We were wrong about peak oil
- Thread starter Goz
- Start date
kayelem
Tuesday
So, can we have petrol prices drop to something sane? I'd like to buy an old Jag...
badger
mustelid member
I thought one of the problems wasn't with production levels, but with few 'new' oil fields being discovered?
Bacchanal
semilanceated
The good news is we're going to be able to get to loads more oil when the Arctic thaws!
badger
mustelid member
lol! 
With all due respect to Monbiot he is wrong. Production at these fields will never rise about the existing paltry levels. That the hydrocarbon deposits are present is clear - but its equally clear that the majority will never be extracted.
solar bud
alternative NRG
solar bud
alternative NRG
Peak oil is a geological fact. The only reason we are now fracking, drilling miles under the seabed and cooking tar sands is that conventional oil peaked years ago.
Unconventional resources are just pushing the downslope out a bit - at massive financial and environmental cost.
And even in the longest recession in living memory, the oil price is still 5x what it was a couple of decades ago, holding down economic activity like a glass ceiling.
Unconventional resources are just pushing the downslope out a bit - at massive financial and environmental cost.
And even in the longest recession in living memory, the oil price is still 5x what it was a couple of decades ago, holding down economic activity like a glass ceiling.
solar bud
alternative NRG
That's the attitude of those in the oil industry near me (not tongue-in-cheek either).
borken syntax
Fear and loathing in SW London
The statement that oil price being 5x what it was a couple of decades ago stifling economic growth is absurd.
First, when oil prices go up, real GDP (generally) goes up too. In advanced economies the correlation between oil prices and GDP is mostly positive (with the exception of US and Japan).
Second, almost all growth comes from more efficient use of resources, not the use of more resources. Just consider fuel efficiency, or the complexity of computers, even decades ago.
Third, manufacturing is declining as a part of economy, and natural resources are not necessarily a big constraint to growth of services.
Last edited:
solar bud
alternative NRG
In oil-producing nations the correlation is positive. But the economic crash of 2008 was immediately preceded by a huge oil price spike. Coincidence?
If that were true, there would be no need for fracking, or polar oil, or the Athabasca tar sands. It's only the high price of oil (due to demand exceeding supply, basic economics) that makes those expensive, polluting production processes economically viable.
The world isn't using more resources, but is using them more efficiently?
In the UK very possibly. But in China and India? I don't think so. China's 10% per annum economic growth isn't in call centres.
China's growth is in industry. The world mining market, for example, will almost completely be owned by Chinese conglomerates within the next 50 years. Especially if the west is intelligent enough to keep pushing for more efficient renewable energy sources to fuel its apple products
borken syntax
Fear and loathing in SW London
@ Solar bud
Undergraduate-level errors.
Undergraduate-level errors.
janinho
psypizza and tomatos
Could you please provide references for this? The chart you linked just shows the Crude Oil price movements? Probably you should look for a statistical analysis, where all the (main) factors that affect the GDP are regressed against the dependent variable (the oil price), thus to exclude multicollinearity and error specifications and find a significant correlation - if any. This should be done for both net importing and net exporting countries and the sample used should be large enough to avoid sample choice bias. By doing a quick google search it looks like the EU did something like that 2004 (I dont have the time to go through the paper tho, I just read the abstract), but surely there's much more available online.
There has been an increase in efficiency, that is true. However such increase has generally led to an increment of natural resources use none of the less (larger output for constant levels of input generally resulted in even greater production, rather that a reduction of the output level - produce more at the same cost) as Solar Bud pointed out. Such increase persists even if "discounted" by considering it in pro-capita basis.
Are you just referring to the UK? I thought we were thinking globally, right? Surely, although services are taken larger and larger slices of the global GDP pie, manufacturing has not declined worldwide - it has been just relocated in developing countries (and that also explains the "significant achivements" of the EU and US industry in CO2 emissions - they have just moved their most polluting industries to other continents, if those are taken out the comparison, EU and US GHG emissions levels are still following an up-trending slope).
Please do clarify this.
borken syntax
Fear and loathing in SW London
Econ discussion on a music production forum, eh? Whatever next.
Or poorly reasoned conjecture?
Here is one. Tip: Don't worry about multicollinearity (multicollinearity only inflates your variances but your parameters are still unbiased i.e. get more data or live with your noisy estimate). Worry about endogeneity. Actually, oil prices follow something more like an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process but whatever.
Careful. By "growth" economists mean "growth in value." Non-economists usually mean "growth in rate of resource extraction." They need not have the same sign.
Correct.
Regarding the undergraduate comment. I'm not trying to be harsh, but Solarbud's "limits to growth" point is a fallacy. We can be citing academic research (see here, here, here, and here for example) and circle-jerking all day long but its not going to change much.
I'm off to bed. But I will leave you with this thought. At the beginning of the 20th century the primary fossil fuel was whale oil. There were people worried about "Peak whaling".
Or poorly reasoned conjecture?
Here is one. Tip: Don't worry about multicollinearity (multicollinearity only inflates your variances but your parameters are still unbiased i.e. get more data or live with your noisy estimate). Worry about endogeneity. Actually, oil prices follow something more like an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process but whatever.
Careful. By "growth" economists mean "growth in value." Non-economists usually mean "growth in rate of resource extraction." They need not have the same sign.
Correct.
Regarding the undergraduate comment. I'm not trying to be harsh, but Solarbud's "limits to growth" point is a fallacy. We can be citing academic research (see here, here, here, and here for example) and circle-jerking all day long but its not going to change much.
I'm off to bed. But I will leave you with this thought. At the beginning of the 20th century the primary fossil fuel was whale oil. There were people worried about "Peak whaling".
Last edited:
janinho
psypizza and tomatos
Excellent, so why were you linking a chart of fossil fuel prices as explanatory? Thanks for the IMF paper, I will check it as soon as I have some time. Looks like the conclusions are quite in contrast with was previously found by the EU, so I look forward to go through both methodologies.
Definitely they can have opposite signs. However many economist use biophysical approaches to natural resources studies, so it depends from the type of economist really. Still, when you have time could you please provide references for your original assertion? I am genuinely interested.
Eheh I'm pretty sure nothing is going to change, especially when discussing it on a music forum, but it's a good exercise none of the less, and might help few people to form opinions.
I can't see how to discuss a topic of this type without citing papers though. We would just be making statements after statements, backed by fried air. Surely it's better to rely on scientists who spent years on this stuff?
I would have guessed coal had a much bigger market than whale oil at the beginning of the 20th century.
But yeah, I think I get what you are trying to say.
Are you familiar with the concept of Energy Returned on Energy Invested? Here's some good reading:
EROI
Enjoy!