don't really see your point, Ravi.
Oil consumption reduced due invisible hand? Like a pickpocket is an
invisible hand.
- Original Message -
From: "ravi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Peak Everything
>
On 11 Sep, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
My friend Jurriaan sent me the following:
While oil supplied roughly one half of the world's estimated total
primary energy demand in 1974, today it is below 2/5ths. So although
you can say that consumption has increased, the relative importance
My friend Jurriaan sent me the following:
I am surprised this debate is still happening on PEN-L even though it
was debated extensively in 2004 with facts and figures.
In reality, official estimates of world oil reserves I checked in 2004
ranged from about 1 trillion barrels to 2.3 trillion barre
Hubbert, Campbell, with their peaks, offsets, etc.
etc. Oil is produced as a commodity, first and last.
- Original Message -
From: "Shane Mage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Peak Everything
> >Since reserve
"sartesian" wrote:
How about it? How about this: Reserves, are by definition an economic
category not geological. By definitions reserves are an amount of oil
that can be produced in a specified period of time, using the currently
available technology, and at a profit.
and "Buffalo" wrote:
On 9 Sep, 2007, at 11:18 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
I don't mean to question your authority Michael, but these are
entirely reasonable non-flamey economic points. <...>
On 9/8/07, sartesian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about it? How about this: Reserves, are by definition an
economic
cate
Pleease don't make me dig out my Strunk's!
On 9/9/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, it was the style that was the problem. Not the subject.
>
>
Yes, it was the style that was the problem. Not the subject.
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 03:07:31PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
> so it's okay to discuss peak oil?
>
> On 9/9/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You are correct.
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir
so it's okay to discuss peak oil?
On 9/9/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are correct.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
man" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 12:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Peak Everything
>
>
> > I am just concerned that people are speaking past one another. The
> issues are very
> > important, but with so many unknowns, we s
ortance of profit, as
the peak oil theorists do not, then indeed this discussion should be
suspended.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Peak Everything
> I am just conce
>> debt
> >> was financed to replaced US corporate investment, and provide the
> >> market
> >> for our now so much "stronger" trading partners.
> >>
> >> The other component of this is the rapid and dramatic swing of the US
> >>
al Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Peak Everything
> Please stop this!
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 10:53:24AM -0400, sartesian wrote:
> > I hardly know where to be
age -
From: "The Buffalo In Da' Midst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Peak Everything
On 9/8/07, sartesian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about it? How about this: Reserves, are by definition an
economic
ca
t accounts from surplus to deficit-- a swing of some 7% of GNP in
> about 2 years, as once again, reduced taxes and expanded military
> spending put the retainer in retained earnings.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "The Buffalo In Da' Midst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A number of responses came to this. For my part I know little about the geology
of oil and its time scale. I understand the conventional wisdom of 'geological
scales of time' being essential. Is there some sort of empirical 'proof' of
this? I agree with those who pointed to the limitations of a
the US
govt accounts from surplus to deficit-- a swing of some 7% of GNP in
about 2 years, as once again, reduced taxes and expanded military
spending put the retainer in retained earnings.
- Original Message -
From: "The Buffalo In Da' Midst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
Enough!
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com
On 9/8/07, sartesian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about it? How about this: Reserves, are by definition an economic
> category not geological. By definitions reserves are an amount of oil
> that can be produced in a specified period of time, using the currently
> available technology, and a
[top posting left as-is... please read quoted text bottom to top to
follow thread]
On 8 Sep, 2007, at 22:48 PM, sartesian wrote:
Does relinquishing private automobiles, tract housing, post WW2
influence have anything to do with a peak in production; a peak in
availability--- well by proclaiming
-
From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Peak Everything
> me:
> > > we can ignore the "peak oil" stuff while attacking global warming
and
> > > making life more humane.
>
> D
exile this whole discussion to frozen zone.
- Original Message -
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Peak Everything
> Jim Devine wrote:
> > or is it the abstract threat of scarcity that
me:
> > we can ignore the "peak oil" stuff while attacking global warming and
> > making life more humane.
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Seems to me the whole point of peak oil is to make something seem
> inevitable that its proponents find desirable, but politically
> impossible. We're more likely to bre
On Sep 8, 2007, at 8:18 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
we can ignore the "peak oil" stuff while attacking global warming and
making life more humane.
Seems to me the whole point of peak oil is to make something seem
inevitable that its proponents find desirable, but politically
impossible. We're more l
ok. Now we can drop this.
First, I want to apologize to the large number of people who just signed on.
Usually, our discussions are more fruitful or at least more fun.
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 05:39:33PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
> Michael Perelman wrote:
> > I don't think peak is necessarily rel
On 9/8/07, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Perelman wrote:
> > I don't think peak is necessarily relevant because global warming will be a
> > more
> > pressing consideration.
>
> if you think that global warming is the main concern, then we agree.
>
> The peak oil stuff is straigh
Michael Perelman wrote:
> I don't think peak is necessarily relevant because global warming will be a
> more
> pressing consideration.
if you think that global warming is the main concern, then we agree.
The peak oil stuff is straight out of Ricardo: it's nature (and our
tendency to over-breed)
I don't think peak is necessarily relevant because global warming will be a more
pressing consideration.
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 05:05:06PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
> Michael Perelman wrote:
> > I don't have any problem with that. In my original comment, I suggested
> > that it
> > would be dif
ichael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Peak Everything
> What you say will not affect my point. Plot the level extraction over
time, even if
> 1/4 of a gallon is left untouched. There will necessarily be some
p
Louis wrote:
> Look, by all admissions oil supplies as we have known them will
> disappear toward the end of the 21st century. That has enormous social
> and political consequences. Socialists are obviously overwhelmed by the
> tasks of the conjuncture but we are obligated to think about how
> huma
In Da' Midst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Peak Everything
> On 9/8/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the discussion might not be productive unless we have new
information.
