Apocalypse Soon?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Futilitist, Jan 1, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    You continue to discredit yourself with your abusive trolling attacks. Keep up the good work.

    Here are some choice samples of your best work from this very thread:

    Are you proud of the way you conduct yourself here?

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 2, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Yes, you are holding your own with these clowns. They can't handle that the facts are undermining their entire vision of the future. Unfortunately the psychological aspects of peak oil may be the source of most of our troubles, rather than the physical problems of how to reorganize a society at a lower level of energy consumption, without depending on endless growth.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    Excellent observations, spidergoat. The approaching apocalypse is as much a psychological dilemma as it is a physical one.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    If reserves in the ground did not exceed demand then there would be a shortage of oil with rapidly rising prices - much like was expected by many back circa 2005 when quite a few did believe Peak Oil was about to occur.

    Given that there are large supplies of oil in the ground, yes it is physically possible for production to exceed demand at any price, but not economically possible as oil companies want to operate on the price - volume curve (Seen is every eco 101 text book.) at the point that gives them the greatest RoE - and do that now as best as they can.

    I.e. they don´t want to make an "oil glut" even though the lower prices would increase their sales volume, because the net effect of that is to take them away from their current near optimum production volume. - I.e. sales volume increase does not compensate for lower price on every unit they sell as they move away from their current optimum. Like wise moving the other way from their current optimum point on that curve (less production, and fewer sales at a higher price) also reduces their RoE as the higher price per barrel sold does not compensate for the smaller sales volume.

    I have also noted that there is considerable “inertia” in oil production, as the oil companies have signed very-expensive, several year duration, contracts with especially the deep ocean capable drillers. They may and probably will shift, as they are now doing, to some what great production than the optimum point on the supply demand curve at least until there is literally no place to store the production beyond what demand will buy. – Why oil inventories are now at an 82 year high.

    I have explained all this to you several times and any student freshman Eco101 knows this, but it doesn´t seem possible for you to understand this simple fact: There is an optimum point on the supply demand curve for the oil company´s RoE and that is where they ALWAYS try to operate, if they can.

    That is what I mean when saying "production can not exceed demand" - it is a simple economics, not physical, statement, true for anything that is produced for profit until the market or production capacity / technology* changes and shifts the optimum operation point along the supply - demand curve.
    I agree. My point was that 90+% of the population need not die, but getting off the "oil teat" without major economic dislocation, will take more than a decade. Fortunately the recent new finds and new production technology provide more time than that to phase out oil.

    ------------
    * One of the most dramatic examples of such a change in the operating point on the supply demand curve is Aluminum. Prior the invention of the Hall process, the optimum annual production of Al was a few ounces per year but now it a few tons per hour! Before the Hall process Al was much more expensive than gold and demand at those high prices came mainly from experimental chemists. Now you often throw Al in the trash when your beer or soft drink can is empty.
     
  8. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    Try is the operative word here. Oil companies do not control the price of oil. Each individual oil company has the incentive to increase their production to take advantage of high oil prices. They don't collude with each other to set production quotas. The current high oil prices should logically be drawing a lot more oil to the market, if it were possible. But it is not. Oil producers are already producing flat out. The fact that oil prices stubbornly remain about 400% higher than they were just 10 years ago while world oil production levels remain essentially flat, means that we are feeling the effects of peak oil. The situation will only get worse.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No you still don´t understand very basic economics. Each oil company produces the volume of oil it can without driving production cost too high or driving the price per barrel too low.

    Some, like Saudi Arabia,* are fortunate to have low production cost oil still, but they don´t produce like you think they should as an oil glut would mean their FINITE valuable resource is earning them less than it could per barrel. That need to avoid excessive production is for the benefit of all and is why OPEC was created. OPEC´s quota system objective is to keep profits per barrel high, but not too high so that world switches too rapidly to alternatives, like Brazil has done.

