Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: The Really Real Reason Gas Prices Are High: What Government Doesn't Want You to Know

  1. #1

    The Really Real Reason Gas Prices Are High: What Government Doesn't Want You to Know

    [url]http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?nid=1676556164[/url]

    [QUOTE]Bubble Banking

    Bernanke, 'core inflation', slammed as commodity bubble cause global chaos
    April 30, 2008 (LBO) –

    The Federal Reserve money printing that has fired a commodity bubble causing malnutrition and food riots in poor countries is increasingly coming under fire, with mainstream media adding their voice to a growing flood of critics.

    After the sub-prime bubble started to unravel last July the Fed has cut rates – the tap through which is money is printed for the banking system – from 5.25 percent to 2.25 percent.

    The Fed has individually poured money into banks like Bear Stearns and has also started to lend cash to Wall Street against worse-than-junk-bonds violating time honoured central banking principle of lending against good collateral.

    [B]Too Far[/B]

    "Eight months into the Fed's most recent rate-cutting spree, the evidence is overwhelming that it has been a major policy mistake," the Wall Street Journal said this week ahead of a meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee which decides rates.

    "Meanwhile, the Fed's decision to open the general monetary spigots has inspired a global commodity boom unlike any since the 1970s."

    "Oil has climbed to nearly 119 dollar a barrel today from 70 dollars in late August, a 70 percent increase.

    "Farm and other commodities have seen a similar surge, with corresponding increases in food prices leading to shortages and riots in Egypt and other places, and to rice hoarding even in Southern California."

    [B]The 1970's bubble was caused when the United States defaulted on its obligations under the Bretton Woods agreement, broke the dollar's link to gold and went on a fully fiat paper currency amidst heavy money printing.[/B]

    Until the broadside from the Wall Street Journal, mainstream media has been muted in its criticism of the Federal Reserve and central banking in general.

    [B]The mainstream media is driven by comments of 'analysts' at large investment banks who have the most to gain from 'rate cuts', and statements by central bankers themselves, which tend to be taken at face value and actually believed by credulous members of the public.[/B]

    [B]Blame 'Supply Shocks'[/B]

    Commentators who talk of a 'food crisis' have found bogeys in bio-fuel to climate change despite overwhelming evidence that the food inflation seen in recent months is monetary phenomenon caused by Fed rate cuts in particular and lack of firmly anchored monetary policy especially in developing countries.

    Central bankers have been quick to blame 'supply shocks' while politicians from Philippines to Sri Lanka have blamed 'hoarders' and 'unscrupulous traders' for grain price rises without fixing their monetary systems or trade and fiscal policies.

    [B]"The popular media explanation is that this price surge is a result of rising global demand, greedy speculators and human profligacy," the Wall Street Journal commented.

    "All of a sudden, without warning, the world is said to be running out of food.
    [/B]
    "After 30 years in intellectual hibernation, Thomas Malthus and the Age of Scarcity are back in style."

    The Journal said the European Central Bank (ECB) has had comparatively better monetary policy than the Fed. Since 2003 the price of oil has climbed 146 percent in Euros against 273 percent in dollars.

    "This reflects the European Central Bank's sounder monetary management," the newspaper said.
    [B]
    "And it means that had the dollar merely retained the same purchasing power as the euro, today's price of oil would be below 70 dollars a barrel."[/B]

    However even the and also the Bank of England has pumped billions in liquidity to the banking system and house prices in many European countries have also been bubbling, much like the US.

    [B]Core Fraud[/B]

    The Journal also slammed the Federal Reserve's practice of quoting a 'core' inflation index which strips out food and energy which are the very types of goods that has a deadly response to monetary policy action in the first place.

    "…the Fed and much of Wall Street convinced themselves that the only inflation measure that matters is "core inflation," which excludes food and energy," the Journal said.

    [B]"The Fed's monks devised that measure to avoid an overreaction to commodity price movements, but instead they have used it to pretend that food and energy prices don't matter.

    "Throughout this decade, they pointed to core inflation to argue that "inflationary expectations remain well anchored," even as the dollar and commodity price signals were telling us that the opposite was true.[/B]

    'Americans don't buy gas and groceries with "core" dollars."

    In criticizing 'core inflation' the Journal is joining other mainstream media.

