"The Fed's initial policy convinced subprime borrowers that if they took out mortgages tied to Fed rates, they could afford homes that they ordinarily couldn't. The Fed's artificially low rates fueled a borrowing spree and housing bubble that were instrumental in the subprime meltdown. Then there is the network of entities backed by the government, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were big champions of subprime lending and big propagandists for the idea that everyone needs to own a home to live the American Dream. Finally, there is the government's long-standing policy of assuring large financial institutions that they are "too big to fail," which encourages short-range, high-risk investments."
Anyway, at this point I am just about fully convinced that there has literally NEVER been an economic problem that wasn't caused by government, or slightly more generally speaking, the initiation of force (so that includes gangsters and warlords). The only "problems" I have been able to find that weren't caused by government, simply were not ECONOMIC problems, but were TECHNOLOGICAL problems. I have yet to find a counter-example to this idea, so if anybody has one I would be seriously humbled.
Julian Simon was absolutely right that the only truly indispensable and finite resource is the human mind. BTW Dad I was watching a video of my buddy Yaron Brook the other day in which he was explaining why peakoil is a joke, and he mentioned Julian Simon as the originator of a lot of these ideas about resources, the human mind as the ultimate resource, about resources never really being "scarce," etc..
Unfortunately, in our Government Institutions for Indoctrination, children are taught the EXACT opposite. They are taught to blame just about everything on capitalism and a lack of government controls, and that all the solutions to these problems came from government intervention.
My experience with economics in college, from the classes that I've taken, people I've talked to, articles I've read, is that although students aren't taught such blatant propaganda as in the public school system, they are taught a whole bunch of nonsensical, pointless, convoluted jargon. This is why I dropped econ.
I really don't mean to be offensive here but yes, it's a theory, and it's a small-minded one. It blatantly fails to see the bigger picture. Even if we completely ran dry of oil 5 years from now, we'd figure out a replacement with technological advances in that time. Despite what just about everybody says, there is truly no such thing as an irreplaceable resource. We're really just beginning to tap into all the oil that is out there, let alone all of the earth's resources in general. Here's my buddy Yaron Brook:
Take his advice and read Julian Simon. I don't have time to check right now but I'm pretty sure you can read a lot of things that he wrote at www.juliansimon.com. Time to study.
There is only one thing that could stop civilization from overcoming miniscule little humps like running out of oil, and that is the taking away of individual freedom. If that happens, which is what the peakoilists advocate, then all of their theories WILL come true, although due to a different reason than what they expect.
Sorry if anything didn't make sense, I kind of wrote this in a hurry.
Small-minded? Peakoil isn't about the bigger picture. Lets stay on THIS planet and talk about oil and gas. Are we replacing the yearly produced oil with new oil reserves?
As usual, the Times is very un-impressive and un-convincing.
I get your point but yeah even on THIS planet, these theories miss the bigger picture. Just stop and think about the size of the Earth for a minute or so.
This just confirms everything that I've been saying. All of these predictions and worries are VERY short term. Also notice how most of the supply problems they are talking about are due to government intervention, which is exactly my point. The ONLY thing that can get in the way of our energy supply is the government.
The answer your question is that the answer doesn't matter. In the long run, the problem will be solved technologically. Whether that means finding more oil, figuring out how to get the oil out of the ground cheaper, figuring out how to transport it cheaper, or get this, figuring out a whole new way of supply ourselves with energy and the other things that we use oil for, doesn't matter. One way or another, it will be figured out.
The New York Times is juvenile compared to the genius of Julian Simon:
First i am not worried about peakoil and you can keep your hat on. I believe we are talking about two different things. Energy supply and oil (fossil fuels) supply. Oil and natural gas is the most used fuel at this point of time, and still the cheapest. The global market pays good money for this. There is no more easy oil to be recovered.
The two places on earth thats relatively unexplored and where the odds for finding "cheap" oil and gas is good are; offshore Brasil and in the Appalachian basin.
Norse Energy had 49 millions BOE of proven reserves 01/01/2008. The marketcap is today 427 million $. This means that NEC trades for 4,6$ pr BOE. None of the exploration blocks in Brazil is in my opinion priced inn.
BS is no stranger. He's a fellow NEC shareholder (I assume), which makes him almost family.
BS, thanks for the links. The first two are technical analysis which, if you listen to, says we're going to run out of oil in the 1980s. They've been wrong forever. Maybe they will be right this time, but I'd bet against it. It's all over my head, anyway, so I can't really say anything else about it.
