The Oil resource - civ4 and peak oil ?

[G-Max]

Your tiresome attempt at hairsplitting is what has been refuted.

It's not hairsplitting, and it wasn't refuted.

You said that THE STATE and TRADE were the only two methods. Not all theft is committed by the state (if anything that's legal can be called theft at all), and trade is not the only form of persuasion. The fact that overlap exists is irrelevant.

As for your attempt to conflate the state with government, I find that to be more than a little offensive. State <> government.

And you accuse ME of splitting hairs?

The state is nothing more or less than a gang of thieves, one which asserts the right to have a monopoly over theft in a given territory. Now it's true that other gangs sometimes come along and attempt to horn in on the turf (they even occasionally take over - 1776 and all that) but that doesn't change the nature of the beast.

Then what's your definition of government?

If you insist, I will change my formulation slightly. There are only two ways that one man can get something from another. The first is through persuasion and the second is through theft.

That's much more accurate.

BTW. In your hairsplitting, you forgot the most important alternate form of persuasion, far more important than begging. This is reciprocal exchange, AKA you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. This is probably the form of exchange which is the most natural to the human species. People have these counters in their heads which count favours they have given to another individuals against favours they have received in turn. They don't trade item for item but they do add up the relative value of what they have gained over time compared to what they have given.

That's trade - a blank check for a blank check.

With completely government owned facets of the market? Massive subsidies? Protectionism? Major industry prop-ups that completely ignore market discipline? The terrible joke that is health care?

Only the first of those is really "un-capitalist". The rest are just a beaten and raped form of capitalism.

 

[FlyingSwan]

@g-max,Im trying to weigh up where your coming from with the starship troopers lib/facism society.Leo Strauss maybe?I reckon he,s your hero

My previous posts obviously didnt make any sence to people,or as to what im trying to get at.(love panda pic)so in future posts i,l try to be be more precise with my definitions and leave out irony/sarcasm and future exploits of a hypothetical goverment.


Capitalism-the private ownership of the means of production for profit(thats my call on definition).

 

[kochman]

Princeton's:
an economic system based on private ownership of capital

 

[FlyingSwan]

Princeton's:
an economic system based on private ownership of capital

ok,that works as well as a definition.Just means that we have to account for the few that own more capital than the majority and the consequences of that disparity,which are inevitably-the few own the means of production.

 

[kochman]

No, that's not what it means.
It means the private citizens/concerns control the capital, not the government.

Your definition can be applied to many things, including feudalism, for example.


This idea that their is some limited amount of total "capital" is a fallacious place to start a debate from to begin with. Since capital is basically money, there is not a case of a few holding the most while the rest get hammered. If capital was only based on resources, you may have a case, but intellectual property must also be considered.

You don't have to control any resources these days to come up with an idea that will make you rich... take internet sites for example. How many people got rich off of controlling the internet? How many people got rich off of putting their idea(s) up for sale on the internet? Or inventing something?

 

[FlyingSwan]

yeah,your right,but it doesnt seem like a base to start from to me.whoopee so you can have a new product/idea,how long before it gets swallowed up by a corporation?,or even suppressed by it.

seems a waste of time time to start at that leval of "everyones got capital,worlds your oyster,american dream blah blah",when the reality is capital is held by a few.

 

[kochman]

So, what would you suggest as a replacement?
I mean, what you posted... it means there is no hope.

Not sure what country you live in, but in the USA, new millionaires are born daily due to their ideas... and they start corporations which impact the entire world.

To name a few that were started by no names, in the computer category I alluded too earlier...
Facebook
Microsoft
Google
Apple

Those are three huge names... they came from nothing basically, nothing other than ideas. They are now multinational, huge machines that drive the entire economy. Heck, FB is even overthrowing dictators now! Google is helping, and it's all done on PCs and Macs.

The way you debate, it seems we are all just slaves to the haves... in America, you can become a have still, you just need an original idea to make it happen. I have some, but none that are so marketable... woe is me.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

This graph published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) has appeared in this thread before but, unfortunately, it hasn't been correctly explained.

Vertical axis : global daily production of petroleum oil, in millions of barrels.
Horizontal axis : years.
NB : The graph does not speculate about the reserves of oil.

So what ?
Here are is some data about reserves :

Geology is not the only factor to assess the oil reserves. Economic and technical parameters are also of importance : when long-term oil prices rise, it becomes profitable to invest in the research and extraction of more expensive oil. If crude oil is what is extracted the most, it is because it is cheaper and easier than other types of oil.

Crude oil : extracting oil deep offshore becomes more and more a) technically possible and b) profitable.
The IEA estimates that, at the rate of the projected consumption in 2035, crude oil reserves would last 70 years. However, the IEA acknowledges that the existing oil fields in activity are already producing at full capacity. It would be needed to open new sites to increase production.

Unconventional oils :
2,9 billions proven and usable barrels in reserve. That amounts roughly to 1,15 times the crude oil reserves (2,5 billions).
Those types of oils become profitable from 60-65$/barrel.

Gas and coal :
Given the current market prices, it is profitable to transform both gas and coal into oil.
At the current rate of consumption, reserves are estimated to last another 150 years for coal and 250 years for gas.

Conclusion :
If the price of an oil barrel stabilizes around 80$ or above - most reasonable assumption - then we're nowhere near a shortage in oil.
Good news ? Bad news ?
Industrious profits will rise.
Oil companies have only little incentive to develop alternative energies - assuming passive legislation.
The extraction of non-conventionnal oils and gas, the transformation of coal to oil, and deep offshore activities have a very high ecological cost.
(google "Deepwater Horizon" and/or "schist gas" and/or "Alberta oil sands")
And then there is the actual consumption of oil, which ain't clean.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

So, what would you suggest as a replacement?
I mean, what you posted... it means there is no hope.

Not sure what country you live in, but in the USA, new millionaires are born daily due to their ideas... and they start corporations which impact the entire world.

To name a few that were started by no names, in the computer category I alluded too earlier...
Facebook
Microsoft
Google
Apple

Those are three huge names... they came from nothing basically, nothing other than ideas. They are now multinational, huge machines that drive the entire economy. Heck, FB is even overthrowing dictators now! Google is helping, and it's all done on PCs and Macs.

The way you debate, it seems we are all just slaves to the haves... in America, you can become a have still, you just need an original idea to make it happen. I have some, but none that are so marketable... woe is me.

it's funny how all the 4 examples of successful invention you mentioned are only marginally, if at all, improving the quality of life in the west, or even giving any hope of sustaining it.

1) google
this is the only componay that actually invented something from your examples. internet and ability to search anything is the future of humanity

2) MS
this company is also providing it's product. but it's not unique.
if Pacal didn't spam his religion everywhere, someone else would be first and took the critical mass of users to achieve monopoly.

3) apple
this is insignificant company that provides overprised consumer product to those who can afford it and have been brainwashed by adds.

4) FB
there are smart people who believe the company is overprised and has yet to provide corresponding profits to its market value.
many thing that the neccessary commercialisation of the application will drive away the critical mass, thus ending the bubble.


the awfull truth is, that there weren´t many important ideas and technologies on how to achieve more energy in last 50 years. (since atomic)
currently there is no replacement for petroleum and uranium energy, that would have comparable net yield

IE solar panels do have extremely low net energy yield, because the energy required to build them and operate them, is almost as high as the energy they provide.
and that' s without accounting for the extremely rare materials needed to build them.

Conclusion :
If the price of an oil barrel stabilizes around 80$ or above - most reasonable assumption - then we're nowhere near a shortage in oil.
Good news ? Bad news ?
Industrious profits will rise.
Oil companies have only little incentive to develop alternative energies - assuming passive legislation.
The extraction of non-conventionnal oils and gas, the transformation of coal to oil, and deep offshore activities have a very high ecological cost.
(google "Deepwater Horizon" and/or "schist gas" and/or "Alberta oil sands")
And then there is the actual consumption of oil, which ain't clean.

the prices are over 120USD right now, and citibank already predicts 200+USD by end of the year

indeed if someone googles those miracle new sources of oil properly, he will again run into the problem of low energy net yield of these sources.

IE: not only are the initial and running capital costs huge, the energy required to process these sources is so enormous, that in the end the net yield from this oil is low.
again, this is not about money, it is pure physics and mathematics

consider this example:
in 1950, it took 1 manhour of energy to extract so much oil, that would eventually provide 10 manhours of energy
but alberta sands, it takes 9 manhours to extract and refine, to get the same 10 manhours of energy output.

thus these sources cannot sustain the consumption rate.
and in no way can the consumption rate keep rising.

at current rate oil consumption has doubled every 20 years
just how long do you think we can keep up with this? in other words, every 20 years the world will need to find more oil in nect 20 years, tthen was consumed in entire humanity history

really only someone not very smart, ignorant, or just someone brainwashed or simply without simple and proper facts, cannot see the problem here.

 

[kochman]

You are truly clueless.

Nothing important in the past 50 years...
THE INTERNET?
COMPUTERS?
Those have vastly improved the economy, communications, and standard of living.



Anyhow, Nicolas... I asked you before. Since you are buying into the speculating and doomsaying of "Peak Oil", which is precisely what the oil companies WANT you to believe, because it increases the price of their product...
What are you doing to prepare yourself for the coming fall of civilization that you mentioned in your first post?

If you know this disaster is coming, surely, you must be doing something to protect yourself from the worst effects, right? What are you doing?

 

[BornInCantaloup]

the prices are over 120USD right now, and citibank already predicts 200+USD by end of the year

Will you be kind enough to provide your exact source ? I couldn't find it.
Regardless, you assume that if oil prices were to rise to 200$/barrel, they would then stagnate at that level. Chances are very small that it would be the case.
If you remember correctly (or check one way or another), you will find that prices tend to fall after crisis-induced rises.
A stable price of 100-120$/barrel is what most reasonable people consider (link to current prices).

indeed if someone googles those miracle new sources of oil properly, he will again run into the problem of low energy net yield of these sources.

IE: not only are the initial and running capital costs huge, the energy required to process these sources is so enormous, that in the end the net yield from this oil is low.
again, this is not about money, it is pure physics and mathematics

Unconventional oil isn't "new" or "miracle" by any means. It has been known for a long time how to exctract and refine it.
What has changed is that industries now have better technical tools to extract it (i.e. decrease in production costs) AND they now have the ability to make profits extracting unconventional oils because the market prices are sufficiently high and will remain so (did you not read my post ? Or did I do a poor job at explaining this ? ^^).
If you believe that industrial activity isn't about money but about physics and mathematics alone, you may want to seriously reconsider your opinions.

consider this example:
in 1950, it took 1 manhour of energy to extract so much oil, that would eventually provide 10 manhours of energy
but alberta sands, it takes 9 manhours to extract and refine, to get the same 10 manhours of energy output.

Can you provide a source as well ?
My sources state that :
- Producing one barrel of oil in Canada releases 100kg of CO2 ;
- Producing one barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia releases 10kg of CO2.
(OTOH : the consumption of that one barrel will release 420kg of CO2)

I didn't find any relevant data to the energetic output vs energetic cost. I do, however, doubt that it would be a profitable activity to produce oil from Alberta oil sands if the energetic output was so poor as you say.

at current rate oil consumption has doubled every 20 years

The IEA graph above does not show a 2x increase in the past twenty years. I believe you posted that graph first...
What you mean is : "if oil consumption kept on increasing at the current rate, it would almost double in the next 20 years."
For reference, a 3% increase every year results in an 80% increase other 20 years. According to the World Energy Outlook 2010, the consumption of energy rised on a 2% per year basis over the past 27 years.
Also... that graph above does not forecast a yearly 3% increase other the next 20 years. Admittedly, this kind of forecast isn't the most reliable. But still, there has been some work put into it.

really only someone not very smart, ignorant, or just someone brainwashed or simply without simple and proper facts, cannot see the problem here.

The "problem" isn't energetic. Nor is it economic in the narrower sense of the term (that of the classical economists ; i.e. economic sphere is separate from social/political/cultural/etc. spheres).
If there is a "problem", it will be social and environmental : pollution, sure, and degradation of some production areas, possibly rending them unfit for population.


ps : my sources : mostly Alternatives Economiques. A French monthly magazine. Many teachers in economic sciences, sociology and political sciences advocate its read on a regular basis to their BA/Master/Ph.D students.

 

[uat2d]

Has anyone here ever played the game Oiligarchy?

Google it, it's pretty funny and it's on-topic.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

@kochman.
you just quoted part of my sentence.
the sentence was about no important discoveries in terms of net energy increase.
computers or internet do not increase net energy produced.

second part: I am doing nothing. Only the richest of the richest are prepared. Those who can afford their own self sufficient stronghold along with enough servants and especially protection from the hungry masses who will flee the cities.

after each civilization collapsed, such strongholds were the only safe haven from hunger and banditry. feudalism originated from this later and medieval European castles are remnant of the last stages of this era

@BORNic
I can' t find it either. It was a leaked private letter to VIP clients of one of the big banks.

you don't need to explain this. I understand this. But most people don't understand the indication.

1) you deny we are running out of oil, so price will not increase
2) your solution for running out of oil is alternative oil, which needs higher price.
3) higher price eventually leads to the very same collapse as no oil. Inability to provide the current level of consumption/population

In the end it doesn't matter if you look at it from scientific or economic viewpoint.
But I prefer the scientific, since wrong understanding of economics brings bad way of thinking and conclusion, as seen in case of Kochman, who just blindly repeats his economic textbook laws.

I do not have any solid data. My information comes from a documentary called "The collapse"
But it seems straightforward to me, that net energy gain was higher when oil basically sprung from ground all over texas, then when complicated methods in remote areas must be performed to receive the same amount of oil.
again, this can be also explained in terms of costs and yields, but I prefer the more core approach.

on civfanatics, I am surprised to see people like kochman who fail to see the core economic approcah and keep babbling about markets, prices, etc.
civilization is basically an economics game with core approach. there is no economic overlay of prices, markets, consumers and producers that would be above all the decisions you make in the game




you are right, in strict understanding of economics, there is no problem, since the markets will clear them selfs.
but people will probably be interested in the fact, that this procces will include drastic reduction of quality of life and also number of population, or combinations of both.

the problems you mentioned are from overproduction. but problems caused by lack of cheap oil (aka energy) will be more from underproduction: famine, violence, disease, collapse of fabric of civilisation



also if anyone really beliefs, that there is a clean, practically unlimited source of energy
but the oil industry somehow keeps it hidden and forbidden,
then people should really unite over facebook or somehow, and demand action, since this has the potential to change everything, and withholding this from humanity would be the biggest crime ever.

so wake up, if there ever was you miracle new energy source, someone would already be making money of it. Don't assign more power to the oil powers then they really have.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Oh ! Don't think I've expressed my opinions on what a "solution" would be
I've just tried to be informative.

This isn't the place to confess my lineage, I'm far too shy !!
And... attempts to convince people are hard to lead. Even more so on the internet. I wouldn't try.

Glad we found a ground for discussion, though
I'll take a peek at that documentary if I have the opportunity.



@ Your arguments :
I prefer them when you express yourself in a cautious manner, such as in the above post, rather than in a sentencious way, such as has happenned. Well, you may not care ; I just thought I'd mention it.
It is much easier to admit that someone "can be right" rather than he "is right", right ?
Rhetorics. Plain. Simple. That's proven efficient. Instill the seeds of reflexion in unsuspecting minds.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1503769/

 

[kochman]

@kochman.
second part: I am doing nothing. Only the richest of the richest are prepared. Those who can afford their own self sufficient stronghold along with enough servants and especially protection from the hungry masses who will flee the cities.

after each civilization collapsed, such strongholds were the only safe haven from hunger and banditry. feudalism originated from this later and medieval European castles are remnant of the last stages of this era

Uh, so... you think the world as we know it is coming to an end... but you are doing absolutely nothing to prepare for it, because you aren't rich?
Couldn't people with such a clear view of the future, such as yourself, figure out a way to make yourself rich using this knowledge?

I'm sorry, but I can't take your arguments seriously at all... at least if you were acting on them, I would have some modicum of respect for your negative and baseless ideas, because I would see you were at least serious about it... but not in this case.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

Uh, so... you think the world as we know it is coming to an end... but you are doing absolutely nothing to prepare for it, because you aren't rich?
Couldn't people with such a clear view of the future, such as yourself, figure out a way to make yourself rich using this knowledge?

I'm sorry, but I can't take your arguments seriously at all... at least if you were acting on them, I would have some modicum of respect for your negative and baseless ideas, because I would see you were at least serious about it... but not in this case.

well there is quite a movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivalism

but in the scope of what is coming, most of these people, mostly families, who prepare their houses in this way, will have no chance anyway. because what they prepare, will be quickly overtaken by hungry refugees from towns

like me. I live in a city, and in no way can afford to move to my own house somewhere outside. and city just will be a deathtrap with dead people in streets and neverending murder, rape, starvation, fight for food cycle.

I don..¨t consider any trading in commodities either, since unless one is an insider, he has no chance to make money.
they might also halt the system, when the price shock becomes imminent, to "stop the greedy speculants"

 

[kochman]

So, you realize that living in the city is certain death... yet you are doing nothing about it. You have years to change your situation (I think even you agree with the idea that this cataclysm is years away), but aren't doing one thing.
I can tell you this much, if I were as sure as you are, I would be getting involved in businesses to capitalize from this, so that I become rich enough to own a compound such as you declare to be the only really safe place... survival of the fittest?

I am, however, quite sure that you are wrong. "Necessity is the mother of invention", and as power supplies dwindle, new ones surface... and people will get rich off of them and the inventions that make them work. There are so many scientists around the world working on this that I guarantee alternative energy sources will certainly get us through at least of our lives.

I watched some documentary the other day of some guy saying these things about peak oil... you seem to echo exactly what he was saying, and it is really just fearmongering paranoia. There is very little science involved, it is only numbers crunching... but the data is totally confounded by real life variables such as ingenuity and necessity.

 

[Nicol.Bolas]

well. I do understand your believe in the solution provided by free market and motivated people. I just do not share it.
I also do not share the believe that an ordinary man can get rich.
So the only difference is in believe. You believe in yet-to-be discovered new sources in energy. I do not.
I even mentioned the document.

I suggest one thing. look at your owns country history, and then tell me the longest period there was without any major conflict or shift in power.
So this believe in democracy and capitalism for all eternity is not based on history.
History books are full of empires and political systems, that were meant to last forever.
in my country that would be 21 years without such events, and thats not counting vassaling to EU as a major event.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Couldn't people with such a clear view of the future, such as yourself, figure out a way to make yourself rich using this knowledge?

Haha ! Good... errr... Bad joke.


Let's try to cool down the hate :

Spoiler :

You know that Portugal is socialist, right? Not capitalist.

Calling a country «capitalist» or «socialist» doesn't make sense, mind you ? People or politics can (claim to) be either, not countries.
What you meant is that socialists rule Portugal. But then again, that is wrong since you oppose socialism to capitalism so bluntly :
The party in power in Portugal is the Socialist Party, yes, but as in most OECD countries the socialist party does not aim at creating a socialist economic system. It aims at regulating capitalism to ensure a degree of social justice. Meanwhile, it fully supports the capitalist mode of production.
Keyword : welfare state.

Sweden has how many people compared to the USA?
How many natural resources?

I mean, comparing Sweden and the entire USA is like comparing Chicago to China...
Poor analyis.

(topic : Sweden having a higher standard of living than the US)
Sweden is rich resource-wise. But are the USA poor ? That sounds like a delusion...
Sweden's population is about 1/30th that of the USA. How is that related to wealth and standards of living ?
Active citizens contribute to the wealth of a country : the more citizens, the more potential.
Consider Japan : very few resources, a little less than ½ the population of the USA, and an extremely high standard of living.
I fail to see any automatic link between a country's natural resources, population and its standard of living...

You back up your point of the USA being capitalist today with a quote from a man who was a total, unabashed socialist that died in 1945.

(about Franklin Delano Roosevelt)
FDR implemented the New Deal in 1933. If that is how he is an unabashed socialist, you are truly mistaken.
There were contradictory policies in the New Deal. Classical economy (cut of expenses ; balanced budget), Keynes (deficit spending, economic regulation), socialism (planned economy) all had their share of influence.

This idea that their is some limited amount of total "capital" is a fallacious place to start a debate from to begin with. Since capital is basically money, there is not a case of a few holding the most while the rest get hammered. If capital was only based on resources, you may have a case, but intellectual property must also be considered.

There are forms of social and cultural capital, right. That is Bourdieu's argument, in any case.
Intellectual property is a very different thing, though. It functions much like a copyright in that it prevents unallowed uses of an item and allows the sale of said item. Actually, the sole justification of intellectual property is that potential sale (maybe you thought it exists to protect the author's pride ? Hahaha...). Drawing a line between money and intellectual property seems artificial at best.

As for this sentence : «Since capital is basically money, there is not a case of a few holding the most while the rest get hammered.»
I fail to understand it. Do you mean that money being money, it is a logical necessity that it is evenly distributed amongst the 6.9 billions inhabitants of this planet ? Dubious... I think my room mate is richer than I am.

Not sure what country you live in, but in the USA, new millionaires are born daily due to their ideas... and they start corporations which impact the entire world.

Born daily, really ?
I bet they were sandwich men before. How lucky. Oh yeah : the USA is the only country I know of where you can see sandwich men on the sidewalk and limousines 2m away in the streets.
I thought those worlds never had any connexion with each other but... maybe I was wrong !

Seriously : the «self-made man» exists. Yes. That happens.
Now, assuming it is a desirable fate to be such a man, there are a few ways to consider this. At least : you can look at it in terms of absolute quantity and you may think the opportunity is easy to seize ; or you can look at it in terms of proportion and maybe the conclusion will change.