The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed

[Write4U]

You need to broaden your thinking a bit. The threats you mentioned require a rather sudden, very large burst of energy to destroy civilization, i.e. too much energy. But maybe civilization could end with a whimper, instead of a bang, by running out of energy. Why is that so unbelievable to you?

I second that argument. Our intellectual excellence is a double edged sword. We are an invasive species and so very effective in destroying the very balanace of the Earth's biosphere, by our unwise use of cheap resources.

We may not become extinct, but we're gonna have to change our entire culture somehow.

 

[Futilitist]

I second that argument. Our intellectual excellence is a double edged sword. We are an invasive species and so very effective in destroying the very balanace of the Earth's biosphere, by our unwise use of cheap resources.

Yes. It is sad and ironic, yet so true.

We may not become extinct,

1. We are talking about the collapse of civilization, not extinction.
2. We will eventually become extinct. All species do.

but we're gonna have to change our entire culture somehow.

But if we can't, then we will have a collapse.



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

I am not lying. Why do you always play stupid word games?
...
If those really were the only threats to civilization, it would be fair to describe that as being rather impervious to collapse.

"Rather". You added a qualifier. So you see your lie and are trying to wiggle out of it. Wiggle a little further out of it and it may become worthy of reply.

You need to broaden your thinking a bit. The threats you mentioned require a rather sudden, very large burst of energy to destroy civilization, i.e. too much energy. But maybe civilization could end with a whimper, instead of a bang, by running out of energy. Why is that so unbelievable to you?

I've never suggested it isn't. You're reading something that isn't in what I said or what origin said and isn't even related with what you are describing in these threads!

 

[Futilitist]

"The only thing that I think could possibly result in a collapse would be an all out nuclear war or a large asteriod strike."
~origin

"Agreed"
~Russ_Watters

"Rather". You added a qualifier. So you see your lie and are trying to wiggle out of it. Wiggle a little further out of it and it may become worthy of reply.

Bullshit, Russ. If the only things that could cause a civilizational collapse were limited to a nuclear war or an asteroid hit, it would be fair to describe such a civilization as highly impervious to collapse. Hair-splitter.

Let me rephrase the question:

Why do you think that civilization is impervious to collapse (with the possible exception of collapse caused by a nuclear war or an asteroid hit)?



---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

Just for fun, let's enumerate what is wrong with the BW Hills extract:

The 2012 energy half way point initiated a major change in the petroleum production function.

Unclear what is meant by this: what is the "petroleum production function"? A mathematical expression? Or just another way of saying the "petroleum production process"? Or something else?

It began a process where the end consumer was no longer able to acquire all the petroleum that the industry
produced.

The end consumer never has acquired all the petroleum that is produced. There has always been consumption in the process, flaring at wells and the significant consumption of petroleum that take place in the process of refining and transport of both crude and its products.

More of the energy from petroleum was being committed to the production of petroleum
than was being delivered to the consumer.

That is saying that >50% of petroleum calories produced are now consumed by the production process. That would equate to an EROEI (energy return on energy invested) of <2. In fact, the global figure today is more like 15, though it is only about 10 in the USA. So this is utter rubbish.

This precipitated the 2014 price decline that reduced prices
by 50%.

Clearly false. By what mechanism would an increase in the proportion of energy consumed by the production process cause market prices to decline? A reduction in oil volume available to consumers would push prices up, so it can't be that. He must be arguing, somehow, that this alleged increase in petroleum calories consumed by its production has led to an increase in net oil production, after all the internal consumption is allowed for. Or else for a dramatic drop in demand. But demand continues to rise. This is the heart of it - it makes no sense whatsoever.

On the contrary, it is well documented that the decline was caused by the policies of producing nations, notably KSA, to fight for market share and try to push the new frackers in the US out of business, the anticipated re-enetry to the market of Iran and by the easing of demand growth due to the China slowdown.

