[rangerone314]

Will Peak Oil Pricing = Perma Recession?

Not if the people running the joint are to be believed. article

With the way Wall Street is run, they should rename the "Wall Street Journal" to "The Serial Rapist Journal" since that is what Wall Street does to Main Street.

So what % of world GNP has to go towards oil for the world economy to essential be in an irretrieveable death spiral? 10%? 15%?

[shortonsense]

The price of oil actually tripled from 1999 to 2000:

But it never even attempted to reach the real highs from maybe 30 years earlier. The trend of real oil prices since about 1969 is quite clear, the 1999-2000 spike was barely a blip in the overall trend and caused by the other factors Tyler mentioned.

[shortonsense]

Will Peak Oil Pricing = Perma Recession?

Not if the people running the joint are to be believed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1253017 ... st_Popular

How good were their predictions going in?

Do they have a vested interest in lying or propping up the status quo?

Their predictions are probably about the same quality as anyone elses predictions of the future..including peakers.

And vested interest in lying doesn't mean they actually do it any more than a cop kills people randomly just because he happens to carry a firearm.

But if he's right, and there are others who say he might be, then certainly we can't talk about peak oil ( the one in 2005 or the one in 2008 ) causing a perma-recession.

[hardtootell-2]

Will Peak Oil Pricing = Perma Recession?

Not if the people running the joint are to be believed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1253017 ... st_Popular

How good were their predictions going in?

Do they have a vested interest in lying or propping up the status quo?

Their predictions are probably about the same quality as anyone elses predictions of the future..including peakers.

.

Wow you are talking nonsense

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QpD64GUoXw

vs Peter Schiff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCv32qaINIQ

[shortonsense]

Wow you are talking nonsense

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QpD64GUoXw

vs Peter Schiff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCv32qaINIQ

I have ventured my thoughts before on how the downfall of America is more related to us devolving our attention span down to that of a child, and the accompanying need for animated visual input and chattering heads rather than a properly referenced, footnoted and published paper/reference of some sort.

I won't repeat it again here, but needless to say, when the reference provided falls into the category of "YouTube Knowledge", I shall leave it up to others to indulge themselves.

[AgentR]

I'm not one to put much stock in a relationship between peak oil and prices, but it is somewhat interesting to me that despite an absolutely horrific economic picture, gasoline is *still* between $2 and $3 a gallon; and $70/bbl for oil.

Bad economies generally include a fall in consumption of extraneous "stuff". Maybe available supply flows are a lot closer to the consumption level of critical, high value processes than one might expect.

IF that is so, then if improvement occurs in the economic picture, short term, the ramp up in end user price could be startling.

[DantesPeak]

The price of oil actually tripled from 1999 to 2000:

But it never even attempted to reach the real highs from maybe 30 years earlier. The trend of real oil prices since about 1969 is quite clear, the 1999-2000 spike was barely a blip in the overall trend and caused by the other factors Tyler mentioned.

It may be a blip to you, but to those truckers and drivers that saw the price of gasoline/diesel rise 50% in less than two years, I am sure it wasn't.

[shortonsense]

The price of oil actually tripled from 1999 to 2000:

But it never even attempted to reach the real highs from maybe 30 years earlier. The trend of real oil prices since about 1969 is quite clear, the 1999-2000 spike was barely a blip in the overall trend and caused by the other factors Tyler mentioned.

It may be a blip to you, but to those truckers and drivers that saw the price of gasoline/diesel rise 50% in less than two years, I am sure it wasn't.

Thats because most Americans have the attention span better suited for watching drag races than marathons. It does not change the facts of the situation, their poor long term memory.

Its like using only the time frame from July/2008 to December/2008 as an example of how we don't ever have to worry about future crude costs because gee, the price went down so fast ( in just one little isolated example, such as yours ).

[Quinny]

You are correct that selective timescales can distort overall picture, but the difference is that your selection is against the overall trend whereas the increase only emphasises the trend.

