William Engdahl: Global Elite Geopolitics

[wintler2]

There's more than enough for the oil companies' purposes. Why would they want to discover more when their prices are maintained by artificial scarcity?

Because 'oil companies' are not a monolithic entity, each is trying to maximise its own profit.

Oh yes, I had forgotten that we live in a capitalist society which, obviously, is a system of free enterprise in which individuals and corporate bodies compete honestly with each other in the interests of efficiency and self-interest, while price-fixing and other conspiracies between "competitors" are unheard of and/or vigourously prosecuted by the incorruptible agents of the state.

Strawman, selfinterest doesn't require a perfect market.

Yes. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it's a conspiracy.

Of Opec, Russia, Columbia et al? See my question above.

Oil prices are based on futures. The prospect of future scarcity leads to higher prices.
... Better to have ten barrels at $100 each than 50 barrels at $10 each.

Except that too-high prices crash demand, see GFC question above.

[lupercal]

^ willard, the only actual information you've contributed here is a linkless, sourceless graph on the previous page labeled "Past Discovery based on ExxonMobil (2002)," so I have to think that everything else you pull out of your ass is also half-digested petro-industry propaganda that entered your alimentary canal who knows how and I see no particular reason to pay any attention to any of it. Others might feel differently.

[wintler2]

^ willard, the only actual information you've contributed here is a linkless, sourceless graph on the previous page labeled "Past Discovery based on ExxonMobil (2002)," so I have to think that everything else you pull out of your ass is also half-digested petro-industry propaganda that entered your alimentary canal who knows how and I see no particular reason to pay any attention to any of it. Others might feel differently.

Its not my fault if you choose to march under Engdahls banner, i started a thread on this years ago, as you well know, its there on page 1 of general discussion today also, I bumped it just for you.
In 1st post of that thread i stated the evidence i thought was convincing.

[lupercal]

i started a thread on this years ago, as you well know, its there on page 1 of general discussion today also, I bumped it just for you.
In 1st post of that thread i stated the evidence i thought was convincing.

Okay, fair enough. Let's look at that 1st post of that thread then. I see no supporting evidence for "peak oil," or even specific claims about it, just a very cursory glance at the term and its petro-industry origins:

For newbies, peak oil is the pop-culture tag for the problem of global oil production reaching a maximum and then declining, first quantified by Shell geologist Marion King Hubbert back in the 1950s for the lower US 48 states. He was ridiculed, threatened, and then proven right in 1971. Global oil production is a harder calculation, with Colin Campbell, Jean Leherrere, Samsam Bahktiari, and Kenneth Deffeyes some of the best known geologists & oil industry geeks working on that sum, and the Association for the Study of Peak Oil the academic end of its study.

Additionally, you include three links, going to two sites, http://www.theoildrum.com and http://www.energybulletin.net. Energy Bulletin for its science relies on The Oil Drum and on ASPO, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, which you also mention:

Where is the science behind this?

As much science and as many equations as you please. The Oil Drum and ASPO are a good source of technical information.
http://www.energybulletin.net/faq#who

And for its science The Oil Drum relies on ASPO, which is pretty obviously a petroleum industry think tank, or research institute, or whatever you want to call it, hilarious organizational chart notwithstanding: http://www.peakoil.net/files/images/Org ... hart_0.gif

So essentially you have one industry propaganda shop, ASPO, and two p.r. sites promoting its "ideas," and it doesn't take much to figure that one out, although in four years you don't seem to have made the connection so you're welcome.

[Stephen Morgan]

Not to get the oil, to control the oil. Or can you not see why the oil industry may want to control one of the three most potentially productive sources of oil rather than letting it fall into the hands of potential competitors or those who might wish to raise production and thereby lower prices?

If oil companies have so much control over the price of oil, why did they let let prices spike in 2008 and trigger the GFC, significantly reducing oil price and consumption such that it has yet to recover?

Could've been a mistake, as controlling the supply of oil doesn't make one the omniscient god of pricing. Or it could be that the GFC was largely due to banks and money markets rather than oil companies. Although reducing consumption could also have been to prevent runaway price increases, as the oil companies obviously want a high but stable price not a volatile price which might encourage a long term drop in consumption.

After you've had a go at that, could you explain how & why OPEC, Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Vietnam, Indonesia et al are all dancing to the western oil corp's tune re production, even as many of those nations nationalise or otherwise work to edge out those same oil corps.

Yes, why might the government of, say, Nigeria, do something it was asked to do by an incredibly wealthy western corporation. Truly this impossible conundrum boggles to mind.

As for supposed nationalisation efforts, they often serve to remove obsolete pumping equipment which needs investment into the public sector while marketing deals keep the profits private.

And Venezuela, being an exporter of oil, has the same interests as the oil companies: consistent high prices.

And lucky #3, tell me do you agree that oil is a finite resource?

There's a certain amount of oil in the ground which will eventually be depleted to the point where extraction becomes uneconomic. At which point the oil companies will reveal the secret technologies they have under wraps for creating oil out of thin air.