The energy delivered to the end consumer will continue to decline,

Except that it continues to increase, year by year, as shown here for example: https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm

and the end consumer maximum affordability will decline with it.

The concept of "maximum affordability" is bogus. That is not how markets work. If oil is long, compared to demand, the price will fall and if it is short the price will rise. The world economy has shown itself easily able to afford oil at >$100/bbl in recent years and there is no reason to suppose it could not do so again if required - though the advent of fracking has led most forecasters to conclude that such levels are unlikely to be reached again in the next few years.

It will be necessary for the industry to reduce production to compensate.

Yes. That is what this week's OPEC meeting was about. They failed to agree, due to the geopolitics between KSA and Iran (KSA oil minister was overruled by the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.)

The highest cost production fields will continually be shut in as the price falls below their
operating minimum.

Except that the price is not continually falling. Most observers say it has now bottomed. The financial pain that KSA, Venezuela, Russia and others are feeling suggests that eventually more control on their production will come at some point. But nobody knows when, as this is driven by geopolitics.

In short, almost every line of this extract is wrong, so it is not surprising that conclusions drawn from it are barking mad.

 

[Russ_Watters]

...highly impervious...

"Highly". Another qualifier. It would be so much easier to communicate if you didn't hyperbolize and then try to backtrack. Of course, that's kind of inherrent to your threads...

Let me rephrase the question:

Why do you think that civilization is impervious to collapse (with the possible exception of collapse caused by a nuclear war or an asteroid hit)?

Remember the context here: for four years, you've been standing on a street corner screaming that the end is near [metaphorically]. So we're trying to find scenarios that fit the context of your rapid 90% die-off scenario. In that context, there really isn't much that could make it happen (I'm even doubtful about the nuclear winter hypothesis). It is tough to argue a negative because one can't describe negative scenarios. All we can do is try to think of realistic scenarios where it could be possible. And yours is certainly not among them.

Moreover, I suspect you are trying to bait-and-switch here, as people often use the word "collapse" to describe far, far milder things than what you are describing. You're being so hyperbolic that it is tough to avoid accidental understatement when guarding against your bait-and-switch! So just to be clear, "collapse" of the type that happened in 2008-9 is obviously possible and even likely once or twice a century. But that has nothing to do with your oilpocalypse.

You of course know all of this already, since we've been patiently explaining it to you for four years, not that you'd remember...

 

[origin]

Just for fun, let's enumerate what is wrong with the BW Hills extract:

The 2012 energy half way point initiated a major change in the petroleum production function.

Unclear what is meant by this: what is the "petroleum production function"? A mathematical expression? Or just another way of saying the "petroleum production process"? Or something else?

It began a process where the end consumer was no longer able to acquire all the petroleum that the industry
produced.

The end consumer never has acquired all the petroleum that is produced. There has always been consumption in the process, flaring at wells and the significant consumption of petroleum that take place in the process of refining and transport of both crude and its products.

More of the energy from petroleum was being committed to the production of petroleum
than was being delivered to the consumer.

That is saying that >50% of petroleum calories produced are now consumed by the production process. That would equate to an EROEI (energy return on energy invested) of <2. In fact, the global figure today is more like 15, though it is only about 10 in the USA. So this is utter rubbish.

This precipitated the 2014 price decline that reduced prices
by 50%.

Clearly false. By what mechanism would an increase in the proportion of energy consumed by the production process cause market prices to decline? A reduction in oil volume available to consumers would push prices up, so it can't be that. He must be arguing, somehow, that this alleged increase in petroleum calories consumed by its production has led to an increase in net oil production, after all the internal consumption is allowed for. Or else for a dramatic drop in demand. But demand continues to rise. This is the heart of it - it makes no sense whatsoever.

On the contrary, it is well documented that the decline was caused by the policies of producing nations, notably KSA, to fight for market share and try to push the new frackers in the US out of business, the anticipated re-enetry to the market of Iran and by the easing of demand growth due to the China slowdown.

