While discussing the concept of 'Peak Oil' at work today, I offered that it made no sense to to invest in an expensive high mileage car (for example) in order to 'save oil'. Any oil you saved would just be used by someone else at today's low price and - in the meantime - you would put yourself at a competetive disadvantage by paying more for energy than you needed to.
The other person offered that this was an example of the "tragedy of the commons" since everyone was incentivized to use the oil and no one was incentivized to conserve it. Although I couldn't argue that it certainly looked the same, I always thought that the "commons" argument pointed to a problem with property rights - that common ownership was at the root of these sorts of problems. However, it doesn't look like oil supplies - in general - suffer from a common ownership problem.
So I'm confused with how to classify the whole situation, is it:
1) An example of the "commons" tragedy? But does that imply that "commons" is more than just property rights? or that oil supplies have ownership issues?
2) An example of something else with similar consequences? perhaps some sort of game theory?
3) A problem with the argument as a whole? (by assuming peak oil is true, am I putting some false constraint on the issue?)
Any help appreciated - even a link somewhere - I'm not sure if this is a "commons" issue or not.
This is not just a discussion for geology. Peak Oil is an interesting concept, but as with any resource, the key rationing device is the price. Conservation of oil can and will be dictated by the price alone. What seems very strange to me is that oil continues to be exclusively denominated by it's price relative to the US dollar. There are many countries throughout the world that have suggested oil be denominated relative to another currency.
What's also very interesting is that other forms of energy are denominated relative to a barrel of oil equivalent (BOE) and our friends at the IRS define BOE in terms of joules (J). But why does the IRS determine this and not a convention held by the market or at least the Department of Weights and Measures? The problem with defining oil in terms of joules is that it assumes the conversion rate of oil is constant and that there's no possibility for efficiency gains. Efficiency gains in the burn rate of oil would effectively increase the amount of oil by increasing the energy derived from converting it to another form of energy.
Peak Oil could be a construct of this thinking that the energy derived from oil is constant. But it is certainly not. So why does the government hold it constant?
Two theories:
(1) the government creates the Peak Oil myth to declare the supply of oil will run out in the short-run. Many DOE estimates over the past century have declared we will run out of oil, only to have to push the estimate back with new discoveries. Efficiency gains are like new oil finds. But the myth helps to drive the push for government interefernce in the energy markets: conservation efforts, taxes, and "investments" in back-end (consumer) efficiency technologies.
(2) the Peak Oil myth is a way of controlling the means of production. Declaring that if we running out of oil justifies the capture of land to prevent from being used for E&P operations. Preventing E&P limits the supply and increases the price of oil and the inputs costs to other production. Preventing input costs from falling prevents the efficency gains throughout the rest of the economy and the corresponding fall in wholesale prices (their dreaded deflationary event in Keynesianism).
Peak Oil is a Myth
Ask any proponent of the Peak Oil Theory what the exact amount of fossil fuels the earth contains. Without knowing this amount no rational claim of Peak Oil can be made and it is thus a Myth as currently proposed.
