Re: [energyresources] Simmons quote, This is it.
Ron, u continue to espouse a neophytic view that oil production's peak will be a inverted V rather than a kinder gentler plateau. And, that the post peak years of eventual decline shall be the causation of lower GDP in most nations. It is absurd to speculate that such would be the case in light of yet untapped coal, nuclear and wind generation sources which will not peak for decades in themselves. The main two factors in a global or national GDP peaking would be the shortage of energy in general (not oil) and/or the reduction of consumer demand due to aging population demographics which will be upon japan later this decade, germany after 2010 and north america after 2020. To equate all economic growth with oil production defies reality and empirical examples in europe and ontario.
Ron Patterson wrote:
--- Andrew MacKillop <andrewmckillop@...> wrote: . . . I (Ron) wrote:
Andrew mentions the 1980-83 recession. This recession was brought on by
the second oil crisis of 1978. (Though it was a boom to several oil pumping nations.) But here is the question: (excuse the caps) WHAT IF THE RECESSION OF 1980-83 HAD JUST KEPT RIGHT ON RECEEDING? What if the oil tap had continued to close instead of opening full flow again? Exactly how wunnerful would that have been Andrew?< Andrew replied:
That is the paradigm (and paradox). The 1929-31 stock market crash was
'psychological' like any bourse crash, but it triggered a 6-year depression, the real economy went on receding. We all know how it ended - or if you dont you can check it out.<<< Where have I failed? Why can’t I seem to get this simple point across to Andrew when everyone else on the list seems to understand it completely? The point I am trying to get across is oh so simple. When we get past the peak in oil extraction, the amount of oil coming out of the ground will start to taper off....and will continue to do so....forever! This reduction in available energy to consumers around the world will cause a recession. This recession will turn into a depression. And unlike the depression brought on by the crash of 29. this recession will NEVER end. Well, at least not for a century or so.
Military Keynesianism was applied, first by the fascisists and nazis,
and then by the rest. What is GW Bush doing in I-raq today but a kind of fiscally incontinent, drunken Military Keynesian attempt to lever up some growth and get re-elected?<<< I don’t give a rat’s ass about Military Keynesian attempts or GW Bush and Iraq, we are talking about the end of the hydrocarbon age here, or at least the leading edge of that end. Okay, let me draw you a picture here Andrew. The dates and the amounts might not be exactly correct but that makes no difference in the big picture. Say in 2005 the total world extraction of all liquids averages 82 million barrels per day. Say it holds at around that level until 2010. Then in 2011 it drops to around 80 million mbd. Then in 2011 the average is 78.5 mbd. Then in 2012 it is 76 mbd, then it continues down, dropping an average of 2 to 4 percent per year....forever. Are you with me so far Andrew? This drop in the amount of available consumable energy causes, at first, a recession. And because the amount of energy available to the economy continues to recede, the recession gets a little worse, year after year after year. It becomes, after a few years, a major depression. Then after another few years worldwide famine causes anarchy around the world. Any accurate prediction beyond this point is impossible. The only thing we can be sure of is that until there is a dramatic reduction in human population, things can never get better. That, Andrew, is the big picture. What is so difficult to understand about that. Please answer that question. Don’t get me wrong. If you are like the cornucopians, and believe science, or God, will think of something, that I can understand. But you don’t seem to be in that camp. Perhaps I am wrong and you are in that camp. But if that is the case just say so and I will shut up.
There was absolutely no problem at all with oil supplies in the 1930s!
Check up on annual discoveries at the time, or the ratio years of world consumption against annual discoveries.<<< Of course not. That is the &%*#@#& point! For some strange reason you wish to compare the depression of the 1930s to the recession/depression that will be brought about by declining fossil fuel. And because we got over that depression, you seem to think this next depression will be no different. You think that we can just learn to de-grow and everyone will just learn to live on less and less. And we can accomplish all this without any starvation or anarchy. My entire point is that this is impossible. It is impossible because energy = food. And if the available food supply drops, year after year, the population MUST do likewise.
We can cut out the errors in the above by Ron. The 'second oil crisis'
started in 1979 not 1978. The recession was brought on by sky high interest rates more than by high oil prices. World oil demand increased about 4.5% in 1979 against 1978 - pretty obviously consumers had no problem with their oil appetities.<<< Screw the errors. I don’t give a damn about what caused the 1978 recession. I am talking about what will cause the next recession. It will be a decline in the amount of fossil fuel available for consumption. And here it the very important point. THAT DECLINE WILL NEVER END! Therefore we can infer that the recession/depression will never end until BOTH the population and their living standards have reached an equilibrium compatible with the amount of fossil energy available for consumption. Andrew signs off as: “A McKillop” But his address line says “Andrew MacKillop”. The former is the way an Irishman would spell it and the latter is the way the way a Scotsman would spell it. But I guess in the grand scheme of things it makes little difference how one spells one’s name, or what one’s ancestry is. Ron Patterson