The energy delivered to the end consumer will continue to decline,

Except that it continues to increase, year by year, as shown here for example: https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm

and the end consumer maximum affordability will decline with it.

The concept of "maximum affordability" is bogus. That is not how markets work. If oil is long, compared to demand, the price will fall and if it is short the price will rise. The world economy has shown itself easily able to afford oil at >$100/bbl in recent years and there is no reason to suppose it could not do so again if required - though the advent of fracking has led most forecasters to conclude that such levels are unlikely to be reached again in the next few years.

It will be necessary for the industry to reduce production to compensate.

Yes. That is what this week's OPEC meeting was about. They failed to agree, due to the geopolitics between KSA and Iran (KSA oil minister was overruled by the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.)

The highest cost production fields will continually be shut in as the price falls below their
operating minimum.

Except that the price is not continually falling. Most observers say it has now bottomed. The financial pain that KSA, Venezuela, Russia and others are feeling suggests that eventually more control on their production will come at some point. But nobody knows when, as this is driven by geopolitics.

In short, almost every line of this extract is wrong, so it is not surprising that conclusions drawn from it are barking mad.

Very nice post. Unfortunately, Futilitist is highly impervious to logic. That is why I decided not to take the time to answer him. But, maybe he will read your post and realize the logic in your post and the lack of logic in Bill Hills post.

Ha-ha, just kidding as I said he is higly impervious to logic.

 

[exchemist]

Very nice post. Unfortunately, Futilitist is highly impervious to logic. That is why I decided not to take the time to answer him. But, maybe he will read your post and realize that logic in your post and the lack of logic in Bill Hills post.

Ha-ha, just kidding as I said he is higly impervious to logic.

Actually, to be serious for a moment, in the course of writing the last response I came across this very long (too long) but nonetheless somewhat illuminating article from Royal Society Transactions: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2006/20130126

You can see in this the use of EROEI (author shortens to EROI) in an attempt to correlate it with economic effects. I am pretty sceptical, as economics is notoriously subject to the vicissitudes of human social behaviour and is thus - famously - not entirely rational, but still, one can perhaps discern what BW Hill might have thought he was doing. This writer of course does not say anything so stupid as that a low EROI will lead to a fall in oil prices - quite the opposite. But there is an attempt to show that at a certain low threshold value of EROEI, it might have a serious braking effect on the economy.

Later in the article there is a recognition of the limitations of the EROEI perspective, notably that not all forms of energy are equivalent in economic cost (durrh!) so one has to be careful in drawing conclusions. Well yes, indeed.

I do wonder if the peak oilers go in for this sort of analysis and, being fairly crap at economics, market forces, etc., have somehow bamboozled themselves with it into believing a certain amount of arrant nonsense as a result.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I do wonder if the peak oilers go in for this sort of analysis and, being fairly crap at economics, market forces, etc., have somehow bamboozled themselves with it into believing a certain amount of arrant nonsense as a result.

Well, Fute isn't a Peak Oiler anymore. He rejected that a couple of years ago after its failure became too obvious to ignore and found his New Testament to worship. Most Peak Oilers just scattered to the wind after the economic recovery and fracking killed Peak Oil theory.

Peak Oil was actually not too bad. It was based on sound economic principles, as you describe. It's flaw was merely a failure to consider the impact of technology to recover sources of oil Hubbert assumed were unreachable (plus more than a pinch of doomsdayism).

This new Prophecy Fute is worshiping is just batshitcrazy, because at this point it is too obvious that impending collapse isn't in the cards for there to be a non-batshitcrazy way to predict it.

 

[Futilitist]

Just for fun, let's enumerate what is wrong with the BW Hills extract:

The 2012 energy half way point initiated a major change in the petroleum production function.

Unclear what is meant by this: what is the "petroleum production function"? A mathematical expression? Or just another way of saying the "petroleum production process"? Or something else?