The NYT piece was very interesting, though. Mostly because it asked the question that should be asked: Why hasn't the run up in oil prices resulted in more supply? I'll get to that in a second. First, I assume, again, that you think it's supportive of Peak OIl Theory. I don't. I think it refutes POT. To wit:
"But for a variety of reasons, including sharply higher drilling costs and a rise of nationalistic policies that restrict foreign investment, these countries are failing to increase their output."
And:
"In many other places, the problems are not below ground, as energy executives like to put it, but above ground. Higher petroleum taxes and more costly licensing agreements, a scarcity of workers and swelling costs, as well as political wrangling and violence, are making it harder to raise production."
And:
“It’s a crunch,” said J. Robinson West, chairman of PFC Energy, an energy consulting firm in Washington. “The world is not running out of oil, but rather it’s running out of oil production capacity.”
And:
"Russia is not exactly running out of places to look for oil — a huge chunk of eastern Siberia remains unexplored..."
It's a problem of investment, infrastructure, technology, politics and government. It isn't a question of running out of places to extract oil. It's out there waiting for us.
As to why the supply of oil has not increased in reponse to price:
The price of oil was low for a long time. About 20 years. For a long time, there was little incentive to invest. The price of oil spiked in 1974 and stayed high for eleven years before it got cheap again. Then it stayed cheap for 20 years.
So, I think we're still early in the cycle. It takes time to ratchet up the manufacture of the tools needed to extract the oil, to educate the engineers needed, etc. It also takes time to destruct demand and for users to find and utilize substitutes.
Also, in real dollars, the price of oil only surpassed the price oil in 1980 in the last couple of months.
Maybe it will be different this time, and oil will never be cheap again. But I'd bet against it.
BS, I see what you're saying, that makes much more sense. Except for this:
"There is no more easy oil to be recovered."
Which, depending on how you define the word easy, I may or not agree with you. Yes it is true, the more oil we pull out, the harder it will be to get the rest of the oil. BUT if by easy, you mean in terms of cost, then I would say that we can't be certain.
This is because at the same time that the oil becomes harder to get at, technological innovation will be combatting this. Whether or not oil extraction will get easier in terms of dollar cost depends simply on which one of these things happens at a faster rate. My bet is on it technology's side, and that oil in the long run will get cheaper.
This is all based on one HUGE pre-requisite condition, without which everything I said here is wrong. That condition is capitalism.
It goes without saying that the "easy" oil has been recovered. This is true at any point in time. It was said in 1917 and 1974 and will be said in 2024. But it's a continuum, not an abrupt change, and oil that was extracted recently fairly easily, looked hard in 1974.
Wow, sounds like an awesome and exciting challenge!
6 miles of ocean, high temperatures, salt, yes it's all extremely daunting. But mark my words, as long as men are left free to figure it out, they will do just that.
BS, patience. I've had new glasses wating for me for six weeks just 20 miles from here. I haven't had time to go get them. Things should ease up shortly.
NEC trading at 8.25 with an intraday high of 8.45. Wow.
A coalition of about 300 property owners dealing with energy prospectors in eastern Broome and western Delaware countries has struck it rich, and drilling hasn't even started.
What's the value of the NG beneath a typical acre of Marcellus Shale. Or, rather, how much NG in MMbtus or BOE is there underneath a typical acre? Is there something about the other areas that makes them more valuable, or were all of us in this area stupid?
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium? Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
36 comments:
Yeah peakoil is a theory for small minds.
Anyway Dad don't forget that the housing bubble was caused by the government.
Are you referring to the CRA or the low fed funds rate or something else?
As always, my buddy Yaron Brook put sit best:
"The Fed's initial policy convinced subprime borrowers that if they took out mortgages tied to Fed rates, they could afford homes that
they ordinarily couldn't. The Fed's artificially low rates fueled a borrowing spree and housing bubble that were instrumental in the subprime meltdown. Then there is the network of entities backed by the government, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were big champions of subprime lending and big propagandists for the idea that everyone needs to own a home to live the American Dream. Finally, there is the government's long-standing policy of assuring large financial institutions that they are "too big to fail," which encourages short-range, high-risk investments."
The full article is here:
http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/14/yaron-economy-regulation-oped-cx_ybr_0214yaron.html
Anyway, at this point I am just about fully convinced that there has literally NEVER been an economic problem that wasn't caused by government, or slightly more generally speaking, the initiation of force (so that includes gangsters and warlords). The only "problems" I have been able to find that weren't caused by government, simply were not ECONOMIC problems, but were TECHNOLOGICAL problems. I have yet to find a counter-example to this idea, so if anybody has one I would be seriously humbled.