    *Saudi Arabia could, and once about 20 years ago did at US request, produced flat out and drove the price of oil down to only (or briefly slightly less than) $10/brl. US asked them to do this as Saddam had stated to sell oil for non-dollar payments. Saddam quickly got the message, and resumed requiring "Petrodollars" in payment as selling his oil at $10/brl was a money losing proposition. In recent years, with more new oil producers OPEC has less, but still great, control over the price of oil.

    Again, and try to get this thru your thick skull: There is and optimum production volume, both for individual oil companies and for their industry. Producing at that level is their goal, but not always achieved. Oil in the ground is an asset, with future value. Why would the higher cost producers not want to hold part of that asset until they can get a better price with higher profit margins for it in the future?

    One reason why that does operate is that the current non-democratic leadership may fear that they will not be in control when the oil can be sold more profitably, so they sell now at lower profit margins and use the income to buy gold, large homes in Europe, etc. Another reason also operating is that they may be trying to improve their country - diversifying with investments in non-oil industries, like ports, airlines, vacation hotels, etc. hoping this will keep them and their grandchildren in power. How much is produced is a result of many considerations and not your often suggested, simple minded, they "They should produce more oil (flat out at the production limit) to sell more at current high prices" as you think /state it is. From this faluty understanding and fact they are not producing more "as they should" you falsely conclude they can´t.

    Again: there is an economic optimum production rate (and it is a very complex problem to find it.)

    Oh Yes - That is why inventories of unsold oil are at an 82 year high. Yes the problem of where to put the excess supply of produced oil is getting worse.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,900
    Ah. So there is so little oil, at such high prices, that it is destroying the economy, and this will lead to a crippling economic apocalypse that will in turn lead to the death of 90% of the people on the planet.

    But wait! Facts don't support this, so presto change-o and now we have so much oil and the price is dropping too fast - and now this is destroying the economy, leading to a recession and the death of 90% of the people on the planet.

    You're fun to watch.
     
  11. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    This is all just gibberish and double talk. We have covered this.

    Why is the price of oil so much higher today than it has been historically?

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    It is extremely boring to have to explain this again and again and again and again and again......

    You are not fun at all to watch.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,900
    But you do it so well! You always have a new way to show that ANY evidence - a rising economy, a falling economy, increases in oil reserves, decreases in oil reserves, rising oil prices, dropping oil prices, rising oil demand, dropping oil demand - all point to exactly the same conclusion (yours.) It's like watching the Monty Python argument skit.
     
  14. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    No it isn't. The Monty Python argument skit is funny.

    This is just endlessly repetitive. I think the only reason you only bring this up again is because it has not appeared on this page yet, though it has certainly been covered in detail on many previous pages, and you don't think the readers are paying any attention. You aren't winning a single technical point in this debate, so you just keep trying to create the rhetorical impression that you are winning. It isn't working at all.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,900
    Don't sell yourself short! So are you.

    I'm not trying to "win;" the continued economic recovery, dropping US gas prices and rising US oil production speaks for itself and will continue to do so. This is more of a religious than a rational belief for you, and I'm not going to succeed at changing your deeply held religious beliefs. When the world doesn't end in a few years I expect you to come up with a new theory on how the world is about to end, and explain your previous error as "well, that's not at all what I meant; I meant it wouldn't end until 2020, and that's provable by X Y and Z. In fact, the economic recovery blip PROVES I am right!"

    I look forward to Futilitist Rev 2; the first one was fun as well.
     
  16. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    This protective mental framework you have constructed for yourself allows you to avoid thinking realistically about the great dilemma facing our species. If my hypothesis really could be brushed off as some nutty "religious" belief, there would certainly be no reason to examine my evidence any further, and thus, nothing to worry about. Does burying your head in the sand make you feel safer?

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Thank you Futilist for gathering some of my assessments of your character. I certainly think they could stand being repeated on each page of this thread. for any one who missed them the first time, here they are again:

    Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    People also used to queue up and pay good money to see freak shows. Since those are no longer politically correct we are left with the likes of this thread...Answer the fucking question...I shall continue to attack you...coawrdly liar...you need lessons in Emglish comprehension...frigging idiot...You simply pile lie upon misinterpretation upon distortion upon warped obsevation upon misjudggement upon irrelevance upon cherry picked data upon contradiction in a self-indulgent cornucopia of nihilistic stupidity...You just can't abandon that desire to lie, can you?...You are my problem. Your dishonesty is my problem. Your refusal to admit to lying is my problem. Your manipulative bullshit is my problem. Your willful misinterpretation of facts is my problem. Your earlier attempt to secretly conduct an experiment upon members of another site is my problem. Your delusional grasp of the world is my problem...You really are a nasty piece of work...He is abusing your determination to ignore facts, misinterpret evidence, disregard logic, lie, dissemble, misdirect and generally be a cross between a prat and a prick...You continue to lie or delude yourself...It appears to me like some form of mental illness...It probably is against the forum posting policy to call someone a prick...I toned my observation down two orders of magnitude to arrive at prick...The internet server has not been built yet that could transmit what I actually think of you...you display a character defect...Frigging sick!...Lying Bastard...you seem incapable of change...either from stupidity or manipulative debating technique...patronising asshole...lying bastard...You are a decietful, manipulative, egomaniac...you are either lying or too dumb to understand what you read

    They lose a little by being taken out of context. You know, the parts where I provide the evidence to support my contention that you are a manipulative lying bastard. I quite understand why you would wish to omit those. Tell me, are their ostrich genes in your family?
     
  18. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    There is no evidence that you could possibly provide that would justify your continuing flagrant violations of this site's posting rules. No one deserves to be harassed this way on this forum. You are digging yourself into a deep hole.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I'm not seeking to justify the violations. I'm seeking to attack your lies and your dissembling and your fundamental dishonesty. It is convenient for you to continually avoid discussing those lies and those avoiding tactics, but you are fooling very few people, other than yourself.

    You continue to repeat the lie that, barring a recent post or two, I have not posted anything that was on topic. I have already explained and demonstrated this was not the case and yet you continue with the lie. Will you now address each of the points I raise below or face the consequences. And there will be consequences.

    My first post in this thread was number 309:

    This was in response to your post applauding sciforums for being the only forum still carrying an active Apocalypse Now thread. As a concise critique of the value of your ideas it was wholly on topic.

    Next post was number 325where I replied directly to a direct question from you to me, where you asked what Ayn Rand would think of a discussion point..
    Do you seriously consider a direct response to a direct question of yours can be considered off-topic?

    In post number 367 I commented on some remarks made by Russ Waters. He was addressing your failure to address what the consensus has as your lie. I noted:
    Commenting on what has taken up many of the pages of this thread and which you have actively participated in can hardly be considered of topic.


    In post 385 I address your claim that I was attacking you personally (even though it is clear that none of the prior posts constitute a personal attack) rather than address the issues.
    I then noted, in post 402, that you had failed to respond properly to this request.

    So once again we have a response that is very much on topic, pursuing your continual refusal to admit, based on the clear evidence in this thread, that you have lied.

    Here is post 421 in its entirety, showing that I remained precisely on topic by addressing specific points you had raised. My responses are in italics.


    ,
    You made a claim. The claim has been proven false. You refuse to acknowledge that is has been shown to be false. Grow up.

    I refuse to lose when I am not only correct, not only demonstrably correct, but have actually demonstrated that correctness. Ego has nothing to do with it. Deflating and debunking nonsense does.

    That particular debating trick is becoming tired.

    I continue on topic with post 425. This addressed issues surrounding a specific claim made by you and attributed to the IEA. Discussion of it was on topic.
    Having endured no meaningful response to any of my points I resorted to insult in post 438. You claimed discussion of the topic was a social taboo.
    In post 516 I summarise my view of the value of your posts and ask you a pertinent and on topic question.

     
  20. Futilitist This so called forum is a fraud... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,586
    You may have made a few posts that contained some actual on topic sentences. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back. But that isn't the point and you know it.

    You are harassing me. I have asked you repeatedly to stop your rude behavior toward me. You refuse to stop.

    You are violating site guidelines by constantly calling me names and attacking me personally.

    Now you are threatening me? Wow.