I think it is pretty clear. We are on page 70, x.

It began a process where the end consumer was no longer able to acquire all the petroleum that the industry
produced.

The end consumer never has acquired all the petroleum that is produced. There has always been consumption in the process, flaring at wells and the significant consumption of petroleum that take place in the process of refining and transport of both crude and its products.

The refining and transport of both crude and it's products is an essential function of the oil industry. Without refining and transportation, oil would be basically useless. It would not even reach the end consumer. So this use of oil is part of the production process itself. The oil industry itself consumes this oil, so it is not counted as oil produced by the industry.

The end consumers of oil ultimately have to pay for all the energy that is consumed in oil's production, refining, and transportation. Prior to 2012, the end consumers of oil could afford to do all of this. But now the oil industry is consuming more than half of all of the oil that comes out of the ground, so there is not enough energy left over to generate enough economic activity to keep the cycle going. That is very simple and logical.

More of the energy from petroleum was being committed to the production of petroleum than was being delivered to the consumer.

That is saying that >50% of petroleum calories produced are now consumed by the production process.

Correct. That is exactly what is happening.

That would equate to an EROEI (energy return on energy invested) of <2. In fact, the global figure today is more like 15, though it is only about 10 in the USA. So this is utter rubbish.

No. You are incorrect. As I just explained, if you add up all of the energy consumed in the production, refining, and transportation of oil, it is now more than half of the total energy produced. Those other figures you mention do not account for all of the energy costs in the complete production cycle. When all of this is properly accounted for, the EROEI for the end consumer of oil is currently less than 2:1. Believe it or not.

This precipitated the 2014 price decline that reduced prices
by 50%.

Clearly false. By what mechanism would an increase in the proportion of energy consumed by the production process cause market prices to decline? A reduction in oil volume available to consumers would push prices up, so it can't be that. He must be arguing, somehow, that this alleged increase in petroleum calories consumed by its production has led to an increase in net oil production, after all the internal consumption is allowed for. Or else for a dramatic drop in demand. But demand continues to rise. This is the heart of it - it makes no sense whatsoever.

You are very confused.

On the contrary, it is well documented that the decline was caused by the policies of producing nations, notably KSA, to fight for market share and try to push the new frackers in the US out of business, the anticipated re-enetry to the market of Iran and by the easing of demand growth due to the China slowdown.

Many people seem to actually believe that propaganda.

The energy delivered to the end consumer will continue to decline,

Except that it continues to increase, year by year, as shown here for example: https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm

The energy delivered to the end consumer is declining even as the number of barrels is increasing.

and the end consumer maximum affordability will decline with it.

The concept of "maximum affordability" is bogus. That is not how markets work. If oil is long, compared to demand, the price will fall and if it is short the price will rise. The world economy has shown itself easily able to afford oil at >$100/bbl in recent years and there is no reason to suppose it could not do so again if required - though the advent of fracking has led most forecasters to conclude that such levels are unlikely to be reached again in the next few years.

The concept of "maximum affordability" is not bogus. It is common sense. If gasoline were 100 dollars a gallon, very few people could afford to drive a car. If it were 100,000,000 dollars a gallon, no one could afford to drive. The rules of supply and demand operate within physical limits. The rules of supply and demand cannot cause the oil price to rise beyond what people can afford. Supply and demand also cannot cause the oil price to fall below the cost of it's production for very long. This is obvious.

The world economy has not shown itself to be "easily able to afford oil at >$100/bbl"! The world had never seen oil prices over $100/bbl until the beginning of 2008. By July, oil reached $147.50/bbl and then the price started to collapse (because $147.50/bbl is clearly not affordable!). The world stock markets crashed in October and the Great Recession began. Oil prices did not top $100/bbl again until the beginning of 2011 (with a whole lot of help from the FED). Between then and the 2014 price collapse, oil did occasionally go over the $100/bbl mark, but the average for that period was far less than $100/bbl.