The only entity preventing further exploration and extraction of fossil fuels is the state and the only entity negatively effecting the actual cost of fossil fuels is the state through taxes and regulations. Only the state can cause shortages of resources and any energy "crisis". In a pure free energy market all land would be available for energy production at a free market price, thus availability would be limited by cost, technology and of course actual supply. Say a hypothetical obtainable limit to our demand was reached in actual supply, long before this was reached prices of fossil fuels would rise, once fossil fuel prices rose above what other competing free market energy sources were, these cheaper energy sources would be adopted on their own. All without government intervention. The government was not needed to switch away from horses to cars. But we have no such scenario since the state is artificially creating supply shortages by restricting land access through regulations. The state is also artificially increasing energy costs above free market rates with taxes and regulations. In essence the state is creating a Peak Oil scenario to benefit the green lobby. But no such thing exists even with known reserves:
Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil (5min)
Despite Popular Belief, The World is Not Running Out of Oil, Scientist Says (Science Daily)It’s a myth that the world’s oil is running out (The Times, UK)Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil (ABC News)No Evidence of Precipitous Fall on Horizon for World Oil Production (Cambridge Energy Research Associates)Oil: Never Cry Wolf—Why the Petroleum Age Is Far from over (Science)Oil, Oil Everywhere... (The Wall Street Journal)The World Has Plenty of Oil (The Wall Street Journal)
Reserves:- 1.3 Trillion barrels of 'proven' oil reserves exist worldwide (EIA)- 1.8 to 6 Trillion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Oil-Shale Reserves (DOE)- 986 Billion barrels of oil are estimated using Coal-to-liquids (CTL) conversion of U.S. Coal Reserves (DOE)- 173 to 315 Billion (1.7-2.5 Trillion potential) barrels of oil are estimated in the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada (Alberta Department of Energy)- 100 Billion barrels of heavy oil are estimated in the U.S. (DOE)- 90 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Arctic (USGS)- 89 Billion barrels of immobile oil are estimated recoverable using CO2 injection in the U.S. (DOE)- 86 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (MMS)- 60 to 80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in U.S. Tar Sands (DOE)- 32 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in ANWR, NPRA and the Central North Slope in Alaska (USGS)- 31.4 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the East Greenland Rift Basins Province (USGS)- 7.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the West Greenland–East Canada Province (USGS)- 4.3 Billion (167 Billion potential) barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana (USGS)- 3.65 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Devonian-Mississippian Bakken Formation (USGS)- 1.6 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Eastern Great Basin Province (USGS)- 1.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Permian Basin Province (USGS)- 1.1 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Powder River Basin Province (USGS)- 990 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Portion of the Michigan Basin (USGS)- 393 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. San Joaquin Basin Province of California (USGS)- 214 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Illinois Basin (USGS)- 172 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Yukon Flats of East-Central Alaska (USGS)- 131 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Southwestern Wyoming Province (USGS)- 109 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Montana Thrust Belt Province (USGS)- 104 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Denver Basin Province (USGS)- 98.5 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province (USGS)- 94 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Hanna, Laramie, Shirley Basins Province (USGS)For Comparison:- 260 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Saudi Arabia (EIA)- 80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Venezuela (EIA)
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
@ Rob
And the markets never fail, expect when they do, but then it is prob. the govt. to blame for it, isn't it?
What you have witnesed for the past 20 years are not markets - they are an international bankers casino, fuelled by cheap money from the Fed.
It is. Maybe CSP or maybe nuclear fission. Both govt. funded research projects.
All major advances in energy, technology, etc have generally been private - government has no idea where to throw the money as it does not care for profit. spending is all that counts.
Wrong. It is called taxation.
What you mean is Theft.
Wrong again. Public services, education, healthcare, infrastructure, social benefits, military, police, etc.
No you are wrong - it does not sell those - in fact government has no idea if anyone actually wants their services - they simply force them at us, and steal from us. I would not buy most of the services that government "sells"
So, because govt. funds education, that means, there is no real demand for education?
Similar for infrastructure, social benefits, etc.
Cetainly not the quality of education that you are recieving in the USA. Your social benefits also suck, and have created a massive class of government dependents.
Even the military occupation of Iraq, funded by the US state, is a large scale investment for the recovery of a trillion dollar worth oil resource. Just that not everybody agrees on that a govt. should do that, since it was illegal by all means, since there was no UN resolution on that.
Even the military occupation of Iraq, funded by the US state, is a large scale investment for the recovery of a trillion dollar worth oil resource.
Just that not everybody agrees on that a govt. should do that, since it was illegal by all means, since there was no UN resolution on that.
The military adventure isn't helping them to secure oil - it is just making the world price higher than it should be.
The USA could and did buy all the oil it wanted, at a much lower price than before it invaded.
That's good. I propose we also nationalize the banks, that is better then bail them out if and since they went broke.
That's good.
I propose we also nationalize the banks, that is better then bail them out if and since they went broke.
They are already Nationised - as is GM, and Ford just took a $250 000 000 loan from the feds.
Let them be dissolved would be the correct answer.
Ha!
Great posts Poptech and Sieben
Poptech wrote:
<<< Rob, so far you have failed to scientifically demonstrate how much oil the planet contains and have repeated numerous peak oil theorist talking points - all meaningless. It is not surprise that the peak oil fanatics are pushing their flawed theory in the wake of their evagelist passing, >>>
You have not read my post, since I already explained that the actual amount of oil is irreleveant to the question wether or not peak oil is true.