    The Economist last year called the US core inflation "the cold and hungry index" and asked whether the typical American was "on a permanent fast, walks everywhere and survives without heating or air conditioning."

    Core inflation has also come under fire from Bank of England governor Mervyn King who said it was "highly misleading", because rising energy and food prices which affected aggregate demand, tended to depress the prices of all other goods.

    Many central banks in developing countries have also found comfort in 'core' inflation to escape public criticism for printing money and driving inflation up.

    [B]Legalized Stealing[/B]

    [B]In addition to hurting the world's poor through high food prices, the Journal said Fed rate cuts also punished the savers of the United States and also hurt consumer spending by reducing the purchasing power of ordinary Americans.

    "This is a direct tax on both the world's poor and America's middle class," the Journal said.

    "Just when the U.S. economy needs a resilient consumer given the fall in housing prices, these price increases have eviscerated consumer pocketbooks.[/B]

    "In its attempt to help Wall Street and the financial system, Fed policy is punishing average Americans. The public is frustrated and angry with these price increases, and it has a right to be.

    [B]"Inflation is the thief of the thrifty middle class."
    [/B]
    People on the street find it difficult to grasp the dangers of unrestrained central banking and that inflation is caused by the loss of value of paper currency.

    Bernanke's rapid rate cuts is believed to be partly caused by his academic study of the great depression in the 1930's which some economists claimed was worsened by a reluctance of the Fed to cut rates early enough due to a "strong dollar policy".

    He has been credited with raising 'deflation' fears after the dotcom bubble burst and spurring the Fed to cut rates as low as one percent, which then worsened a housing bubble, resulting in the current sub-prime crash.

    Bernanke has also come under sever pressure in the US Congressional hearings from Texas representative Ron Paul.

    The Journal said the world needed a "revival of American monetary leadership."

    "It wants the Bernanke Fed to stop the global run on the dollar, and that means declaring an end to its rate-cutting mistake." [/QUOTE]


    People we must wake up and realize that its not oil shortages or OPEC that is blame for the current rise in prices. It is the printing of valueless dollars by the Federal Reserve.

    “It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” - Henry Ford

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    I typed out a similiar response in the Gas prices thread but never posted it. It went nowhere last time. To me it's logical, you can see back to April of 06 when the housing bubble burst that oil starts to rise as the dollar falls..

    USD$
    [url]http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui[/url]

    Oil
    [url]http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/M[/url]


    I'm still waiting for 5ever to chime in on this, it seems pretty clear that massive amounts of wealth has systematically been transferred from stocks to housing to commodities, all driven by poor, short sighted monetary policy by the fed..

  3. #3
    economic models in relation to oil crisis: speculative and varied...

    geological models in relation to oil crisis: undeniable fact...

  4. #4
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Jets Stadium Section 246
    Posts
    37,082
    Guys, this is straightforward stuff. Oil is traded globally in USD so as the US Dollar Index has fallen the price of Oil has risen. Anyone who is price sensitive to oil or its related products like gas should simply hedge himself by buying into USO or the equities of oil companies (the integrateds, explorers, refiners, etc.). I bought into USO a while back and every time I get ticked because the price at the pump is up 10 cents from the previous week I just smile knowing that my investments are growing. My annual fuel bill may have gone from about $1750 to $2500 for one of my cars but my investments have much more than made up for it. Just one man's strategy....take it or leave it.

  5. #5
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,710
    I thought it was the environmentalists? lol

  6. #6
    Well I learn something new everyday!

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=CTM;2516731]I typed out a similiar response in the Gas prices thread but never posted it. It went nowhere last time. To me it's logical, you can see back to April of 06 when the housing bubble burst that oil starts to rise as the dollar falls..