Oil has only been over $100/bbl for a very brief time in the entire history of it's production. It clearly wasn't easily affordable.

It will be necessary for the industry to reduce production to compensate.

Yes. That is what this week's OPEC meeting was about. They failed to agree, due to the geopolitics between KSA and Iran (KSA oil minister was overruled by the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.)

The bottom line is they couldn't do anything useful. This is because the price of oil is determined by the laws of physics. Geopolitics is just an excuse.

The highest cost production fields will continually be shut in as the price falls below their
operating minimum.

Except that the price is not continually falling. Most observers say it has now bottomed. The financial pain that KSA, Venezuela, Russia and others are feeling suggests that eventually more control on their production will come at some point. But nobody knows when, as this is driven by geopolitics.

Whatever.

Actually, to be serious for a moment, in the course of writing the last response I came across this very long (too long) but nonetheless somewhat illuminating article from Royal Society Transactions: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2006/20130126

You can see in this the use of EROEI (author shortens to EROI) in an attempt to correlate it with economic effects. I am pretty sceptical, as economics is notoriously subject to the vicissitudes of human social behaviour and is thus - famously - not entirely rational, but still, one can perhaps discern what BW Hill might have thought he was doing. This writer of course does not say anything so stupid as that a low EROI will lead to a fall in oil prices - quite the opposite. But there is an attempt to show that at a certain low threshold value of EROEI, it might have a serious braking effect on the economy.

Later in the article there is a recognition of the limitations of the EROEI perspective, notably that not all forms of energy are equivalent in economic cost (durrh!) so one has to be careful in drawing conclusions. Well yes, indeed.

I do wonder if the peak oilers go in for this sort of analysis and, being fairly crap at economics, market forces, etc., have somehow bamboozled themselves with it into believing a certain amount of arrant nonsense as a result.

I don't know what "peak oilers" go for. I don't take that sort of "analysis" very seriously, though.

EROEI and EROI are clearly not the same thing.

Physicists compare energy units to energy units. Economists compare energy units to money units. Economists are not scientists.



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

A couple of examples of why this isn't just poor, convoluted logic, but actually batshitcrazy:

The energy delivered to the end consumer is declining even as the number of barrels is increasing.

That's an obviously stupid claim: If it were true, people's cars would be getting progressively lower and lower performance as the gas they put in their tanks delivered less and less energy to the engines.

If gasoline were 100 dollars a gallon, very few people could afford to drive a car.

Since gas was priced much higher than that and consumption of gas continued to rise, that is clearly a batshitcrazy thing to believe.

Also, since you've now flipped your position over and said gas is going to get cheaper and cheaper, you are holding contradictory thoughts in your head at the same time and believing both. That's batshitcrazy too.

The world economy has not shown itself to be "easily able to afford oil at >$100/bbl"! The world had never seen oil prices over $100/bbl until the beginning of 2008....

Oil prices did not top $100/bbl again until the beginning of 2011 (with a whole lot of help from the FED). Between then and the 2014 price collapse, oil did occasionally go over the $100/bbl mark, but the average for that period was far less than $100/bbl.

Oil has only been over $100/bbl for a very brief time in the entire history of it's production. It clearly wasn't easily affordable.

Besides being false (oil averaged about $100 a barrel between 2011 and 2014, it wasn't "far less"), not accounting for inflation in that claim is batshitcrazy.

 

[Futilitist]

A couple of examples of why this isn't just poor, convoluted logic, but actually batshitcrazy:

That's an obviously stupid claim: If it were true, people's cars would be getting progressively lower and lower performance as the gas they put in their tanks delivered less and less energy to the engines.

The claim is not stupid, Russ. You are.

"The energy delivered to the end consumer is declining even as the number of barrels is increasing."