Julian Simon was absolutely right that the only truly indispensable and finite resource is the human mind. BTW Dad I was watching a video of my buddy Yaron Brook the other day in which he was explaining why peakoil is a joke, and he mentioned Julian Simon as the originator of a lot of these ideas about resources, the human mind as the ultimate resource, about resources never really being "scarce," etc..
Unfortunately, in our Government Institutions for Indoctrination, children are taught the EXACT opposite. They are taught to blame just about everything on capitalism and a lack of government controls, and that all the solutions to these problems came from government intervention.
My experience with economics in college, from the classes that I've taken, people I've talked to, articles I've read, is that although students aren't taught such blatant propaganda as in the public school system, they are taught a whole bunch of nonsensical, pointless, convoluted jargon. This is why I dropped econ.
Is peakoil a theory?
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cantarell.htm
http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/burgan
I really don't mean to be offensive here but yes, it's a theory, and it's a small-minded one. It blatantly fails to see the bigger picture. Even if we completely ran dry of oil 5 years from now, we'd figure out a replacement with technological advances in that time. Despite what just about everybody says, there is truly no such thing as an irreplaceable resource. We're really just beginning to tap into all the oil that is out there, let alone all of the earth's resources in general. Here's my buddy Yaron Brook:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K1lNR7EjVQ&feature=related
Take his advice and read Julian Simon. I don't have time to check right now but I'm pretty sure you can read a lot of things that he wrote at www.juliansimon.com. Time to study.
There is only one thing that could stop civilization from overcoming miniscule little humps like running out of oil, and that is the taking away of individual freedom. If that happens, which is what the peakoilists advocate, then all of their theories WILL come true, although due to a different reason than what they expect.
Sorry if anything didn't make sense, I kind of wrote this in a hurry.
Small-minded?
Peakoil isn't about the bigger picture. Lets stay on THIS planet and talk about oil and gas.
Are we replacing the yearly produced oil with new oil reserves?
How does your buddy Yaron Brook explain This?
As usual, the Times is very un-impressive and un-convincing.
I get your point but yeah even on THIS planet, these theories miss the bigger picture. Just stop and think about the size of the Earth for a minute or so.
This just confirms everything that I've been saying. All of these predictions and worries are VERY short term. Also notice how most of the supply problems they are talking about are due to government intervention, which is exactly my point. The ONLY thing that can get in the way of our energy supply is the government.
The answer your question is that the answer doesn't matter. In the long run, the problem will be solved technologically. Whether that means finding more oil, figuring out how to get the oil out of the ground cheaper, figuring out how to transport it cheaper, or get this, figuring out a whole new way of supply ourselves with energy and the other things that we use oil for, doesn't matter. One way or another, it will be figured out.
The New York Times is juvenile compared to the genius of Julian Simon:
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR11.txt
If you read that whole chapter and are still worried about peakoil, then I'll eat my hat.
Anyway it's really great to be debating a stranger on the Murphy blog. We're moving up in the world!
Great article!
First i am not worried about peakoil and you can keep your hat on. I believe we are talking about two different things. Energy supply and oil (fossil fuels) supply.
Oil and natural gas is the most used fuel at this point of time, and still the cheapest. The global market pays good money for this. There is no more easy oil to be recovered.
The two places on earth thats relatively unexplored and where the odds for finding "cheap" oil and gas is good are; offshore Brasil and in the Appalachian basin.
Norse Energy had 49 millions BOE of proven reserves 01/01/2008. The marketcap is today 427 million $.
This means that NEC trades for 4,6$ pr BOE. None of the exploration blocks in Brazil is in my opinion priced inn.
Peakoil or not NEC is still way undervalued.
E=MC2
BS is no stranger. He's a fellow NEC shareholder (I assume), which makes him almost family.
BS, thanks for the links. The first two are technical analysis which, if you listen to, says we're going to run out of oil in the 1980s. They've been wrong forever. Maybe they will be right this time, but I'd bet against it. It's all over my head, anyway, so I can't really say anything else about it.
The NYT piece was very interesting, though. Mostly because it asked the question that should be asked: Why hasn't the run up in oil prices resulted in more supply? I'll get to that in a second. First, I assume, again, that you think it's supportive of Peak OIl Theory. I don't. I think it refutes POT. To wit:
"But for a variety of reasons, including sharply higher drilling costs and a rise of nationalistic policies that restrict foreign investment, these countries are failing to increase their output."
And:
"In many other places, the problems are not below ground, as energy executives like to put it, but above ground. Higher petroleum taxes and more costly licensing agreements, a scarcity of workers and swelling costs, as well as political wrangling and violence, are making it harder to raise production."