    USD$
    [url]http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui[/url]

    Oil
    [url]http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/M[/url]


    I'm still waiting for 5ever to chime in on this, it seems pretty clear that massive amounts of wealth has systematically been transferred from stocks to housing to commodities, all driven by poor, short sighted monetary policy by the fed..[/QUOTE]


    You're exactly right. The Fed has been amazingly irresponsible and short-sighted. It goes back to Greenspan. Volcker was a smart man who handled things well and he paid the polltical price for it. Career risk and pressure from politicians who have to worry about the short-term perpetually influence the Fed. The mandate of the Fed is different than the mandate of the ECB. The ECB is only (in theory) worried about keeping inflation low (targeting about 2% and change). The Fed has two primary motives (in theory), to keep inflation low and to keep unemployment low. They help blow bubbles and then always over-react trying to mitigate the inevitable corrections. Everything reverts to the mean over time. Giving taxpayers a "rebate" is like taking water from the deep end of a pool and pouring into the shallow end - the pool doesn't get any deeper in total ans not even any deeper at the shallow end. Everyone thinks consumer spending drives economic growth, but productivity is that drives it. Consumer spending is the reward and not the cause of higher productivity. Boifuels and corn-based ethanol and those laws don't help things, because about a quarter of our corn production has been switched to fuel and not food, meaning that prices go up as supply shrinks, and more and more farmland that was once used for other crops is now going to corn because corn has been made artificially more profitable as a fuel than as a food. But the money printing has helped keep the dollar on a decline and many commodities are priced in dollars. Real interest rates were essentially zero for a long time as the Fed sought to infuse such stimulus after the TMT bubble (which they help blow!) burst and now the cycle repeats with the housing bubble.

    However, the doomsday scenarios are hardly accurate either. People have over-reacted to the housing bubble bursting and need to calm down. The Fed needs to worry only about combating inflation and we need to take our medicine with sounder monetary policy.

    CTM - read up on Milton Friedman, Keynes, and many others to get an understanding of different theories involved.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 04-30-2008 at 12:19 PM.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2517262]You're exactly right. The Fed has been amazingly irresponsible and short-sighted. It goes back to Greenspan. Volcker was a smart man who handled things well and he paid the polltical price for it. Career risk and pressure from politicians who have to worry about the short-term perpetually influence the Fed. The mandate of the Fed is different than the mandate of the ECB. The ECB is only (in theory) worried about keeping inflation low (targeting about 2% and change). The Fed has two primary motives (in theory), to keep inflation low and to keep unemployment low. They help blow bubbles and then always over-react trying to mitigate the inevitable corrections. Everything reverts to the mean over time. Giving taxpayers a "rebate" is like taking water from the deep end of a pool and pouring into the shallow end - the pool doesn't get any deeper in total ans not even any deeper at the shallow end. Everyone thinks consumer spending drives economic growth, but productivity is that drives it. Consumer spending is the reward and not the cause of higher productivity. Boifuels and corn-based ethanol and those laws don't help things, because about a quarter of our corn production has been switched to fuel and not food, meaning that prices go up as supply shrinks, and more and more farmland that was once used for other crops is now going to corn because corn has been made artificially more profitable as a fuel than as a food. But the money printing has kept the dollar on a decline and many commodities are priced in dollars. Real interest rates were essentially zero for a long time as the Fed sought to infuse such stimulus after the TMT bubble (which they help blow!) burst and now the cycle repeats with the housing bubble.
    [B]
    However, the doomsday scenarios are hardly accurate either. People have over-reacted to the housing bubble bursting and need to calm down. The Fed needs to worry only about combating inflation and we need to take our medicine with sounder monetary policy.
    [/B]
    CTM - read up on Milton Friedman, Keynes, and many others to get an understanding of different theories involved.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed 100%. Was the theme of the whole long post I typed up and didn't post.

    Thanks for weighing in, going back to our media discussion, I read so much on this stuff and so many differeing opinions yet I actually find a somewhat anonymous poster on a Jets message board to be my favorite reality check.

    I've read some, actually read a lot and feel I intuitively understand some of this stuff. I'll continue to read more. I just don't know how to acquire enough knowledge that you can be confident in fully understanding complex economic interactions..

    In other words, at the time, I felt Greenspan was feeding the housing bubble too much and we were headed for diseaster, but I know enough to know that there's a reaction (sometimes unintended) to every action, so I wasn't sure if maybe it caused 1 problem (housing inflation) but mitigated another bigger problem (deflation?). It's like the minimum wage debate. On the surface it would appear clear that it helps lower wage earners, but when digging deeper, it clearly doesn't..

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=CTM;2517285]Agreed 100%. Was the theme of the whole long post I typed up and didn't post.