Peak oil is true because:
- There isn't an infinite amount of oil, So the surface under the curve of oil production is of finite size.
- It is very unlikely, impossible in fact, that oil production keeps rising until the last drip. Which means, there will be a moment of maximum production, and after that oil is going to decline and never reaches that historic peak again.
So the only real question is: WHEN is peak oil going to happen.
So, the only argument you perhaps propose to state is that peak oil perhaps does not happen within the time frame some scientists think it is likely to happen, yet that does not mean that peak oil is not going to happen, just that it is not happening soon.
But the only discussion of interest is not wether peak oil is true or not, and not even wether it will happen soon or later, but if that is going to be a problem we need to be concerned about.
The conditions under which peak oil is going to be problematic is the condition under which:
a. The global demand (due to either growing use of energy per capita and/or due to growing world population) keeps rising while the supply declines.
b. There is no replacement that can be used to replace the oil decrease AND rising demand in a timely fashion.
Btw. I do not think that peak oil is ever gonna be a real problem (in the sense that the whole of society would collapse), because there are already enough candidates for alternatives that can probably be scaled up quick enough to fill the demand-supply gap. On the other hand, I do think it is wise to actively (by state subsidies for developing and stimulating alternative energies, esp. renewables, and by taxations on fossil fuels) prepare for this, and since such activities are indeed undertaken, this will likely prevent the peak oil issue to become a problem.
Rob Says
On the other hand, I do think it is wise to actively (by state subsidies for developing and stimulating alternative energies, esp. renewables, and by taxations on fossil fuels) prepare for this, and since such activities are indeed undertaken, this will likely prevent the peak oil issue to become a problem.
Governments subsidising these inneficient technologies is a complete wase of time.
They are not competitve, and things like wind never will be.
Solar may at some point be a source of secondary power, but investing in it at this point is due to gov't subsidies that wate money on useless playthings that will never amount to a hill of beans.
Plenty of venture capitalists are risking their own mony on projects that will most likey succeed.
Here in Ontario, our provincial government is wasting 500 000 000 on a make work project involving windmills and solar... and the end result? Tripling the cost of electricity.
Only governments would "sell" you a second rate service like that.
Talking about peak oil is meaningless without knowing the total amount of oil existing in the earth and how it is made. Planet Earth is a very large body and we have barely scratched the surface of what lies beneath. If it is abiotic then that makes the talk even more meaningless. You might as well talk about peak solar energy.
The government has no remote clue about what to invest in. Markets can adapt on their own and always have.
Wrong Then, Too (Cato Institute)
At its most basic level, federal energy policy addresses two questions: Does the government know better than investors which technologies to invest in, and does the government know better than consumers how much energy they'll need? America's experience with Carter's suggestions demonstrates that the government has no advantage in either.
BTW why do you think energy companies are not capable of investing in future viable sources of energy on their own? How come every single government energy investment has been proven to be a waste of money? The market provides us with economically viable sources of enegy not magical feel-good but utterly useless boondoggles.
Rob if you want to understand energy I suggest reading these two books,
The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy (Peter Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT, 2005)
Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future (Robert Bryce, 2010)
Redmond wrote:
<<< What you have witnesed for the past 20 years are not markets - they are an international bankers casino, fuelled by cheap money from the Fed. >>>
They are casino capitalists, indeed. But that is the real face of capitalism. The sort of capitalism the Mises ppl propose....
<<< All major advances in energy, technology, etc have generally been private - government has no idea where to throw the money as it does not care for profit. spending is all that counts. >>>
Government can very well go for profit (social or communal profit), yet no private profits. That's right. But private property itself is already a theft from society. Government is the only organization that can re-invest profits into society so that everybody benefits from it.
Do you really think that education is only aimed at spending, and does not have any beneficial effect?
Same for creating infrastructure.
Why don't private enterprises provide things like rail road networks, highways, education system. Even though everybody admits that the existence of such services is beneficial for society??
<<< No you are wrong - it does not sell those - in fact government has no idea if anyone actually wants their services - they simply force them at us, and steal from us. I would not buy most of the services that government "sells" >>>
It is very sad to hear your government forced education on you. You should have never get any education, anyway the education has not been a tremendous success on you - given your posts - so perhaps ask your money back?
The government does not need to SELL you education (although you do pay), since you were already taxed for it. Or do you prefer to pay for something you already paied?
And then you repeat about stealing when the government taxes people, yet the only arbiter for if something is theft or not, is the law that is based on what the government decides. Income taxes are legal, according to the law.
It might be, you dislike what the government decides, but in a democracy, you can then vote another party next time. In case you dislike neither, and want not even the government to exist,. it would label you as an anarchist or an outlaw.
<<< The military adventure isn't helping them to secure oil - it is just making the world price higher than it should be. The USA could and did buy all the oil it wanted, at a much lower price than before it invaded.>>>
You tell them, they shouldn't have invaded Iraq anyway, cause against the UN regulations. US is a rogue state!
But trust me, american oil companies are very blessed that they can exploit iraqi oil, and it is the iraqi population that has to pay for the ocupation they never wanted in the first place!
<<< Talking about peak oil is meaningless without knowing the total amount of oil existing in the earth and how it is made. Planet Earth is a very large body and we have barely scratched the surface of what lies beneath. If it is abiotic then that makes the talk even more meaningless. You might as well talk about peak solar energy. >>>
The abiotic oil theory is bogus. Like zero point energy. No scientists buys into it. If oil is not of biological nature, then what proces created all the oil. Some invisible higher being???
Peak solar exist also, yes. Given that the sun is about 4,5 billions years old, and will last about the same amount of time, it means we are now at peak solar. But we better start counting from human existence. It will last very long for human time scales, so this is not something of a concern. Peak oil IS.
Comparing the timeframes of peak oil and peak solar is just plain stupidity. It DOES matter wether the peak occurs withing a few decades or years, or after biliions of years. Like we are not normally worried now that the sun will go red giant after couple of billion of years, that is simply outside of our reference frame, we don't have to deal with that know. Although we in fact already do, since we spend billions on human space travel, that realy only becomes necessary for that sort of events, so we can move to another planet in time.
<<< The government has no remote clue about what to invest in. Markets can adapt on their own and always have. >>>
Oh, really? So all government money, like education, like infra structure, etc. is wasted? I do not agree in general, although some govt. spending are indeed a waste, like the military spendings and such.
You seem a simple minded anti-government freak, that in reality is nothing but an anarchist.
To think that society as we know it is possible without government, is just plain silly. You are simply advocating anarchy.
Really? So capitalism and markets never had crisis, and always survived on their own, without govt. interventions?
Don't think so.
What Is The Difference Between Cordless & Sennheiser headphones?
Wireless headphones give you the flexibility to move away from your stereo or television without feeling like you're going to miss something important. No longer do you have to wait for the next commercial.
This freedom gives you the opportunity to move and work throughout the house and not to miss a single thing. Would you like to hear the football or baseball game upstairs without having to move your stereo up there? Or maybe go outside for a few minutes to take the garbage out. No problem...you haven't missed a thing.
Remember, the head sets themselves audio technica headphones do not plug directly into your IPod or stereo or TV. With each unit you purchase, there is a base unit with infrared technology that sends a signal to your headphones.
This power unit is what plugs into your stereo or television. Also, the base usually is the cradle (on quality units) for recharging the head set as well.
As mentioned earlier, this technology allows the freedom of wireless to be available for mp3 players and other hand held devices. This is great for those wanting to exercise and who is always fumbling with the cord on their head set.
Many people trying to work out are so bothered by the cord the only thing they end up doing is untangling the cord or fixing their earpieces to be more comfortable and have a better fit.
Also, you should know the difference cheap headphones between wireless and cordless. Many people think of them as the same, but they're not.
Wireless means you most likely have to stay in the line of sight of the base unit. The technology behind this is similar to that of your remote control for the television. The standard range is about 30 feet. Some units are available with more mobility, but signal strength can be lost. This makes most of these units more compatible with home or office use than anywhere else.
There are units available which have multi-user capabilities. This is great for one or more persons to share the exact same audio signal. A setup like this, makes music sharing easy and convenient.
These setups are available for home office and standard office applications. Salesman selling on the telephone are no longer strapped to the desk. This allows freedom of movement.