IMO if your example was used it would be trying to misinform the other may over emphasise, but isn't as dishonest.

[davep]

historically, when the cost of oil expenses reaches 4% of GDP, the economy shrinks. And we are not that far from that trigger.

Err, with huge taxes on gasoline and diesel in Europe, surely oil expenses have long been over 4% of GDP already, without necessarily causing economic shrinkage?

Does anyone have any stats on this?

[Stonemason]

I don't know if this article is correct, but it puts the price of oil pinned to the Goldman Sachs games they play.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/st ... le_machine

[shortonsense]

You are correct that selective timescales can distort overall picture, but the difference is that your selection is against the overall trend whereas the increase only emphasises the trend.

Of course it was. I was trying to make a point about selective time scales, regardless of the direction they are headed in.

But the entire claim in the first place was unreasonable, pretending that only nominal prices over a short term matter. People were pretty cheesed at the price of uranium back in 2008 as well....peak uranium!...and then the price cratered the same way that crude did.

[DantesPeak]

You are correct that selective timescales can distort overall picture, but the difference is that your selection is against the overall trend whereas the increase only emphasises the trend.

Of course it was. I was trying to make a point about selective time scales, regardless of the direction they are headed in.

But the entire claim in the first place was unreasonable, pretending that only nominal prices over a short term matter. People were pretty cheesed at the price of uranium back in 2008 as well....peak uranium!...and then the price cratered the same way that crude did.

Let's get not get too gleeful about bashing others.

Maybe you didin't know - it was quite obvious what caused high uranium prices last year - two floods:

New Uranium Mine Flood Tightens Uranium Supply - Prices to go Higher
Commodities / Uranium
Mar 11, 2007 - 09:53 PM

By: James_Finch

After Cameco Corp’s Cigar Lake flood at the company’s northern Saskatchewan uranium mining project rattled analysts and utilities who previously expected sufficient uranium would be available to meet the needs of nuclear utilities, along came another mine flooding – this one in Australia.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article506.html

BTW - if you are predicting a new crash in the price of oil - we'll spit it out and tell us your exact prediction - instead of giving us some after the fact information that we already know about.

[shortonsense]

Maybe you didin't know - it was quite obvious what caused high uranium prices last year - two floods:

New Uranium Mine Flood Tightens Uranium Supply - Prices to go Higher
Commodities / Uranium
Mar 11, 2007 - 09:53 PM

By: James_Finch

After Cameco Corp’s Cigar Lake flood at the company’s northern Saskatchewan uranium mining project rattled analysts and utilities who previously expected sufficient uranium would be available to meet the needs of nuclear utilities, along came another mine flooding – this one in Australia.

Obviously that wasn't the only reason prices were climbing a year PRIOR to your reference, or necessarily the reasons being claimed at the time.

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2007/0704 ... _boom.html

http://www.stockinterview.com/News/1030 ... price.html

BTW - if you are predicting a new crash in the price of oil - we'll spit it out and tell us your exact prediction - instead of giving us some after the fact information that we already know about.

I certainly didn't expect last years peak oil to cause a price crash, and certainly those on this website who participated in the 2008 price of crude thread were more than a little taken by surprise as well, and I'm sure more than a few "experts" participated...who am I to deny the validity of the methods they used to...all overestimate the price? 100% counterindicative at its best!

In my particular case, I feel it is best to recognize early that predicting the future is much less productive than preparing for it. So in July of 2008 I purchased my transportation designed to stabilize my fuel costs at a reasonable level, even if gasoline went to $6/gal. Web experts post and debate, us regular people simply mitigate!

[Tyler_JC]

historically, when the cost of oil expenses reaches 4% of GDP, the economy shrinks. And we are not that far from that trigger.

Err, with huge taxes on gasoline and diesel in Europe, surely oil expenses have long been over 4% of GDP already, without necessarily causing economic shrinkage?