    Thanks for weighing in, going back to our media discussion, I read so much on this stuff and so many differeing opinions yet I actually find a somewhat anonymous poster on a Jets message board to be my favorite reality check.

    I've read some, actually read a lot and feel I intuitively understand some of this stuff. I'll continue to read more. I just don't know how to acquire enough knowledge that you can be confident in fully understanding complex economic interactions..

    In other words, at the time, I felt Greenspan was feeding the housing bubble too much and we were headed for diseaster, but I know enough to know that there's a reaction (sometimes unintended) to every action, so I wasn't sure if maybe it caused 1 problem (housing inflation) but mitigated another bigger problem (deflation?). It's like the minimum wage debate. On the surface it would appear clear that it helps lower wage earners, but when digging deeper, it clearly doesn't..[/QUOTE]

    Nobody really fully understands all of it - all you can ever do is learn more than you know presently. And it's not a question of just knowing things, but also making value judgments about the costs and benefits of things we know are likely to happen. There are powerful disagreements to this very day about many many things in economics. It is not really the dismal science (well, it's not really science, actually).
    Last edited by jets5ever; 04-30-2008 at 12:45 PM.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2517262]Boifuels and corn-based ethanol and those laws don't help things, because about a quarter of our corn production has been switched to fuel and not food, meaning that prices go up as supply shrinks, and more and more farmland that was once used for other crops is now going to corn because corn has been made artificially more profitable as a fuel than as a food. [/QUOTE]


    Now is as good a time as any to talk about how corn is used as a food.

    If there is a more harmful ingredient to our society as a whole than high fructose corn syrup, I don't know what it is.

    That crap is in everything, and the reason why is it's cheap and it makes everything taste better.

    But as far as nutrional value, it's about as wholesome as cigarette smoking.

    It's one thing to talk about corn as a real food, i.e. people eating ears of corn. That's fine. But all this corn syrup is not needed, a leading cause of obesity and if the price goes up that's only a good thing for the people of the USA, whether we realize it or not.

  11. #11
    Corn on the cob is great, it is also good livestock feed. But for Ethanol and Biodeisel it is a joke. It takes more gasoline to make one gallon ethanol + it costs a fortune to ship it breaks down rather quickly!

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=jefethegreat;2516542][url]http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?nid=1676556164[/url]




    People we must wake up and realize that its not oil shortages or OPEC that is blame for the current rise in prices. It is the printing of valueless dollars by the Federal Reserve.

    “It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” - Henry Ford[/QUOTE]i have brought this up a couple of times on other threads.how much money does the Fed destroy compared to how much its prints? and is the destruction tied into interest gained on a finite number of dollars?

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2517432]Now is as good a time as any to talk about how corn is used as a food.

    If there is a more harmful ingredient to our society as a whole than high fructose corn syrup, I don't know what it is.

    That crap is in everything, and the reason why is it's cheap and it makes everything taste better.

    But as far as nutrional value, it's about as wholesome as cigarette smoking.

    It's one thing to talk about corn as a real food, i.e. people eating ears of corn. That's fine. But all this corn syrup is not needed, a leading cause of obesity and if the price goes up that's only a good thing for the people of the USA, whether we realize it or not.[/QUOTE]

    So, people like fructose corn syrup, then right? So what's the problem? Fructose corn syrup doesn't "cause" obesity anymore than a Big Macs or ice cream "cause" obesity. Poor diets and sedentary lifestyles contribute to it, along with the genetic component. If your diet is good and you excercise enough, eating the occasional bad food in moderation is fine. In fact, it's one of life's simple pleasures that everyone here enjoys tremendously and it adds to your quality of life. Chances are you won't be obese if you have a good diet and you excercise regularly.

    Rising corn prices and a shift to corn production and away from other crops affects poorer people the most. You'll notice there are food riots in some poorer countries, yes? Well, part of the cause is the nonsense we're doing with our ethanol that has not had any effect on carbon emissions and has raised food prices around the world. Or, it has done exactly what people like me said it would do at the time - have no impact on the environment and harm the poorest people in the world, all for the vanity of rich, pampered, bored western environmentalists. Even the Greenies are starting to realize what should have been obvious to anyone with a brain long ago.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2517557]i have brought this up a couple of times on other threads.how much money does the Fed destroy compared to how much its prints? and is the destruction tied into interest gained on a finite number of dollars?[/QUOTE]

    Under Open Market Operations the Fed NEVER destroys money once its printed. Now the Fed does replace damaged currency with fresh currency but the money supply is never constricted, its growth is only slowed. When the Fed raises interest rates its takes longer for the money supply to grow, but it still grows.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=jefethegreat;2516542][url]http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?nid=1676556164[/url]




    People we must wake up and realize that its not oil shortages or OPEC that is blame for the current rise in prices. It is the printing of valueless dollars by the Federal Reserve.

