Post: #126

(01-29-2019 06:11 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  For as Kurt Cobb stated on his blog Resource Insights following the mid-2016 Vision 2030 announcement,

The world’s largest exporter of crude oil, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, recently announced a plan for its post-oil future. If a country almost synonymous with the oil economy can see the need for such a plan, how can the rest of the world, particularly the United States, the world’s largest consumer of petroleum, not see the necessity of such foresight?

A good article on Saudis:

https://peakoil.com/publicpolicy/the-com...sale-is-on

Perhaps they're doing this because they see that their biggest customer no longer needs their oil so much, not because they're running out.

Post: #127

   
From "World Energy Outlook 2018" by International Energy Agency

Post: #128

I like how you do a "wrap up conclusoon" post and then proceed to post like 5 more times.

Post: #129

How will we be convinced of his dark, lonely genius otherwise?

Post: #130

(01-30-2019 10:50 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  I like how you do a "wrap up conclusoon" post and then proceed to post like 5 more times.

Criticize the message, not the messenger.

Well, I have made my conclusions. The posts are for people who have not yet made their conclusions.

This is serious matter and I see no reasons for being snarky. Save your snarks for your women.

Isn't it strange that this forum, so commited to its anti-mainstream views, in this matter is sooo mainstream ?!

Post: #131

No, the mainstream vue is global warming and peak oil. Both seek to artificially control and impoverish western middle classes by throttling what is an abundant and cheap source of energy.

Your main site you've used is a sorry repository of Boomer doomer cult of Gaia globo-enviro tools, espousing the kind of globalist misanthropic dogmas pushed by Paul Ehrich. Even peak oil people like Simmons who aren't quite from that vein have been proven wrong.

https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/07/tie...l-bet.html

This bet is similar to the more spectacular and famous one made by Ehrlich back in 1980 about the scarcity of commodities. "Simon challenged Ehrlich to choose any raw material he wanted and a date more than a year away, and he would wager on the inflation-adjusted prices decreasing as opposed to increasing. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The bet was formalized on September 29, 1980, with September 29, 1990 as the payoff date. Ehrlich lost the bet, as all five commodities that were bet on declined in price from 1980 through 1990, the wager period."

Ehrlich would have also lost his bet on LT oil price.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%8...lich_wager

Basically kaligula, I didn't reply because that would be just repeating what I've posted above. Basically, technological advances have made huge quantities of formally unnaccessible oil (shale, sands) technologically and economically accessible, see my graphs above. Global oil reserves have accordingly undergone a huge increase, no peak oil.

I'm not going to waste too much more time on this.

Post: #132

(01-30-2019 11:17 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  This is serious matter and I see no reasons for being snarky. Save your snarks for your women.

I have, because several posters have already made you their lady. It only seemed fitting to make you mine.

Post: #133

Here an interesting explanation of why oil prices do not follow the law of supply and demand, it starts around 1 hour and 6 minutes :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJ2fCJxAyw

Only in french for the moment unfortunately, no idea what youtube's auto-translation feature is worth.
The whole video is interesting for those who can understand it.

Post: #134

What does it say?

Post: #135

1) I am not going to lose my time for some Beastly phantasies. TheBeast1 is clearly in dreaming mode. SamuelBRoberts is just jealous, as always.
See:

/thread-72077.html

2) The entire point of International Energy Agency (which is OECD agency and not a Gaia cult church; OECD is much more useful than globalists UN, makes PISA tests and all kinds of research) making such an official prognosis is to point out that - as of 2018 - not enough investments were made to provide for future oil demand. And, frankly, 2025 is in few years. Simmons' wager, on the other hand, is long time in the past.
The investments have not been made due to the fact that, for example, shale oil drillers are drowning in debt. Too much debt already. That means it is not economically feasible to invest anymore. I think that the high development prices cover the declining EROI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) and thus the declining energy per barrel available to the economy outside oil industry. It may be so, for example, that the real development and processing cost per barrel is 70$, but the energy the final consumer gets from this barrel is worth just 30$.... so the non-petrol economy buying price is 30$, but the petrol industry dream price would be 100$, since the industry wants some profit too, which in this case would be 30$ (30+70=100). The general economy was build on much lower oil prices, around 10$ per barrel, so now it is not able to keep pace with oil industry rising costs, save the economy became much more efficient in order to take the rising oil costs. Simple, we are not ready to pay enough to get enough oil. Notwithstanding the absolute peak or not peak in geology terms, we surely are at the peak of affordable oil.

Some of you will say that this is exactly what should happen, the economy should become more efficient with not-efficient-enough parts of economy simply dying. The problem is that this not-efficient-enough economy is actually the greater part of global industrial economy.
The other problem is that the local industrial economy more or less ceased to exist, so there is no falling back to the "local" mode. Why Trump wants to re-industrialize USA?
Re-industrialization of the West would be now difficult exactly due to the shortage of oil and debts. Yet another problem is that nowadays, building even simple things in the West, like roads or railway lines, is very expensive. And industry is more complicated than just roads. You see the conundrum.



By the way, USA is still importing around 1 million barrels per day from Saudis.
So how is that that USA still prefers foreign oil to domestic production? Maybe this USA shale oil is not really such a coveted product in USA...?!
It must be reminded that what consumers outside petroleum industry ultimately want are oil industry products, not crude oil itself, and the non-conventional crudes are not always up to the task.

Post: #136

The Beast1 and SamuelBRoberts mutual exchange of "likes" reminds me of Eurovision song contest, where block voting is a recognized problem.

Post: #137

(01-30-2019 12:49 PM)911 Wrote:  Your main site you've used is a sorry repository of Boomer doomer cult of Gaia globo-enviro tools, espousing the kind of globalist misanthropic dogmas pushed by Paul Ehrich. Even peak oil people like Simmons who aren't quite from that vein have been proven wrong.

https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/07/tie...l-bet.html

This bet is similar to the more spectacular and famous one made by Ehrlich back in 1980 about the scarcity of commodities. "Simon challenged Ehrlich to choose any raw material he wanted and a date more than a year away, and he would wager on the inflation-adjusted prices decreasing as opposed to increasing. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The bet was formalized on September 29, 1980, with September 29, 1990 as the payoff date. Ehrlich lost the bet, as all five commodities that were bet on declined in price from 1980 through 1990, the wager period."

Ehrlich would have also lost his bet on LT oil price.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%8...lich_wager

Simmons-Ehrlich wager was made under false assumption that economy can take higher prices of oil. The participants did not have any point of reference at that time (it takes time to identify problems), so the bet did not prove what it was supposed to prove.

Post: #138

He should have bet on food and housing instead ..

Since apparently the more you need something the more expensive it gets over time, and vice versa.

Post: #139

The Horror.

if you take the 2018 World Energy Outlook prognosis above

AND
the strange Deagel 2025 prognosis
http://www.deagel.com/country/forecast.aspx

AND informations like
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-3...-emp-bombs
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-3...ailgun-sea
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-3...ld-war-iii

you realize there will be a great war in the near future, a war between the West (broadly: NATO) and the Asia. The West will lose. The West will die.
It is necessity that West loses since the West is the biggest oil consumer in the world. USA alone consumes 20 millions barrel per day. The only other alternative is that Russia & China lose.

The Horror
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DK0aaLNGak


Where is BLUE pill when you need it...?
What to do now...?

Post: #140

Life has always been a struggle for resources, what's with the gloomy outlook now ?
Do your best and hope it's enough - if it's not you couldn't have done things better anyway.

Or defect to the other side if you think you have lost before you've started fighting it's probably better for everyone

Post: #141

(01-31-2019 07:43 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  Life has always been a struggle for resources, what's with the gloomy outlook now ?
Do your best and hope it's enough - if it's not you couldn't have done things better anyway.

Or defect to the other side if you think you have lost before you've started fighting it's probably better for everyone

I have always been a sorcerer's apprentice kind.

Maybe I should have been more enchanted with one nice girl from Kazan a few years ago. If only I had known then what I know now....

I knew about this strange Deagel prognosis earlier, but it was just that, strange. Only together with the oil production prognosis it does make some sense....

Put together Deagel's

By the way, no pandemic or nuclear war is included in the forecast.

with the zerohedge article on EMP

EMP attacks will be carried out at such high altitudes they will produce no blast or other immediate effects harmful to humans. Instead, three types of EMP waves in seconds damage electronics and the strikes are regarded by adversaries as not an act of nuclear war.

and you are suddenly convinced about the need for Faraday cage in your own house. Do you have a room so secured?

Post: #142

(01-31-2019 07:43 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  Life has always been a struggle for resources, what's with the gloomy outlook now ?

Because I'd rather not see what happens when close to 8 billion mouths suddenly realise most of them will die if things fail and food and logistics becomes harder.

Venezuela is another edition in the oil problems we are currently seeing.

Post: #143

We get it, peak oil is going to doom us all. Thanks for all of the fish!

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to change out 3 gallons of dino oil in my car and fill it up with 36 gallons of gas to watch it burn a gallon every 9 miles.

Post: #144

That doesn't sound too bad a state as a 21 yo, except being into CAGW means his world view is completely warped and that he's at best a purple piller.

(01-31-2019 04:50 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  1) I am not going to lose my time for some Beastly phantasies. TheBeast1 is clearly in dreaming mode. SamuelBRoberts is just jealous, as always.
See:

/thread-72077.html

2) The entire point of International Energy Agency (which is OECD agency and not a Gaia cult church; OECD is much more useful than globalists UN, makes PISA tests and all kinds of research) making such an official prognosis is to point out that - as of 2018 - not enough investments were made to provide for future oil demand. And, frankly, 2025 is in few years. Simmons' wager, on the other hand, is long time in the past.
The investments have not been made due to the fact that, for example, shale oil drillers are drowning in debt. Too much debt already. That means it is not economically feasible to invest anymore. I think that the high development prices cover the declining EROI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) and thus the declining energy per barrel available to the economy outside oil industry. It may be so, for example, that the real development and processing cost per barrel is 70$, but the energy the final consumer gets from this barrel is worth just 30$.... so the non-petrol economy buying price is 30$, but the petrol industry dream price would be 100$, since the industry wants some profit too, which in this case would be 30$ (30+70=100). The general economy was build on much lower oil prices, around 10$ per barrel, so now it is not able to keep pace with oil industry rising costs, save the economy became much more efficient in order to take the rising oil costs. Simple, we are not ready to pay enough to get enough oil. Notwithstanding the absolute peak or not peak in geology terms, we surely are at the peak of affordable oil.

Some of you will say that this is exactly what should happen, the economy should become more efficient with not-efficient-enough parts of economy simply dying. The problem is that this not-efficient-enough economy is actually the greater part of global industrial economy.
The other problem is that the local industrial economy more or less ceased to exist, so there is no falling back to the "local" mode. Why Trump wants to re-industrialize USA?
Re-industrialization of the West would be now difficult exactly due to the shortage of oil and debts. Yet another problem is that nowadays, building even simple things in the West, like roads or railway lines, is very expensive. And industry is more complicated than just roads. You see the conundrum.



By the way, USA is still importing around 1 million barrels per day from Saudis.
So how is that that USA still prefers foreign oil to domestic production? Maybe this USA shale oil is not really such a coveted product in USA...?!
It must be reminded that what consumers outside petroleum industry ultimately want are oil industry products, not crude oil itself, and the non-conventional crudes are not always up to the task.

The US is importing much less oil than it used to, and is producing nearly 10 times as much as it imports.

On your peak oil price theory, here is the price of oil, adjusted for inflation, we're in the range of where oil price were inn the 1950s, near the historic low plateaus.



The price of oil is only made artificially high at the consumer end because of taxes, which are increasingly justified by western governments and global regulatory organizations by global warming. They can sell these policies of artificial energy poverty to their normie base because they've gaslighted them with the cult of gaia.

Post: #145

(01-30-2019 11:17 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  Isn't it strange that this forum, so commited to its anti-mainstream views...

Issues that are associated with the left like these aren't going to be popular here because the anti-feminist stance is, by extension, anti-left.

So I think you're probably wasting your time to try to keep a thread like this alive. It's fine that it came up and I said my piece already but most here are really disinterested.

Post: #146

I don’t follow the peak oil stuff closely, but Kunstler’s “Clusterfuck Nation” blog is good reading.

Kunstler is an old school liberal, and he dislikes the SJW type crazy leftists.

Post: #147

(01-31-2019 08:04 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 11:17 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  Isn't it strange that this forum, so commited to its anti-mainstream views...

Issues that are associated with the left like these aren't going to be popular here because the anti-feminist stance is, by extension, anti-left.

So I think you're probably wasting your time to try to keep a thread like this alive. It's fine that it came up and I said my piece already but most here are really disinterested.

This is why I am blackpilled on political change: the powers to be have created even their opposition. The Right is the mirror reflex of the Left, TPTB engineering Left (immigration, feminism, climate change agenda) are engineering Right by proxy (mandatory agenda: anti-immigration, anti-feminism, anti-CC). Plus, problems which are not part of the original Left agenda, like peak oil, do not exist in politics, either Right or Left.

There is no really independent political thinking. The internet has not changed things in this respect, it did not create any new, spontaneous agendas. Humankind is not self-organizing on the basis of rising knowledge in order to create some singularity. The hope of the internet age is dead.

Before I delved into peak oil stuff, I was into the free software movement, which was a kind of free knowledge movement. The political branch of this movement was so called Pirates Party in Europe, but it wilted away. However, among the mainstream parties of EU the one most open to Pirates agenda was actually the Green party. We even managed to stall, for a time being, EU software patents legislation. That were great days of hope and faith in progress. But now our biggest enemy in EU parliament, Manfred Weber, is rising to the top there, and is slated to become the next EU Commision President. And I can tell you that he is such a pro-big money guy as one can be. But this is also a part of agenda, of course, the mainstream Right being always on the side of big business. Macron, Weber - that are new faces of EU leadership.
Paraphrasing Churchill on conservatives as disappointed socialists, doomers are disappointed progressivists.

Post: #148

Of course there is no political solution, politics is the problem.

Conservative want to conserve .. what exactly ?
Life just does not work this way, you either improve or you regress, there is no conservation possible - it's either up or down.

You need to build up your life in a way that the politics around you do not matter.
The muslims here did it, so technically it's possible.
How we manage (or don't), we will witness in our lifetime, but in any case this should be your number one priority, not peak oil, global warming, or whatever else the scare industry is currently busy with.

Free software is great, you just need to be realistic and understand that the GPL cannot force human nature to change, nothing can.
My projects are BSD-licensed, those who want (and can) get something out of it do, those who want to help can too, and the other morons .. they will not be changed by a license, let's get real.

This is often misunderstood but Linus said it himself, his OS works because its development was darwinistic.
The pirate party was always left/liberal and not darwinist, so it could never have worked containing such a fundamental contradiction.
Also, wasn't it full of women ?

I mean come on what is this, east germany ?


And I didn't take the worst picture, in some she looks like a 12-yo gamer boy, in others like a hippopotamus ..
How can you put your faith in someone like that ?

She can't manage her own body, but she should manage a country ? Hello .. ?

Post: #149

Maybe Apple windows concept was the biggest mistakes in the history of software, since it started the path of dumbing down the software. Maybe we should stay with the command line and the text environment. I mean, the free software movement has never been really "user friendly". Less user friendly software, more power to us.

As for Pirates Party, it was partly overtaken by women, especially in Germany, where it tried to go mainstream. Besides ideology, every country has a specific cultural outlook; in Germany power counts more than ideology, so ultimately everyone tries to converge to the mainstream here, and not to make revolution. To become mainstream, the Pirates had to prove that they are women-friendly, since being nerdy allegedly was a kind of crime. And so it went. Suddenly women became the public faces of Pirates which of course has decreased Pirates appeal for their target electorate, which never was really a female one to start with.
So Pirates Party is too a victim of the general environment when female spaces are perfectly ok, but male spaces - not really.
Also, the first Pirates were more like gun movement in USA, they were more a party of one concern. They did try to not have a position on many standard public agenda issues like race, immigration etc. The ones I knew were tending libertarian overall.

This Julia Reda is what Germans call "Berufspolitiker", a professional politician. She started with SPD (socialists) when she was 16 years old (!).
Studied political sciences. Her sister is in the Green party. You see she can't think about anything else than her "profession". As such, she is the antithesis of the original Pirates movement, its anti-establishment character. She is an establishment member in waiting. If it depended on me, I would make a rule that we don't accept former members of other parties unless they were forcefully removed from them due to ideological disagreement.

PS. A question to USA members: what is NRA position on women? How they deal with feminism?

Post: #150

(02-01-2019 04:43 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  The hope of the internet age is dead.

Yep.

All optimistic visions of the future overestimate human potential. We are still tribal creatures best suited at banging each other with femurs like in 2001.