Does anyone have any stats on this?

But that money stays within the economy.

The extra taxes are collected by the government and spent on social services for the people. If they didn't have high gas taxes, they would need higher income or sales taxes to make up the difference.

When oil prices rise dramatically in the United States, the money is merely pulled out of the US economy and into the pockets of the Saudis, Nigerians, Venezuelans, etc. It's a boom for the oil exporters but a drain on the US and other major oil importers.

[kiwichick]

http://ideas.wikia.com/wiki/Volatility_ ... Investment

fig 9 particularly interesting

[DantesPeak]

Maybe you didin't know - it was quite obvious what caused high uranium prices last year - two floods:

New Uranium Mine Flood Tightens Uranium Supply - Prices to go Higher
Commodities / Uranium
Mar 11, 2007 - 09:53 PM

By: James_Finch

After Cameco Corp’s Cigar Lake flood at the company’s northern Saskatchewan uranium mining project rattled analysts and utilities who previously expected sufficient uranium would be available to meet the needs of nuclear utilities, along came another mine flooding – this one in Australia.

Obviously that wasn't the only reason prices were climbing a year PRIOR to your reference, or necessarily the reasons being claimed at the time.

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2007/0704 ... _boom.html

http://www.stockinterview.com/News/1030 ... price.html

BTW - if you are predicting a new crash in the price of oil - we'll spit it out and tell us your exact prediction - instead of giving us some after the fact information that we already know about.

I certainly didn't expect last years peak oil to cause a price crash, and certainly those on this website who participated in the 2008 price of crude thread were more than a little taken by surprise as well, and I'm sure more than a few "experts" participated...who am I to deny the validity of the methods they used to...all overestimate the price? 100% counterindicative at its best!

In my particular case, I feel it is best to recognize early that predicting the future is much less productive than preparing for it. So in July of 2008 I purchased my transportation designed to stabilize my fuel costs at a reasonable level, even if gasoline went to $6/gal. Web experts post and debate, us regular people simply mitigate!

What are you talking about? I predicted oil to hit $146 in 2008 back in 2007.

[shortonsense]

What are you talking about? I predicted oil to hit $146 in 2008 back in 2007.

I have no doubt that your opinion of your prognostications borders on genius.

The thread I was referring to was this one.

http://peakoil.com/economics-finance/20 ... il%20price

Here is your guess from Page 2.

"So for revised forecast the second half of 2008 is

High - 170
Low - 120
Close - 150"

Didn't quite catch that "peak oil = huge price collapse" though....although admittedly, no one saw that one coming. Which was the initial point I was making.

Only after July/2008 was the true magnitude of demand destruction and substitution revealed for all to see, people had been ranting on about field declines for so long they just couldn't imagine that there were much more powerful forces at work.

[shortonsense]

Short is one-trick pony. Whatever the discussion, he will make the same point and I assume the above is merely variant of it.

That certainly was not what I said related to the topic of this thread, ergo, those who run the joint certainly aren't calling what is happening in the US, economically, a recession anymore, and certainly not a perma-recession.

I apologize for in any way distracting from the topic at hand, although the multiple peaks of global oil production certainly SHOULD come up every time someone confuses the most recent one with perhaps the final one, without recognizing that these claims AND these peaks have BOTH occurred in the past on multiple occasions.

That is, peak oil is not real because folks modeling it and trying to predict outcome have not been precisely correct and therefore their efforts are a waste and not only are all models and outcomes wrong, but the very concept of peak is wrong.

Short, in short, is full of it

Incorrect. Historical facts, which are much better to deal with than trying to find one of those carrying a bachelor degree in "depletion science" ( pray tell Pstarr, have you found the curriculum for any of these specialists yet? ), are therefore quite easy to point out, and have nothing to do with peak oil production forecasts and predictions, or whatever quality.

When one pins ones hopes on a "peak" in production, it is best not to have 3 of the silly things in this decade alone.