>
>
Jim Devine wrote:
or is it the abstract threat of scarcity that's important for us to
keep in mind?
Look, by all admissions oil supplies as we have known them will
disappear toward the end of the 21st century. That has enormous social
and political consequences. Socialists are obviously overwhe
Michael Perelman wrote:
> I don't have any problem with that. In my original comment, I suggested that
> it
> would be difficult or possibly even impossible to predict the time in
> advance. Nor
> could we rule out the possiblity that new productivity would allow us to get
> extraordinary effic
I don't have any problem with that. In my original comment, I suggested that it
would be difficult or possibly even impossible to predict the time in advance.
Nor
could we rule out the possiblity that new productivity would allow us to get
extraordinary efficiencies in the future -- only that at
but what about increasing efficiency in the extraction of oil? that
is, for each 1 gallon of oil the companies get out of the ground,
suppose that instead of leaving 1 quart behind, they leave 1 pint --
and then the next year they leave only 1/2 pint? also, what if they
figure out (as they are alre
What you say will not affect my point. Plot the level extraction over time,
even if
1/4 of a gallon is left untouched. There will necessarily be some peak point in
time. Admittedly, if the peak is less than 1/4 gallon, it is possible that one
final rush of extraction of the last remaining 1/4 g
On 9/8/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assume, for the sake of argument that you know the total quantity available
> -- let's
> say it's a gallon. Each period you remove some until you reach some point
> where it
> is uneconomical to continue. At some point, you reach a peak.
Assume, for the sake of argument that you know the total quantity available --
let's
say it's a gallon. Each period you remove some until you reach some point
where it
is uneconomical to continue. At some point, you reach a peak. Of course, it is
probable that the decline will not be monotonic
On 9/8/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the discussion might not be productive unless we have new information.
Reiteration: How about that one percent increase in global oil
reserves last year, SOLELY DUE to Canada's tar sands... and I won't
even mention the eco-holocaust that wi
On 9/8/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim, obviously rising prices are part of the peak oil story. I assumed
> everyone
> understood it.
>
> I don't see any question about the inevitability of peak oil -- just the
> timing.
what do you mean by "inevitability"? it that like th
Jim, obviously rising prices are part of the peak oil story. I assumed everyone
understood it.
I don't see any question about the inevitability of peak oil -- just the
timing. In
our discussions, the same names come up -- Hubbard, Deffeyes -- people argue
whether
they are (un)reliable sources
On 9/8/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have been over this ground many times.
Right. But I don't see any problem in discussing it.
> Peak oil is a prediction and a certainty.
No it isn't. It's a little like the story of Achilles and the
tortoise, with A never actually catchi
On 9/8/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -- depleting a fixed stock will eventually create a peak, but we have no real
> proof of the exact time.
Paul Robert's hypothesis is the way reserve supplies are calculated,
it will mask any peak and that peak is really an overhang. I guess
,
"Someday it will rain." Both statements are true, both have no meaning.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Peak Everything
> We have been over this grou
We have been over this ground many times. Peak oil is a prediction and a
certainty.
We as economists should know that some things are inevitable -- depleting a
fixed
stock will eventually create a peak, but we have no real proof of the exact
time.
Gene's point that climate change is a much more
is why peak oil is a crisis upon us, but global warming?
Where's the profit in that, in reversing that?
- Original Message -
From: "Eugene Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Peak Everything
Reading Hein
I'd worry about these guys... they're mean:
http://www.sourcetext.com/penguin.gif
...and if global warming continues, they might decide to reside in OUR
neighborhood.
On 9/8/07, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> shouldn't we worry about the Peaking Ducks?
>
> On 9/8/07, sartesian <[EMAIL
shouldn't we worry about the Peaking Ducks?
On 9/8/07, sartesian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Think this book qualifies for peak baloney. Peak in coal? That's a
> real knee-slapper, particularly since Hubbert's first ventures into the
> peak prediction business were in predicting the peak in coa
The peak oil bashing truly bores me.
Let's talk 'Peak Coal' instead, and how IT affects your ostensible
"non-peak oil" energy-economic outlook:
The Oil Drum: Europe | Peak Coal - Coming Soon? Canadian geologist
David Hughes recently claimed that "peak coal looks like it's occurred
in the Lower 48
Reading Heinberg, I've been struck by how shallow his knowledge of
the oil and gas business is -- and that is his purported specialty.
But what strikes me about his judgement is his assessment that peak
oil is a crisis already upon us while global warming is something
that might occur in a
On 9/8/07, sartesian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Maybe we should consign the Peaking Theory to the same "frozen zone" as the
> 9-11 conspiracy theories?
Maybe we should...
Can you produce facts that would lead me to believe I 'should'?
How about that one percent increase in oil production
frozen zone" as
the 9-11 conspiracy theories?
- Original Message -
From: "The Buffalo In Da' Midst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:01 PM
Subject: [PEN-L] Peak Everything
> Cute title
>
> MuseLetter #185 / September 2007
Cute title
MuseLetter #185 / September 2007
by Richard Heinberg
Peak Everything
Note: This issue is an edited version of the Introduction to Peak
Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines.
During the past few years the phrase Peak Oil has entered the global
lexicon. It refers to the mome
53 matches
Mail list logo