[Stephen Morgan]

There's more than enough for the oil companies' purposes. Why would they want to discover more when their prices are maintained by artificial scarcity?

Because 'oil companies' are not a monolithic entity, each is trying to maximise its own profit.

Oh yes, I had forgotten that we live in a capitalist society which, obviously, is a system of free enterprise in which individuals and corporate bodies compete honestly with each other in the interests of efficiency and self-interest, while price-fixing and other conspiracies between "competitors" are unheard of and/or vigourously prosecuted by the incorruptible agents of the state.

Strawman, selfinterest doesn't require a perfect market.

As many a price fixing conspiracy has shown, self interest is the opposite of a perfect market. In this case self-interest, and the maximisation of profits for the oil companies, is served by a conspiracy between those companies to maintain high prices. Pharmaceutical companies do it, tobacco companies do it, why the hell would oil companies compete when that's not the way to maximise your revenues?

Yes. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it's a conspiracy.

Of Opec, Russia, Columbia et al? See my question above.

OPEC is a cartel, dear. There entire reason for being is to conspire to maximise oil revenues.

Oil prices are based on futures. The prospect of future scarcity leads to higher prices.
... Better to have ten barrels at $100 each than 50 barrels at $10 each.

Except that too-high prices crash demand, see GFC question above.

Notice that demand hasn't crashed. Even the GFC, largely unrelated to the oil companies, did only minor damage to demand and prices. In fact, as you pointed out in the GFC question above, the GFC reduced both demand and prices. When the prices were at their highest so was consumption.

[wintler2]

Energy Bulletin for its science relies on The Oil Drum and on ASPO, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil

False, it publishes ASPO members and many others, people who've been published on The Oil Drum and others.

And for its science The Oil Drum relies on ASPO

False.

which is pretty obviously a petroleum industry think tank, or research institute, or whatever you want to call it,

False, Colin Campbell is a whistleblower on oil industry secrets, Aleklett & Bardi are academics, Bruce Robinson is a retired CSIRO scientist. The oil industry denied and lied about depletion for decades, you're just continuing their work for them.

International board
President: Kjell Aleklett Professor, Uppsala University, Sweden
Honorary Chairman: Colin J. Campbell, Dr, Cork, Ireland
Secretary: Mikael Höök, PhD student, Uppsala University, Sweden
Member: Ugo Bardi, professor, University of Firenze, Italy
Member: Richard O’Rourke, ASPO-6, Ireland
Member: Pedro Prieto, ASPO-7, Spain
Member: Feng Lianyong, professor, University of Petroleum, Beijing, China
Member: Simon Ratcliffe, South Africa
Member: Richard Lawrence, USA
Member: Bruce Robinson, Australia

So essentially you have one industry propaganda shop, ASPO, and two p.r. sites promoting its "ideas," and it doesn't take much to figure that one out, although in four years you don't seem to have made the connection so you're welcome.

[/quote]

Welcome to your unsubstantiated smears? No thanks.

[wintler2]

Could've been a mistake, as controlling the supply of oil doesn't make one the omniscient god of pricing. Or it could be that the GFC was largely due to banks and money markets rather than oil companies. Although reducing consumption could also have been to prevent runaway price increases, as the oil companies obviously want a high but stable price not a volatile price which might encourage a long term drop in consumption.

Your torturous logic is difficult to follow, but as i understand it, whatever happens, you can't be wrong. Cute, but sing me this one anyway: surely destructive runaway prices are impossible if plenty of supply secretly available?

As for supposed nationalisation efforts, they often serve to remove obsolete pumping equipment which needs investment into the public sector while marketing deals keep the profits private.

Right, thats why Oil Corps have always welcomed nationalisations.

And Venezuela, being an exporter of oil, has the same interests as the oil companies: consistent high prices.

Nice slippage on the singular/plural there pal, but no. Oil Corps & govt. of Venezuela may share AN interest in high oil prices, but most of their other interestS are different. Hence Ven. nearly giving away oil to other leftist and even centre-right governments, not something oil corps do alot of, so their intersts are not identical, not even on same page.

And lucky #3, tell me do you agree that oil is a finite resource?

There's a certain amount of oil in the ground which will eventually be depleted to the point where extraction becomes uneconomic. At which point the oil companies will reveal the secret technologies they have under wraps for creating oil out of thin air.

Is this you admitting infantilism or saying you just don't care? You really oughta see someone about those nonsequitors.

[wintler2]

OPEC is a cartel, dear. There entire reason for being is to conspire to maximise oil revenues.

Yes dear, a routinely unsuccessful cartel to limit production to agreed quota's. What always happened was too many countries thought "great, everybody else is cutting back a bit, prices will up, i'll pump just a little more than i said i would.." Greed made OPEC ineffectual, you must believe oil companies have discovered a secret spell that sidelines greed for solidarity.