And:
“It’s a crunch,” said J. Robinson West, chairman of PFC Energy, an energy consulting firm in Washington. “The world is not running out of oil, but rather it’s running out of oil production capacity.”
And:
"Russia is not exactly running out of places to look for oil — a huge chunk of eastern Siberia remains unexplored..."
It's a problem of investment, infrastructure, technology, politics and government. It isn't a question of running out of places to extract oil. It's out there waiting for us.
As to why the supply of oil has not increased in reponse to price:
The price of oil was low for a long time. About 20 years. For a long time, there was little incentive to invest. The price of oil spiked in 1974 and stayed high for eleven years before it got cheap again. Then it stayed cheap for 20 years.
So, I think we're still early in the cycle. It takes time to ratchet up the manufacture of the tools needed to extract the oil, to educate the engineers needed, etc. It also takes time to destruct demand and for users to find and utilize substitutes.
Also, in real dollars, the price of oil only surpassed the price oil in 1980 in the last couple of months.
Maybe it will be different this time, and oil will never be cheap again. But I'd bet against it.
Word.
BS, I see what you're saying, that makes much more sense. Except for this:
"There is no more easy oil to be recovered."
Which, depending on how you define the word easy, I may or not agree with you. Yes it is true, the more oil we pull out, the harder it will be to get the rest of the oil. BUT if by easy, you mean in terms of cost, then I would say that we can't be certain.
This is because at the same time that the oil becomes harder to get at, technological innovation will be combatting this. Whether or not oil extraction will get easier in terms of dollar cost depends simply on which one of these things happens at a faster rate. My bet is on it technology's side, and that oil in the long run will get cheaper.
This is all based on one HUGE pre-requisite condition, without which everything I said here is wrong. That condition is capitalism.
It goes without saying that the "easy" oil has been recovered. This is true at any point in time. It was said in 1917 and 1974 and will be said in 2024. But it's a continuum, not an abrupt change, and oil that was extracted recently fairly easily, looked hard in 1974.
Easy oil
Not so easy
the biggest obstacle to produce easy oil and all other oil is politicians and the global warming congregation?
Wow, sounds like an awesome and exciting challenge!
6 miles of ocean, high temperatures, salt, yes it's all extremely daunting. But mark my words, as long as men are left free to figure it out, they will do just that.
Oooh, I like that: global warming congregation!
I did forget to mention environmentalists as a major impediment to cheap energy. I meant to.
You rock, BS. Is english a second language to you? Are you truly Norwegian?
And I appreciate your point about hard vs. easy.
An oil price "super-spike" to $150-$200 a barrel is increasingly likely within the next six to 24 months, Goldman Sachs says.
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=61537
Short-Term Energy Outlook
NEC is still way undervalued
Maybe this will dampen demand. Maybe not.
http://www.forbes.com/personalfinance/forbes/2008/0519/150.html
Mr.Murphy (BS)
I have to get in contact with BS, sorry that i have to use your site Mr.Murphy
BS, please contact me at wikispaces
Opp2008
Hey, we're the place where people meet.
Maybe This could help you increase supply?
McCain's gonna lead us to energy independence eh? What a creepy little punk he is. Re-regulation is not liberation.
NEC +10% today. 8,00 NOK
Rockin'! Was there a particular reason? I bet it's that Murphy Blog!!
No particular reason.
Just followed the market.
AMEX Natural Gas Index gained 1.58% today, NEC another 10% tomorrow?
If the Murphy Blog provide some new info/fotos related to Nornew, maybe we can take another 50% or more before May 20
BS
Can I contact you in private?
Opp2008
Opp, BS eschews the personal. He's all business.
BS, patience. I've had new glasses wating for me for six weeks just 20 miles from here. I haven't had time to go get them. Things should ease up shortly.
NEC trading at 8.25 with an intraday high of 8.45. Wow.
Api 31017261290000 is the newest Permit Application on The Nornew wells map
Opp2008 PM aksjeinfo.net
Take a look at this Link
the guys at Hegnar Online forum found.
I wonder what company the Wealth Advisory subscribers is going to learn about?
A coalition of about 300 property owners dealing with energy prospectors in eastern Broome and western Delaware countries has struck it rich, and drilling hasn't even started.
Link
BS, you're killin' me.
What's the value of the NG beneath a typical acre of Marcellus Shale. Or, rather, how much NG in MMbtus or BOE is there underneath a typical acre? Is there something about the other areas that makes them more valuable, or were all of us in this area stupid?
Take a look at page 27 here
Thanks, BS.
By my reckoning, using round figures and seat of the pants math, there is something on the order of $100,000 to $200,000 of NG under EACH ACRE.
W.O.W.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment