tanks, people will manage to make it through. People certainly did during the Great Depression.

Hopefully, it won't ever get to this point:

http://www.redriverhistorian.com/images/gr_dep_family_from_idabel_walking_to_ca.GIF

gkll
01-13-2008, 01:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
lets see,,,,, i remember there was a ice age coming, oh and oil was supposed to run out about what 20 years ago. then there was the population explosion thing. hmm what else pesticides use was gonna destroy the food chain, epidemics caused by escaped germs from germ warfare labs wiping us out. there was supposed to be a worldwide famine decades ago. air pollution was going to kill us all. ditto water pollution.

and of course y2k and nuclear war that you mentioned. oh nuclear winter too, cant forget that. do you remember carl sagan saying that the 91 iraqi oil fires were going to trigger nuclear winter.

all these things had some experts claiming they were going to end the world as we know it, and we had to act NOW. some of them we did have to act on, but civilzation as we know it wasnt going to end if we didnt.

i guess you werent reading the papers to much when you were younger if you missed all these.

its late im sure ill remember more tomorrow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow Rat seems youre the doomer,,, or am I a later bloomer LOL

My point was, I am a relentless optimist. Was and am. I noticed or even studied most of what you list above... but just they didn't make an impact. Maybe because when most were examined at the time (pop growth eg) they were slow motion stuff. Or didn't seem a real threat on examination. Or were quickly remediated to the extent possible (refrigerants eg).

Peak oil however is a 'most immediate', im smarter now too. And the GW science is quite compelling, lucky that mitigation for both on a personal level is very similar....

amilaninia
01-13-2008, 09:15 AM
Hi, all. Based on replies posted in this thread, I can tell that almost none of the respondents checked the attached link. Otherwise, the discussion wouldn't fly from the oil market to the doom's day or conspiracy@#%*. To make it clear, I found an interesting documentary (a while ago) about how the modern banking has become to what it is today and since the economy has become such a great concern these days, I decided to share this documentary with the Ubi Zoo.
I am posting the link to a short part of this documentary. If you find it informative, please look for Money As Debt in video google for the complete version. Cheers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgkYjFYr2QI
P.S. The world is not ending tomorrow, and the sky is not falling neither. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

huggy87
01-13-2008, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fabianfred:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Credit is the root of all evil.Follow the current British fashion:
1)borrow loads/max the credit cards.
2)stick 2 fingers up to the banks
3)go bankrupt

100,000 people a year (and rising) in the UK are taking this route. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe this is called 'Stealing'..... don't think they are getting away with it.... the law of karma is not corruptable... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fabian,
Are you a big fan of Earl? One of my favorite shows. I've just noticed you've brought up Karma more than once.

MEGILE
01-13-2008, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:


Fabian,
Are you a big fan of Earl? One of my favorite shows. I've just noticed you've brought up Karma more than once. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Fabian takes the notion of Karma quite seriously.

huggy87
01-13-2008, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Besides, Horus wasn't the original anyway. He was a rip-off from Mesopotamia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>& the guys in that area were working off the original statement :-)

what most seem to fail to grasp is why this counter-productive evolutionay trait is so ingrained in our psyche . it came from somewhere & was repeated in differing civilisations

but i digress , the US political system can be intriguing . from an outsiders POV , its crazy!

a real month by month trial-by-media

americans really only have the 2 partys , they both are as bad as the other . & whichever gets in the status-quo carries on

what im really surprised at , isnt a woman getting the votes that she is - but that a african american whose from a muslim family (& with the hussien name!) is in the race with her

10 years ago id have found the former hard to believe alone , besides the latter!

every country has its backwards racist hicks

but the ones living in the states must be having fits </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know you know this already, but your point is the perfect example of why you can't broadbrush all of the people in one country. It seems like that is done a lot here.. you british this, you southerners that. And I agree, our political system is a media circus. I don't even tune in until now, right before the primaries. I just don't need to waste the brain cells two years before the election.

Viking-S
01-13-2008, 01:42 PM
"I just don't need to waste the brain cells two years before the election."


And now you are thrown into a recession! Americans might wonder why but had they used two brain cells they would have avoided this a long time ago.

Start walking towards California.

My two €

huggy87
01-14-2008, 02:16 AM
Ahh,
Our resident America basher. The epitome of my post above.

R_Target
01-14-2008, 02:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
Ahh,
Our resident America basher. The epitome of my post above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. This is the guy that started a thread about how the 1C forum is the english language IL2 forum for Europeans only. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

fabianfred
01-14-2008, 02:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:


Fabian,
Are you a big fan of Earl? One of my favorite shows. I've just noticed you've brought up Karma more than once. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Fabian takes the notion of Karma quite seriously. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I have been a Buddhist for more than 30 years....living here in Thailand for more than 15 years.... and even managed to be ordained as a monk last year...for a week

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c188/fabianfred537/me.jpg

but honestly..... if there were really a great all creator god type of being....he wouldn't be watching over all beings to allow this to happen to this one...or not to this one....but he would invent a perfect system to run it all itself automatically.............and the system of karma works........completely unbiased and fairly

OberUberWurst
01-14-2008, 09:25 AM
Imagine being sent forward in time from 1967 to 2007. Instead of gas costing 25 cents a gallon, it's $2.50. A decent home, intead of costing $15,000, costs $200,000 or more.

Imagine your shock that the average American family owes $9000 on their credit cards. Imagine entering a society where less than 2% of the cars on the road are owned by those that drive them, and less than 1% of the homes are owned by the people who live in them.
Welcome to the debt based state of America in 2007.

With the dollar being worthless, there will no longer be the ability to import fossil fuels.
The gas lines of the 70's will seem like a pleasant dream compared to what this would be like. Also, this will have a devastating effect upon the agriculture and transportation sectors.
The transportation system will not be able to distribute food without gas or diesel. Industry will largely grind to a halt. No longer will the economy be able to function. It will be the end of the American global empire.
As with the fall of the Roman Empire, America would be forced out of economic necessity to close its 700+ military bases around the world. There would be no money for government services, education, pensions, health care, security, etc.
The Homeland Security people would have their hands full, to say the least.

JG52Uther
01-14-2008, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OberUberWurst:
Imagine being sent forward in time from 1967 to 2007. Instead of gas costing 25 cents a gallon, it's $2.50. A decent home, intead of costing $15,000, costs $200,000 or more.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

mega LOL in the UK petrol (gas) costs $10 a gallon.An (average)decent home costs $400,000
You think you have problems?

huggy87
01-14-2008, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fabianfred:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:


Fabian,
Are you a big fan of Earl? One of my favorite shows. I've just noticed you've brought up Karma more than once. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Fabian takes the notion of Karma quite seriously. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I have been a Buddhist for more than 30 years....living here in Thailand for more than 15 years.... and even managed to be ordained as a monk last year...for a week

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c188/fabianfred537/me.jpg

but honestly..... if there were really a great all creator god type of being....he wouldn't be watching over all beings to allow this to happen to this one...or not to this one....but he would invent a perfect system to run it all itself automatically.............and the system of karma works........completely unbiased and fairly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A monk for only a week... must be a story there!

The idea of Karma has always intrigued me, much more than any other philosiphy.

Earl is a funny show about a guy who discovers Karma and tries to make his life better. You might enjoy it if you haven't seen it already.

OberUberWurst
01-14-2008, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
mega LOL in the UK petrol (gas) costs $10 a gallon.An (average)decent home costs $400,000
You think you have problems? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I live in Denmark, so no, i have no problems http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

leitmotiv
01-14-2008, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fabianfred:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:


Fabian,
Are you a big fan of Earl? One of my favorite shows. I've just noticed you've brought up Karma more than once. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Fabian takes the notion of Karma quite seriously. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I have been a Buddhist for more than 30 years....living here in Thailand for more than 15 years.... and even managed to be ordained as a monk last year...for a week

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c188/fabianfred537/me.jpg

but honestly..... if there were really a great all creator god type of being....he wouldn't be watching over all beings to allow this to happen to this one...or not to this one....but he would invent a perfect system to run it all itself automatically.............and the system of karma works........completely unbiased and fairly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely agree, FF. Outrageous greed and folly gets its own reward. Our spiritual needs are constantly being suppressed to pursue material objects which are like sugar to the body---briefly gratifying but only leave you with longing for more. As long as we are on this planet we will see one karmic correction after another.

Viking-S
01-14-2008, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
Ahh,
Our resident America basher. The epitome of my post above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. This is the guy that started a thread about how the 1C forum is the english language IL2 forum for Europeans only. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong!! I started the request for an English spoken Il-2 forum based in Europe, moderated and administrated by Europeans; free for ALL to use! Today I can proudly say that we have this, more or less, in the http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/.
Apparently the thread with the request/poll was deemed dangerous by mods so it was deleted a few days ago, the idea got 50% approval (Busch got 28% as I recall). As for me US bashing? I don't know, I think you just are unaccustomed to the truth after decades of propaganda and brainwashing.

Viking

R_Target
01-14-2008, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viking-S:
Wrong!! I started the request for an English spoken Il-2 forum based in Europe, moderated and administrated by Europeans </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for me US bashing? I don't know, I think you just are unaccustomed to the truth after decades of propaganda and brainwashing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO. The Moonbats are really out tonight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

fabianfred
01-14-2008, 07:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
A monk for only a week... must be a story there!

The idea of Karma has always intrigued me, much more than any other philosiphy.

Earl is a funny show about a guy who discovers Karma and tries to make his life better. You might enjoy it if you haven't seen it already. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The monks in thailand do not have to ordain for life..... and last year to celebrate the Kings 60 years of reign our town organised a special mass ordination....for a week...and those who wanted could stay longer....but as a married man with a family I only stayed for a week..... good experience all the same

K_Freddie
01-15-2008, 01:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bhunter2112:
....Get ready for the oil wars...oh wait a minute. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think this sums up economics in politics...

Haven't checked, but it seems everytime there is a recession, somebody has to go to war. You know ..'liebens-oil'
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mortoma
01-15-2008, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
@Messaschnitzel: Roommates at 36? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I prefer my elders, thnx. They sometimes CLEAN and SLEEP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had roommates until I was 41. with a few exeptions, most of the time through the years they were around the same age and temperament as I was. As far as cleaning is concerned, that is easy. Right off the bat, sit down and have a discussion about what gets cleaned, and when it is quiet time. An advantage is to get the lease in your name, so you can be able to bounce people who refuse to abide by the agreements that were made.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Our salaries grow less than half the Price Index every year, and if crisis leads housing prices to fall -something I have not seen in 30 years, because here housing speculative investment is the rule in times of crisis- so do my incomes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't feel as if you are going down the "drain in Spain", alone. You'll have plenty of company here in the States. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Heck, I'm not making anywhere near the money that I was making 10 years ago, and now am having to bust my @ss working a lot harder for what I am getting. And I know that I am not the only one in this situation.

Even if the economy of the U.S. tanks, people will manage to make it through. People certainly did during the Great Depression.

Hopefully, it won't ever get to this point:

http://www.redriverhistorian.com/images/gr_dep_family_from_idabel_walking_to_ca.GIF </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What's all the jabbing at people who have roommates at older ages all about?? I turn 50 in March and I am living as a roommate and don't own the condo I lve in. There's no choice in the matter around here where I live and on the wages I am living on. I have never owned my own house!

Call me a failure but I married late at the age of 32 and stayed with her for 14 years and she adamantly did not want me to buy a house, so we lived in apartments. We could have afforded it as I was making ok money in those days and flying Pipers and Cessnsa for fun. In 2003 I fell on hard times and low wage jobs until this past fall.

I now make almost 22 dollars and hour but I don't consider myself ready to buy a house at that wage. Plus I am thinking I don't like the area I am residing, which is south of Salt Lake City, Utah. Mostly because I am one of the few folks around here who is not Mormon.

Add to all this the fact that I work in the volatile semi-conductor industry and so 4 to 10 years from now I could be laid off from this job I have now.

So yes, I am a 50 year old living as a roommate!! Not much I can do about it, just the luck of the draw, especially bad luck by marrying the wife I did. I simply am afraid to buy a house at this wage and in this area, working in this type of industry. So there you have it and I have no shame in admitting it. I have to work a good bit of overtime to make $50,000.00 per year and I would want to make $60,000.00 with no OT before I bought a house.
So given my age I mostly likely will never own my own home.

HayateAce
01-15-2008, 02:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viking-S:
bitter comments </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vikkie-S, you never goin' to get over your precious luft losing DubbaDubba 2, are ya?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

http://www.constable.ca/me109g6glycol.jpg