>>BJ Chip is using his ‘cr@p detector’ on IceBaby/Blue Peter and getting a very strong reading!

Yet I was the one who was right.

That IceBaby, contains the implication that I did not predict NOT ONLY the collapse of the oil prices but ALSO the causative recession.

Unfortunately for your claim that you were the ONE (when comparing the two of us) that was right, I was also right and I was quite a bit more specific about what was to happen AND when.

Moreover, I warned Frog and others that this was likely. So count up part of the price drop as demand destruction from the recession like every other sane analyst on the planet does. Part was speculation because anything as volatile and essential as oil will attract them and they amplify all the signals BOTH ways.

You don’t know that. You pretend you do.

I know what I know IceBaby… and when I make a statement like that (damned seldom) you can take it to the bank.

The logic is inexorable. You consider the situation with the big fields already in decline. Not a few, EVERY DAMNED ONE WE HAVE DATA ON. So the ones we don’t have data on are within a year or two of declining capability as well. Consider the size of the finds coming in. There aren’t any more elephants… unless there’s one under Antarctica or in the deep ocean.

Peak was in May 2005 at 82.5 M bbl/day

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/PU200712_Fig3b.png

Schwartz is guessing. I am not. That graph is a fact. The recession didn’t come in to knock down demand. The price of oil went up. Then the speculators piled in…

We won’t come out of the recession enough to even start to raise demand for at least another year and a half. The price is gamed heavily, and the speculators won’t let it alone… and after what is going to happen to the global economy over the next year it is my opinion that the demand will NEVER recover because the resulting prices will act even faster to flatten that demand.

At the same time we are going to be working harder at more efficient and more alternative transportation modes, more efficient heating, more education and reducing population.

Some Greens were indeed over-exuberant about the price going ballistic, but they didn’t mistake the process. Peak oil is about how much is pumped. It doesn’t matter if it is due to demand destruction as a result of prices and the economy, or the inability to suck on the wellhead fast enough.

…and remember that if you pull too hard on a field you REDUCE its ultimate recoverable reserve numbers.

Thanks for the Fertilizer. I think we’ve got enough for a few years now.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greenfly, don’t take me out of context. I have said that they, or any party, is justified using urgency if they have a mandate to do so.

I’ll happily call National out if I disagree with them. For example, I disagree with English blocking the Taharoa iron sands deal. I think that is unacceptable.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

And yet you say,
“Personally, I’m against passing things under urgency and not having appropriate levels of consultation and input.”

You’re very forgiving of them, Blue.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Yes. They honoring their election promises, which I voted for. I’m glad they aren’t mucking around in delivering it.

Some matters, like the 90 day employment bill, are very urgent. Most of the changes are amendments.

>>it’s redundant.

To you, perhaps. You’ll just have to suck it up.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

IBaby – I know that many, many commentators (including your blue self) are concerned that it is ‘innapropriate’ to say the least. Do you think it is appropriate to act this way, simply because they had a tag ‘!00 days’ as part of their electioneering? Please don’t bore us with the ‘mandate’ line – it’s redundant.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greenfly,

You can’t get all this passed in 100 days if you refer it all to committee. You know that.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>NOT the process by which it was passed….

The Greens voted for the EFA and against many amendments that would have made it better. The process was partisan, and they were neck deep in it. They should have said at first reading that they would not support it unless all parties were consulted.

They didn’t.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

IB – you seem to be confusing issues here…

The greens voted for the EFA NOT the process by which it was passed….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

IBaby – National has a mandate for “passing things under urgency and not having appropriate levels of consultation and input”
- really? How curious and how naive of you accept that because it was alluded to before the election, it can now be passed with, as you describe, innapropriate levels of consultation and input. It’s been well explained on this blog how bereft of credibility the Nats are for taking that line.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>credibility refers to labour voters – not Greens!!

Oh really? I guess you weren’t following the EFA very closely, then….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“People would have some credibility if they raised these concerns when their own party did the same thing”

Icebaby. Totally agree with your sentiment. However, I think your comment about credibility refers to labour voters – not Greens!!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It’s always about the “other team”, eh

People would have some credibility if they raised these concerns when their own party did the same thing.

Personally, I’m against passing things under urgency and not having appropriate levels of consultation and input. However, National are following through with their 100 day plan, which they have a mandate to do. If National does this beyond the 100 days, without *very* good reason, I’ll object to it. I also think the procedures of parliament should be changed so information is made public in a timely manner, but wonder why the LabGreens never saw to this matter in the last nine years?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Poor Baby! So you empathise with those who are concerned now? Or are you gloating, hmmmm?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Increasingly concerned…”

So, now you know what we had to put up with during the EFA, retrospective law-making, toothless inquiries, buying useless trains, and more.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sorry Frog….!!

Like others commenting on this post, I am becoming increasingly concerned at what is currently happening in parliament in what seems to be a ‘spiteful’ attempt to destroy some of the structures which were put in place by the previous government – because they were put in place by that government.

There seems to be little cohesion in the process and, in many cases blatant contradiction between words and deeds.

I just hope that, in the New Year, we see some rebuilding which evidences what the Nats are saying that they stand for…….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Johan

I believe in climate change.
I’m on the fence about the AGW-leading-to-disaster scenario.

This is my point – these are POSSIBLE SCENARIOS.

Some people leap in, boots n all, declare that their future scenario is fact, and label all those who question them “deniers”.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

IceBaby
An interesting link that you provided, although the source you refer to (Schwartz) has the following to say:

“We are not going to run out of oil before the issue of climate change drives change. It’ll be costly oil. But it’ll be climate change catastrophes [such as sudden, unexpected displacement of large numbers of people, and massive property damage], and more expensive oil, not the fact that we’re running out of oil, that will drive change,” according to Schwartz.

I gather from the article that he is saying that peak oil is difficult to predict because of a lack of info, but that the impetus for the development of clean technology is the more easily predicable climate change – not a position that you subscribe to if I remember earlier comments by you?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

icehawk

There is too much certainty.

The reality is that we do not know reserve levels. People are pretending they know. They do not have sufficient data to make the call.

http://cleantech.com/news/3464/peak-oil-wrong-says-schwartz

As for the role of speculators, the increase in demand wasn’t significant, yet the price went through the roof. And now we’ve got such a glut, that OPEC are not even sure that turning off the taps will stop the prices falling. Demand and supply didn’t double the price of oil in a year, speculation did. Institutional investors, who hold most of the futures contracts, can no longer finance their 5% margin down payments, let alone anything else.

The signal remains noisy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

IceBaby: “People were predicting a straight line of increasing oil prices because they believed – wanted to believe – that what they were seeing was supply not meeting demand.”

Where they? I thought they were mostly predicting volatility around an overall trend of increase. Frog certainly predicted that. And here’s my comment about this from back in 2005:

“Expect oil prices to go both up AND DOWN over the next 5 years.

The fact that they’ll go down as well as up is part of the problem because it will make the overall upward drift of oil prices harder to see. Prices will bounce up and down – but up to higher highs, and never down as far as they were before.

But when oil drops to ‘only’ $50/barrel there will be pundits who say “look, peak oil is a myth, oil prices are dropping!” And then when they peak up to $90 or $100 a barrel a few years later the same pundits will say “the greens are crying wolf again, like in 2005, but prices went down in 2006″!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>Is there anything we can do to stop this?

We voted for National, and we’re getting the National policy we voted for.

That’s democracy.

So, no, you can’t.

>>Is it even legal to repeal so much legislation without giving the NZ public any time to comment?

Yes, quite legal.

You might like to ask yourself why the LabGreensFirst never changed the rules in nine years, but are only howling about it now.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)