Oil prices are based on futures. The prospect of future scarcity leads to higher prices. ... Better to have ten barrels at $100 each than 50 barrels at $10 each.

Except that too-high prices crash demand, see GFC question above.

Notice that demand hasn't crashed. Even the GFC, largely unrelated to the oil companies, did only minor damage to demand and prices.

False, prices halved, 4mbd idled, oil shippers in particular took it in the neck. Ever google much?

[Hammer of Los]

edited for needless and unhelpful snark

You know;

Because 'oil companies' are not a monolithic entity, each is trying to maximise its own profit.

It really wouldn't take long to find evidence of collusion and price fixing amongst the Western owned energy giants, the so-called Seven Sisters;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011 ... nipulation

If oil companies have so much control over the price of oil, why did they let let prices spike in 2008 and trigger the GFC, significantly reducing oil price and consumption such that it has yet to recover?

They try to control the price to keep it stable and as high as possible. Stephen has been explaining it rather clearly for you. You are so ungrateful. They don't have complete control, no-one said they did. They don't want the price going down. Neither do the oil exporters. But in that year, until July, they enjoyed massive record over inflated crude prices. Check out Exxon Mobil's record profits for that year;

Exxon Roars To Record In Oil Slump

Yes dear, a routinely unsuccessful cartel to limit production to agreed quota's. What always happened was too many countries thought "great, everybody else is cutting back a bit, prices will up, i'll pump just a little more than i said i would.." Greed made OPEC ineffectual, you must believe oil companies have discovered a secret spell that sidelines greed for solidarity.

OPEC have indeed been very effective at artificially limiting production. You cannot convincingly argue otherwise. In fact, from my article about how the financial crash affected the oil markets above;

Still, the murky outlook for the global economy has clouded the prospects for the oil industry. With economies reeling, oil consumption is falling. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has slashed output to prop up crude oil prices, which at least for now remain weak.

[Stephen Morgan]

Could've been a mistake, as controlling the supply of oil doesn't make one the omniscient god of pricing. Or it could be that the GFC was largely due to banks and money markets rather than oil companies. Although reducing consumption could also have been to prevent runaway price increases, as the oil companies obviously want a high but stable price not a volatile price which might encourage a long term drop in consumption.

Your torturous logic is difficult to follow, but as i understand it, whatever happens, you can't be wrong. Cute, but sing me this one anyway: surely destructive runaway prices are impossible if plenty of supply secretly available?

Available doesn't necessarily mean immediately available. If you've spent decades restricting exploration, infrastructure development and production, in Iraq for example, then that can't be undone over night.

As for supposed nationalisation efforts, they often serve to remove obsolete pumping equipment which needs investment into the public sector while marketing deals keep the profits private.

Right, thats why Oil Corps have always welcomed nationalisations.

One must keep up appearances, dear boy.

And Venezuela, being an exporter of oil, has the same interests as the oil companies: consistent high prices.

Nice slippage on the singular/plural there pal, but no. Oil Corps & govt. of Venezuela may share AN interest in high oil prices, but most of their other interestS are different. Hence Ven. nearly giving away oil to other leftist and even centre-right governments, not something oil corps do alot of, so their intersts are not identical, not even on same page.

So you admit that they're both interested in maintaining high prices?

And lucky #3, tell me do you agree that oil is a finite resource?

There's a certain amount of oil in the ground which will eventually be depleted to the point where extraction becomes uneconomic. At which point the oil companies will reveal the secret technologies they have under wraps for creating oil out of thin air.

Is this you admitting infantilism or saying you just don't care? You really oughta see someone about those nonsequitors.

Neither. Just answering your question.

[Stephen Morgan]

you must believe oil companies have discovered a secret spell that sidelines greed for solidarity.

If you'd been paying attention you'd have noticed that my position is that greed and solidarity go together. Price-fixing conspiracy, look it up.

[wintler2]

So you admit that they're [govt. of Venezuela & oil corp's] both interested in maintaining high prices?

Sure, but many of their other interests are quite different.

And lucky #3, tell me do you agree that oil is a finite resource?

There's a certain amount of oil in the ground which will eventually be depleted to the point where extraction becomes uneconomic. At which point the oil companies will reveal the secret technologies they have under wraps for creating oil out of thin air.

Is this you admitting infantilism or saying you just don't care? You really oughta see someone about those nonsequitors.

Neither. Just answering your question.

So you really believe oil can be created out of thin air? Whats the technology, the energy source, and how much capital do you need up front?


But i realise you're just playing it for the lulz, cos you already acknowledged reality of peak back in February..

And peak oil from conventional oild sources in already gone.

Have you changed your mind, or did you run out of flies to pull the wings off?

[lupercal]

Have you changed your mind, or did you run out of flies to pull the wings off?

Anti-petrometic hate speech claims another

[wintler2]

Have you changed your mind, or did you run out of flies to pull the wings off?

Anti-petrometic hate speech claims another

Excuse me for noticing.