Being stuck in one position for long periods can actually tire someone out. With this, the telemarketer can stand and take cx299 review a brief walk or stretch without the cumbersome burden of cords. Instantly, the work environment becomes a more productive and enjoyable experience.
This cord-less technology makes it easy for a teacher to section the class room into groups. Each group can share the media from a single device.
Result? The entire classroom is able to enjoy the freedom of mobility while still remaining productive. No longer are the students being stuck to their desk. Structured settings just became more relaxed. When the student does not feel burdened, the learning experience can become more enjoyable.
Sennheiser headphones and the resulting technology is no longer limited to just a home stereo. The world is on the move and the wireless headphones technology is moving right along with them.
Actually abiogenic theory is not bogus,
Easier to find oil (Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden) Hydrocarbons in Deep Earth? (Carnegie Institution) New Evidence Supports 19th-Century Idea On Formation Of Oil And Gas (American Chemical Society)
And it has nothing to do with any deity.
I take it you never watched the video in my original post,
Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil (Video) (5min) (ABC News)
Yes government spending on education is a waste and the private sector can do it better,
Stupid in America (Video) (40min) (ABC News)
You should not make assumptions as I am not an anarchist but a limited government libertarian that supports a court system, police and and an all volunteer military but that is about it.
But you created a strawman argument as I explicitly said the government has no remote clue about what to invest in - in relation to energy.
Redmond says:
<<< Governments subsidising these inneficient technologies is a complete wase of time. >>>
If these technologies were already competing, no subsidies would be necessary, right?
Like stated before, these subsidies are just long time investments, that ultimately become profitable.
<<< They are not competitve, and things like wind never will be. >>>
Perhaps not yet, but will be. Wind energy is already competitive. Solar within a decade.
<<< Plenty of venture capitalists are risking their own mony on projects that will most likey succeed. >>>
Their "own money" ???? Perhaps you mean other peoples money.
<<< Here in Ontario, our provincial government is wasting 500 000 000 on a make work project involving windmills and solar... and the end result? Tripling the cost of electricity. >>>
I am sure you would prefer the investment in the deep drills in the Mexican Gulf.
Only a private company could cause such a damage, and only a government could force them to pay the clean up costs!
You believe that markets and capitalism have crisis because you have never studied the root cause of any you are familiar with, all of which were caused by and made worse by government internvention. You can start learning about these here with the free books that are available,
America's Great Depression (PDF) (368 pgs) (Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
And then buy this book for the recent "crisis",
Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse (Thomas E. Woods Jr. Ph.D. History, 2009)
<<< Actually abiogenic theory is not bogus, >>>
It is bogus. But please explain how did the oil and gas and coal got there? Did it form at the same time as the earth did? If not, what caused it to form then and from what, if not from biological stuff (plants and dead animals).
<<< es government spending on education is a waste and the private sector can do it better, >>>
In YOUR case, I must admit that the education was a failure. But it was not the fault of the government I guess.
<<< You should not make assumptions as I am not an anarchist but a limited government libertarian that supports a court system, police and and an all volunteer military but that is about it. >>>
There is no dividing line between your anti-government bias and anarchism as far as I can discover.
Limited government is another fantasy, as the amount of government regulation is growing instead of decreasing.
The limited government kind of thing is where we started from, and the rest is history. You can not turn back history.
Pop, as a petroleum engineer, the papers you linked don't demonstrate that there is naturally ocurring abiotic oil.
“There is no doubt that our research has shown that raw oil and natural gas occur without the inclusion of fossils. All types of rock formations can act as hosts for oil deposits,” asserts Vladimir and adds that this applies to areas of land that have previously remained unexplored as possible sources of this type of energy.
“We were intrigued by previous experiments and theoretical predictions,” remarked Carnegie’s Alexander Goncharov a coauthor. “Experiments reported some years ago subjected methane to high pressures and temperatures and found that heavier hydrocarbons formed from methane under very similar pressure and temperature conditions. However, the molecules could not be identified and a distribution was likely. We overcame this problem with our improved laser-heating technique where we could cook larger volumes more uniformly. And we found that methane can be produced from ethane.”
Although there are about 2000 TCF of natural gas in hydrates scattered in northern seas :)