How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
Yes. Has Montequest left or is he on holiday? or has the constant haranguing of his choice of car got to him?
He used to keep tabs on this sort of thing.
I even started the same thread at the Discussion section.
That's 3 threads saying exactly the same thing.
Come on Moderators - do some moderating. Bird Flu or peak oil ain't here just yet!
Joined: Feb 23, 2005 Posts: 242 Location: Kingston, ON, Canada
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 9:16 am Post subject:
Uh, I see the threads are now merged, leading to my other post linking to the same thread that it's already in. Thanks for making me look like an idiot
Uh, I see the threads are now merged, leading to my other post linking to the same thread that it's already in. Thanks for making me look like an idiot
The reason I don't say it's a good thing is that without recognising the energy disaster we won't even attempt to address it. We won't go on a major efficiency or alternatives drive. We'll just have one big, nasty, ever-deepening depression.
Yep, but depressions are not frozen states. Societies will start to reorganize themselves according to the new conditions. Dmitry Orlov describes how this happened in Russia in the 1990:s and the same will happen for us.
Yep, but depressions are not frozen states. Societies will start to reorganize themselves according to the new conditions. Dmitry Orlov describes how this happened in Russia in the 1990:s and the same will happen for us.
Russia was not short on oil in 1990. Everything in our society is dependent on the availability of oil. Our present culture can not be rebuilt without a substitute for petroleum and as yet we aren't even close to accomplishing that feat. It is more probable that we will experience several generations of declining world population, poverty, wars and socio/economic disruption. A thousand year darkages could be in the making. We will probably just be another of the 360 odd civilizations that have come and gone in the history of man.
Russia was not short on oil in 1990. Everything in our society is dependent on the availability of oil. Our present culture can not be rebuilt without a substitute for petroleum and as yet we aren't even close to accomplishing that feat. It is more probable that we will experience several generations of declining world population, poverty, wars and socio/economic disruption. A thousand year darkages could be in the making. We will probably just be another of the 360 odd civilizations that have come and gone in the history of man.
Agree. There are huge differences in conditions between the former S.U. crash and us. To our disadvantage. Russia still have oil, and Russia was surrounded by a functioning economy in the rest of the world. We will have a harder time than they had, but still societies will start to reorganize spontaneously. Exactly how is rather difficult to tell, but people have a tendency to hang on and find ways to keep warm and fed.
Tar sands is not going to lower price of oil, but it is going to be a significant source for us.
Canada will reach 5mbpd and Venezeula if regime change like what Bush wants, will also reach in a couple mbpd.
Tar sands will never supply our current market and cultural structure.
I hope you are not saying tar sands is not a significant source of oil.
Joined: May 02, 2005 Posts: 3249 Location: One more question...
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:32 pm Post subject:
nth wrote:
MD wrote:
nth wrote:
Tar sands is not going to lower price of oil, but it is going to be a significant source for us.
Canada will reach 5mbpd and Venezeula if regime change like what Bush wants, will also reach in a couple mbpd.
Tar sands will never supply our current market and cultural structure.
I hope you are not saying tar sands is not a significant source of oil.
Your hope is realized, I am not saying tar sands are insignificant. Tar sands will never supply our current use model. _________________ "Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
Robert A. Heinlein
Tar sands is not going to lower price of oil, but it is going to be a significant source for us.
Canada will reach 5mbpd and Venezeula if regime change like what Bush wants, will also reach in a couple mbpd.
Tar sands will never supply our current market and cultural structure.
I hope you are not saying tar sands is not a significant source of oil.
Your hope is realized, I am not saying tar sands are insignificant. Tar sands will never supply our current use model.
I hope no one is stupid enough to think we can replace conventional oil with tar sand. The projected peak production is 5mbpd for Canadian tar sands. Looking at the current tar sand operations, it doesn't look good at all. The number of accidents is quite high.
No, Morgan Stanley is not advising clients that there will be a correction. The idea of correction is your idea not theirs.
Oil price forecast by Morgan Stanley...
Quote:
Using Morgan Stanley forecasts for oil prices, our central expectation is that energy prices faced by UK consumers in 2005 will be, on average, nearly 8% higher than in 2004.
I love these investment houses. They have an analyst backing every horse in the race so that whatever the result they can always state that they are on the winner.
I note that the original Yahoo article quoted the views of Any Xie who is Morgan Stanleys resident China expert in Hong Kong. I think his views on oil prices are based on his rather bearish oulook for the Chinese economy. Since he is not really an energy analyst I think his predictions need to be treated with a degree of caution.
.
I think a more reliable way is to look for Morgan Stanley official communications, especially its own investments. They will state specific recommendations. Analysts opinions are less trustworthy than actual Morgan Stanley investment advice and investment movements by the company.
Joined: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 463 Location: Cheshire, England
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:47 pm Post subject: Re: Morgan Stanely: Oil market crash
Raxozanne wrote:
Quote:
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The oil market may be quickly headed for a massive crash as global economic growth slackens, alternative energy gains ground and financial traders sense a price peak, an economist with Morgan Stanley said on Thursday
That's a fascinating article in terms of understanding economists.
Andy Xie, Greater China economist, Morgan Stanley wrote:
As evidence of weakening demand and ample supply accumulates, the market may panic, I believe it could correct in the most speculative fashion -- it could collapse.
They will likely keep prices up until an oil market collapse. That day is not too far away, I believe... What is occurring now is probably the final frenzy, in my view.
His opinion is that the price of oil is inflated by speculators and a price collapse is imminent.
Let's say he's right. Say the price of oil drops by 50% over the next 6 months. He's not saying that output increases by 20%, or that demand decreases by 30%, he is suggesting that a tiny fall in demand or a tiny increase in output could trigger a collapse in the price. In a nutshell, he is suggesting that the oil market has an element of gearing - that small fluctuations in the demand/supply balance are exaggerated by speculators. This is not such a daft suggestion.
So, let's suppose for a moment that he's right and the price drops 50% over 6 months. Output might increase by a few percent over that time, or consumption may decrease by a few percent, but that would neither prove nor disprove anything IMHO. It doesn't mean we have peaked, nor does it mean we have years before the peak. It doesn't prove peak-oil, nor does it disprove it. From a peak-oil perspective, it doesn't really mean anything. All it proves (if it happens, which I doubt) is that there is a large element of speculation in the price of oil, nothing more nothing less.
Even OPEC only tried to claim that $10 of the price of oil was due to speculation. (That was last quarter btw. This quarter they're blaming refining capacity. Next quarter maybe it'll be those pesky terrorists. Then maybe those damn Chinese..., or Humvee drivers, or global warming. Yup global warming, that's always a safe bet.)
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