    “It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” - Henry Ford[/QUOTE]

    Historically 14 brls of oil buy 1 once of gold today it's less than 8. How would the gold standard protect us from the increased supply and demand of oil over gold.

  16. #16
    more monetary and economic speculation being bandied back and forth...

    not a single poster here is acknowledging the geological models.... you see the subtle denial everywhere, not just this forum... i suppose it's the human condition.

    we're like a sick patient with cancer insisting on a 10th, 11th, 12th opinion, hoping for one that says "it's not cancer."

    the age of oil is over..... and the quicker Big Oil and OPEC and Western Governments become completely honest about the situation to the public, the quicker mankind can get to work on developing something else (that is relatively safe for the environment). Unfortunately, they refuse to admit it openly so as to keep the markets afloat. That is somewhat understandable, but only staving off an inevitable.

    [INDENT]
    [B][SIZE="4"][URL="http://www.oilcrisis.com/summary.htm"]Reality Dawns[/URL]:[/SIZE][/B]

    Such a study has recently been conducted by Dr. C. J. Campbell, on behalf of Petroconsultants of Geneva, and using their data. The Petroconsultants database is the most comprehensive available for data on oil resources outside of continental North America, and [B]is used as a 'bible' by all international oil companies - the information contained in this database is not in the public domain. [/B]

    The conclusions reached in Dr. Campbell’s study are ominous: He arrives at a figure of 1750 Gb for the global ultimate.

    This infers that the midpoint of depletion will occur in 1999.

    [IMG]http://www.oilcrisis.com/images/simple18.gif[/IMG]
    Figure 2

    Graph showing Production (Mbd) against Time (Years), based on Campbell’s data.

    The four different lines correspond to different possible scenarios taking place from 1996 onward. It can be seen that [B]whichever scenario actually occurs, the end result is reasonably constant.[/B] This is because the Ultimate is a constant value, so that more oil now means less in the future: whilst it may be possible to alter the shape of the curve, one cannot alter the area beneath it. [B]The ‘premature peak’ in the early 1970s corresponds to the oil crisis of 1973.[/B]

    [B][SIZE="4"]The Plot Thickens:[/SIZE][/B]

    [U]This does not mean that the world is running out of oil: it means that we are running out of the cheap pumpable oil that has fueled the economic development of the 20th Century. [/U]

    The global oil production curve is simply a composite of the contributions of individual nations. However, different countries are in varying stages of production. Some peaked long ago (the USA peaked in 1970 -an event predicted by Dr. Hubbert in 1956), ... and some are a long way away from peaking - see graph below. These latter countries will soon find themselves supplying an ever increasing proportion of the world’s oil needs as we pass the global Hubbert Peak.

    They are of course the major Middle East producers, the largest of them being Saudi Arabia. Their share of the world oil market will probably exceed 30% in 1999. The last time this happened, in 1973, it allowed them to trigger a world oil crisis. In contrast with 1973, the changes in 1999 will be permanent, as they will be based on resource constraints as opposed to politics.[/INDENT]

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2517533]Corn on the cob is great, it is also good livestock feed. But for Ethanol and Biodeisel it is a joke. It takes more gasoline to make one gallon ethanol + it costs a fortune to ship it breaks down rather quickly![/QUOTE]

    Ethanol is a big part of Bush's energy policy.

    over 8 years, it seems like if there's a way to screw regular people and help corporations at the same time, Bush will find that way and sign it into law.

    If you don't like high corn prices you know who to blame.

    5ever i never said it should be regulated or banned or anything like that. What I said specifically is if the price of corn rises it might actually be a good thing for Americans. Silver lining as it were.

    As for the rest of the world, when they start paying US taxes I will care.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2517881]more monetary and economic speculation being bandied back and forth...

    not a single poster here is acknowledging the geological models.... you see the subtle denial everywhere, not just this forum... i suppose it's the human condition.

    we're like a sick patient with cancer insisting on a 10th, 11th, 12th opinion, hoping for one that says "it's not cancer."

    the age of oil is over..... and the quicker Big Oil and OPEC and Western Governments become completely honest about the situation to the public, the quicker mankind can get to work on developing something else (that is relatively safe for the environment). Unfortunately, they refuse to admit it openly so as to keep the markets afloat. That is somewhat understandable, but only staving off an inevitable.

    [/QUOTE]

    The something else that is relatively safe for the environment is the trick, isn't it? We could have replaced a huge chunk of electric generation with nuclear power by now but it's not safe if you can't move and store spent fuel.

    The safest bet has always been conservation along with local use of alternate energy. If you're right about peak oil and prices do remain high for a sustained period, alternate energy and conservation will take place, it already is just not fast enough. I don't deny or believe in peak oil but I do believe that cheap readily available oil is running out and unsustainable.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2517881]more monetary and economic speculation being bandied back and forth...

    not a single poster here is acknowledging the geological models.... you see the subtle denial everywhere, not just this forum... i suppose it's the human condition.

    we're like a sick patient with cancer insisting on a 10th, 11th, 12th opinion, hoping for one that says "it's not cancer."

    the age of oil is over..... and the quicker Big Oil and OPEC and Western Governments become completely honest about the situation to the public, the quicker mankind can get to work on developing something else (that is relatively safe for the environment). Unfortunately, they refuse to admit it openly so as to keep the markets afloat. That is somewhat understandable, but only staving off an inevitable.

    [INDENT]
    [B][SIZE="4"][URL="http://www.oilcrisis.com/summary.htm"]Reality Dawns[/URL]:[/SIZE][/B]

    Such a study has recently been conducted by Dr. C. J. Campbell, on behalf of Petroconsultants of Geneva, and using their data. The Petroconsultants database is the most comprehensive available for data on oil resources outside of continental North America, and [B]is used as a 'bible' by all international oil companies - the information contained in this database is not in the public domain. [/B]

    The conclusions reached in Dr. Campbell’s study are ominous: He arrives at a figure of 1750 Gb for the global ultimate.

    This infers that the midpoint of depletion will occur in 1999.

    [IMG]http://www.oilcrisis.com/images/simple18.gif[/IMG]
    Figure 2

    Graph showing Production (Mbd) against Time (Years), based on Campbell’s data.

    The four different lines correspond to different possible scenarios taking place from 1996 onward. It can be seen that [B]whichever scenario actually occurs, the end result is reasonably constant.[/B] This is because the Ultimate is a constant value, so that more oil now means less in the future: whilst it may be possible to alter the shape of the curve, one cannot alter the area beneath it. [B]The ‘premature peak’ in the early 1970s corresponds to the oil crisis of 1973.[/B]

    [B][SIZE="4"]The Plot Thickens:[/SIZE][/B]

    [U]This does not mean that the world is running out of oil: it means that we are running out of the cheap pumpable oil that has fueled the economic development of the 20th Century. [/U]

    The global oil production curve is simply a composite of the contributions of individual nations. However, different countries are in varying stages of production. Some peaked long ago (the USA peaked in 1970 -an event predicted by Dr. Hubbert in 1956), ... and some are a long way away from peaking - see graph below. These latter countries will soon find themselves supplying an ever increasing proportion of the world’s oil needs as we pass the global Hubbert Peak.

    They are of course the major Middle East producers, the largest of them being Saudi Arabia. Their share of the world oil market will probably exceed 30% in 1999. The last time this happened, in 1973, it allowed them to trigger a world oil crisis. In contrast with 1973, the changes in 1999 will be permanent, as they will be based on resource constraints as opposed to politics.[/INDENT][/QUOTE]thanks for the info.
    we should use every last drop.then and only then will we be faced with reality. necessity is the mother of invention.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2517923]thanks for the info.
    we should use every last drop.then and only then will we be faced with reality. necessity is the mother of invention.[/QUOTE]

    Well, if we wait until it's all used up, we'll be living in the 13th Century long before then. The 20 or so percent that survive, anyway.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us