    I have been very patient with you up till now, but this crosses the line. I have tried to settle this with you without having to make a formal complaint. I am pretty sure your repeated behavior toward me constitutes multiple ban level offenses. If you make a sincere, formal apology in your next post, I won't report your behavior to the site administrators. Give it some careful thought.

    ---Futilitist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    EDIT---Upon reflection, I have decided to go ahead and make a formal complaint. You can find it in site feedback.

    ANOTHER EDIT---This thread has now received 150,170 views!:worship:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :worship::yay::bravo:
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2013
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    gibberish for one very ignorant of economics, yes. Perhaps a common diagram found in any economics book will help penetrate your thick skull:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    US oil demand is declining. I.e. changing fro D1 to the dotted line. Thus the optimum point production and price point are both lower.

    If the oil companies did as you claim they "should" (produce more oil) that will lower the price at which it can be sold. I.e. on the graph below:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Move to operating point to more volume & lower price (intersection of demand curve and S2 curve.)

    Now oil companies are not stupid. Changing from current price and volume to greater volume and lower price would in fact be already done if that increased their profits (Return on Equity, which how much money they have invested.)

    You ignore (or don´t understand) this economics. If it were more profitable to sell more for less OPEC would rise the quotas and let that happen, They don´t. Ergo more production sold at lower price than their current policy is DUMB, a way both to get lower RoE and also more rapidly deplete their asset in the ground.

    As you don´t understand this, call it gibberish, you falsely conclude that reason why they are not increasing production like "they should" is that they can´t. That is nonsense as Saudi Arabia has shown they can flood the market will oil and drive the price way down. They did once drive it down to $10 per barrel when US wanted to punish Saddam for not demanding payment in dollars.

    US has for about three decades guaranteed that better armed Shiite Iran (and the native Shiites) will not topple the Saudi family´s rule. In return, the Saudis enforce the Petrodollar system. They do that, at least until very recently* by flooding the market with oil. I.e. destroying all profits of others who can not produce as cheaply as they can. The Saudis hold the “big bazooka.” They have only fired it once. No longer need to. All other producers sell for PetroDollars as they know the Saudis could fire it again and destroy their oil based economies.

    * Because of the sanctions,** Iran is selling to China and being paid by China construction two new large capacity oil refineries. They have also done a few barter deals with India, getting Indian tea in payment (Iranians drink huge volumes of tea.) The PetroDollar system will probably collapse in a few years as US economy is weakening and needs about a trillion dollar of "thin-air" money or loans to keep going, but oil has very little to do with this. Living way beyond it productive means on borrowing and thin-air currency for nearly three decades is why central banks are dropping dollars as a percent of their reserves, and starting to hold RMB and more gold. Oil in real (inflation adjusted terms) is no more expensive than it was in 1918. The economy did not collapse then or recently with gasoline at $4/ gallon and gas price is now dropping with the decrease in demand. (Big trucks switching to natural gas, etc. etc. as I have told you more than a dozen times.) We see now the start of the end of the "oil era."

    ** They are quite tight now - there is no way to send payments thru the banking system now.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2013
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,900
    ?? I am one of the people working on solving some of the many problems our species faces. I have not resigned myself to an imaginary extinction as you have done.

    The first two parts of your statement are correct, and they follow logically. The third part does not. Let's apply your reasoning to, say, the dihydrogen monoxide prank:

    "If the warnings over dihydrogen monoxide could be brushed off as some nutty prank, there would certainly be no reason to think that water is a deadly poison, and thus you have no reason to worry about your health."

    Do your religious beliefs bring you comfort? If so, great! Religion definitely has some down sides, but if it brings you comfort, that is almost always a positive.
     
  23. vulcan947 Registered Member

    Messages:
    26
    yes we have created the pickle, yet food and even consumer goods are ample for the worlds population,
    the failure is of distribution, and the consumer societies do not wish to share, therfore i suppose it shall end in a economic collapse, yet in a speeded up managed decline, rather like the british empire, one point empires like people and species
    all live then decline and expire,

    one thing i learned from the americans,politics are local, so no action untill it affects you alas
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page