What that statement means is that the number of barrels being produced is increasing, but all of the increase is being consumed by the oil industry. Duh.

Since gas was priced much higher than that and consumption of gas continued to rise, that is clearly a batshitcrazy thing to believe.

Gasoline has never been over 100 dollars a gallon. Learn to read.

Also, since you've now flipped your position over and said gas is going to get cheaper and cheaper, you are holding contradictory thoughts in your head at the same time and believing both. That's batshitcrazy too.

You have constructed the false belief that I have somehow changed positions. You are arguing with yourself. That is batshitcrazy.

Besides being false (oil averaged about $100 a barrel between 2011 and 2014, it wasn't "far less")

You are wrong. WTIC crude averaged well below 100 dollars a barrel during that period, as can clearly be seen in this graph:

As I tried to explain to exchemist above:

The world economy has not shown itself to be "easily able to afford oil at >100 dollars a barrel."

The world had never seen oil prices over 100 dollars a barrel until the beginning of 2008. By July, oil reached 147.50 dollars a barrel and then the price started to collapse (because 147.50 dollars a barrel is clearly not affordable!). The world stock markets crashed in October and the Great Recession began. Oil prices did not top 100 dollars a barrel again until the beginning of 2011 (with a whole lot of help from the FED). Between then and the 2014 price collapse, oil did occasionally go over the 100 dollar a barrel mark, but the average for that period was far less than 100 dollars a barrel. Oil has only been over 100 dollars a barrel for a very brief time in the entire history of it's production. It clearly wasn't easily affordable.

So we're trying to find scenarios that fit the context of your rapid 90% die-off scenario. In that context, there really isn't much that could make it happen (I'm even doubtful about the nuclear winter hypothesis). It is tough to argue a negative because one can't describe negative scenarios. All we can do is try to think of realistic scenarios where it could be possible. And yours is certainly not among them.

Here are some realistic scenarios:

http://www.feasta.org/2012/06/17/tr...ontagion-a-study-in-global-systemic-collapse/

Overview
This study considers the relationship between a global systemic banking, monetary and solvency crisis and its implications for the real-time flow of goods and services in the globalized economy. It outlines how contagion in the financial system could set off semi-autonomous contagion in supply-chains globally, even where buyers and sellers are linked by solvency, sound money and bank intermediation. The cross-contagion between the financial system and trade/production networks is mutually reinforcing.

It is argued that in order to understand systemic risk in the globalized economy, account must be taken of how growing complexity (interconnectedness, interdependence and the speed of processes), the de-localization of production and concentration within key pillars of the globalized economy have magnified global vulnerability and opened up the possibility of a rapid and large-scale collapse. ‘Collapse’ in this sense means the irreversible loss of socio-economic complexity which fundamentally transforms the nature of the economy. These crucial issues have not been recognized by policy-makers nor are they reflected in economic thinking or modelling.

As the globalized economy has become more complex and ever faster (for example, Just-in-Time logistics), the ability of the real economy to pick up and globally transmit supply-chain failure, and then contagion, has become greater and potentially more devastating in its impacts. In a more complex and interdependent economy, fewer failures are required to transmit cascading failure through socio-economic systems. In addition, we have normalized massive increases in the complex conditionality that underpins modern societies and our welfare. Thus we have problems seeing, never mind planning for such eventualities, while the risk of them occurring has increased significantly. The most powerful primary cause of such an event would be a large-scale financial shock initially centering on some of the most complex and trade central parts of the globalized economy.

The argument that a large-scale and globalized financial-banking-monetary crisis is likely arises from two sources. Firstly, from the outcome and management of credit over-expansion and global imbalances and the growing stresses in the Eurozone and global banking system. Secondly, from the manifest risk that we are at a peak in global oil production, and that affordable, real-time production will begin to decline in the next few years. In the latter case, the credit backing of fractional reserve banks, monetary systems and financial assets are fundamentally incompatible with energy constraints. It is argued that in the coming years there are multiple routes to a large-scale breakdown in the global financial system, comprising systemic banking collapses, monetary system failure, credit and financial asset vaporization. This breakdown, however and whenever it comes, is likely to be fast and disorderly and could overwhelm society’s ability to respond.

We consider one scenario to give a practical dimension to understanding supply-chain contagion- a break-up of the Euro and an intertwined systemic banking crisis. Simple argument and modelling will point to the likelihood of a food security crisis within days in the directly affected countries and an initially exponential spread of production failures across the world beginning within a week. This will reinforce and spread financial system contagion. It is also argued that the longer the crisis goes on, the greater the likelihood of its irreversibility. This could be in as little as three weeks.

Moreover, I suspect you are trying to bait-and-switch here, as people often use the word "collapse" to describe far, far milder things than what you are describing. You're being so hyperbolic that it is tough to avoid accidental understatement when guarding against your bait-and-switch! So just to be clear, "collapse" of the type that happened in 2008-9 is obviously possible and even likely once or twice a century. But that has nothing to do with your oilpocalypse.

I'm talking about an apocalypse and you are worried about a bait and switch?




---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

The claim is not stupid, Russ. You are.

See, you are funny!

"The energy delivered to the end consumer is declining even as the number of barrels is increasing."

What that statement means is that the number of barrels being produced is increasing, but all of the increase is being consumed by the oil industry. Duh.

Duh indeed. The two statements aren't saying the same thing, so you're tying yourself in a knot trying to weasel out of an utterly stupid statement -- the second is closer to true, but still false: The first says "the energy delivered to the end consumer is declining" (it isn't: it is increasing) whereas the second says "all of the increase is consumed...." which even if true would be a net steady production, not a decrease. Maybe you do know what you are saying is BS afterall?

Of course, if you do know what you are saying is BS, you know you've added some BS since "production" doesn't include the oil burned by the oil industry, it only includes the oil delivered to consumers....which, yes, is increasing in volume and steady in its energy content.

Gasoline has never been over 100 dollars a gallon. Learn to read.

I said gas instead of oil. My bad and I'm sure you know that was a basic error. Doesn't make your false claims about the price of oil any less false.

You have constructed the false belief that I have somehow changed positions.

You've admitted it previously - and how could you not, since you are claiming exactly the opposite mechanism from you were claiming before. Heck, it's obvious enough since you don't mention Peak Oil anymore.

WTIC crude averaged well below 100 dollars a barrel during that period, as can clearly be seen in this graph:

You're using a 100 week moving average (spans two years!) and even then your "well below" is about $97!

The world had never seen oil prices over 100 dollars a barrel until the beginning of 2008....

Since you ignored the bit about inflation, I'll take that as an admission that you are aware that you are full of shit. So, what do you think of the fact that the median American is a whopping 300% richer today than in 1980?

Here are some realistic scenarios:
...
I'm talking about an apocalypse and you are worried about a bait and switch?

Yes. You just confirmed my suspicion that you are trying to bait and switch: that scenario doesn't come anywhere close to your apocalypse religion.

 

[Futilitist]

See, you are funny!

Duh indeed. The two statements aren't saying the same thing, so you're tying yourself in a knot trying to weasel out of an utterly stupid statement -- the second is closer to true, but still false: The first says "the energy delivered to the end consumer is declining" (it isn't: it is increasing) whereas the second says "all of the increase is consumed...." which even if true would be a net steady production, not a decrease. Maybe you do know what you are saying is BS afterall?

Of course, if you do know what you are saying is BS, you know you've added some BS since "production" doesn't include the oil burned by the oil industry, it only includes the oil delivered to consumers....which, yes, is increasing in volume and steady in its energy content.

I said gas instead of oil. My bad and I'm sure you know that was a basic error. Doesn't make your false claims about the price of oil any less false.

You've admitted it previously - and how could you not, since you are claiming exactly the opposite mechanism from you were claiming before. Heck, it's obvious enough since you don't mention Peak Oil anymore.

You're using a 100 week moving average (spans two years!) and even then your "well below" is about $97!

Since you ignored the bit about inflation, I'll take that as an admission that you are aware that you are full of shit. So, what do you think of the fact that the median American is a whopping 300% richer today than in 1980?

Yes. You just confirmed my suspicion that you are trying to bait and switch: that scenario doesn't come anywhere close to your apocalypse religion.

Wow. You probably think you made some good points there.

By the way, why do you believe that civilization is impervious to collapse, except in the event of an asteroid strike or a nuclear war?



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

Wow. You probably think you made some good points there.

I'm beginning to think you do too. The level of stupidity displayed in your posts would be difficult to do by accident and the dodging can't be accidental. I think you put effort into your nonsense. But it is tough to tell honest religion from trolling.

 

[Futilitist]

I'm beginning to think you do too. The level of stupidity displayed in your posts would be difficult to do by accident and the dodging can't be accidental. I think you put effort into your nonsense. But it is tough to tell honest religion from trolling.

Whatever.

Why do you believe that civilization is impervious to collapse, except in the event of an asteroid strike or a nuclear war?



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

Why do you believe that civilization is impervious to collapse, except in the event of an asteroid strike or a nuclear war?

When backed into a corner, reboot! Classic.

 

[Futilitist]

When backed into a corner, reboot! Classic.

When backed into a corner...quick, change the subject.

You are dodging again, Russ.

In that context, there really isn't much that could make it happen (I'm even doubtful about the nuclear winter hypothesis). It is tough to argue a negative because one can't describe negative scenarios. All we can do is try to think of realistic scenarios where it could be possible.

You said you couldn't imagine a realistic scenario that could possibly lead to civilizational collapse (other than a nuclear war or an asteroid strike). So I then suggested such a realistic scenario. You did not respond at all. Here it is again:

"The argument that a large-scale and globalized financial-banking-monetary crisis is likely arises from two sources. Firstly, from the outcome and management of credit over-expansion and global imbalances and the growing stresses in the Eurozone and global banking system. Secondly, from the manifest risk that we are at a peak in global oil production, and that affordable, real-time production will begin to decline in the next few years. In the latter case, the credit backing of fractional reserve banks, monetary systems and financial assets are fundamentally incompatible with energy constraints. It is argued that in the coming years there are multiple routes to a large-scale breakdown in the global financial system, comprising systemic banking collapses, monetary system failure, credit and financial asset vaporization. This breakdown, however and whenever it comes, is likely to be fast and disorderly and could overwhelm society’s ability to respond.

We consider one scenario to give a practical dimension to understanding supply-chain contagion- a break-up of the Euro and an intertwined systemic banking crisis. Simple argument and modelling will point to the likelihood of a food security crisis within days in the directly affected countries and an initially exponential spread of production failures across the world beginning within a week. This will reinforce and spread financial system contagion. It is also argued that the longer the crisis goes on, the greater the likelihood of its irreversibility. This could be in as little as three weeks."
~David Korowicz

Please explain why you think such a scenario is impossible. Thanks.



---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

When backed into a corner...quick, change the subject.

You are dodging again, Russ.


You said you couldn't imagine a realistic scenario that could possibly lead to civilizational collapse (other than a nuclear war or an asteroid strike). So I then suggested such a realistic scenario. You did not respond at all.

You are lying: You are the one who was non-responsive. I gave a long reply and you came back with "you probably think you made some good points."* Good or bad, you didn't address any of them. You're just copy-paste-parroting and not reading the responses.

*Actually, I also replied previously and you didn't respond at all. You must have missed it.

 

[origin]

Please explain why you think such a scenario is impossible. Thanks.

Nothing is impossible. You're welcome. Davis korowicz appears to be a lunatic.