SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: AC Flyer who wrote (47068)3/6/2004 6:46:22 PM
From: tom pope  Respond to of 74559
 
Whassamatter with you two - CB and AC - 3 thoughtful posts in a row. Don't you know the rules around here? What if you scared the Yiwu's, Maurice's and Raymond's so much that they slank away? The thread would collapse! Do you really want that???

Edit - or is it "slunked"? My English isn't too good.



To: AC Flyer who wrote (47068)3/6/2004 7:12:45 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 74559
 
Hello ACF Mike, would the jimjam in energy flow put your precise figuring out of balance, pulling forward the day of reckoning and hour of doom?

I am figuring that Conclusion: there is plenty of oil, but much is uneconomic to pump at less than $20 per barrel.
We'll get our oil, but at a price....

Reiterating a must read:
simmonsco-intl.com

BTW - Oil was about 20% of the S&P 500 25 years ago. Now it's around 5%. That's been replaced by financial institutions and tech. What goes around comes around?

guardian.co.uk

So, when do we all run out of oil?
Oliver Morgan
Sunday January 18, 2004
The Observer

How much oil do we have left? According to the United States Geological Survey's latest report, published in 2000, the planet had 3 trillion barrels of oil and gas before we started using it up. It calculates we have used some 700 billion, leaving 2.3 trillion barrels underground.

A simple calculation using data from the Centre for Global Energy Studies shows that with 28.8 billion barrels currently being used a year (79 million a day), there is some 80 years of supply left in the ground.

However, the 2.3 trillion barrels left includes 1.4 trillion which, according to USGS analysis of global geology, exist but have yet to be discovered. That leaves roughly 890 billion barrels of oil and gas that have been discovered and are booked as proven reserves - roughly 31 years' supply.

This estimate is lower than the industry's. BP's oil statistics - the industry bible - indicate some 1047 billion barrels of proved reserves - 36 years supply on current usage.

But analysts don't worry about this too much. Derek Butter of consultancy Wood Mackenzie says: 'It is not something we get hung up about. We think in the medium term there is enough oil in reserve.'

The BP statistics show that over the past decade, reserves have been roughly constant - in 1992 there were 1006 billion barrels - indicating that through the 1990s the industry has been effective at finding reserves to replace the resources we use. It has done well - in 1982, the figure was only 676 billion.

Manouchehr Takin of the CGES says: 'Forty years ago, economists and geologists said there were 40 years of oil and gas left. Now they are saying the same.'

He adds: 'The techniques for finding oil and extracting it are advancing rapidly. It shows that at any one time what is left, and the time it will take to use this up is only a snapshot dictated by the current state of knowledge. And, of course, there is the impact of economic development, and the efficiency with which we use energy.'

Efficient energy use, he argues, has offset the growth of formerly non-industrialised countries, such as India and China, which have anyway not grown as rapidly as was expected in the Sixties and Seventies. Similar dynamics are likely to continue.

Nevertheless, demand for oil is likely to increase, as, over time, is the price. Former Environment Minister Michael Meacher recently pointed to a crunch by 2015, when he says demand is likely to total some 60 million barrels a day more than the current 79 million, while supplies will only be some 90 million.

CGES argues that Meacher has overstated the increase in demand. It argues that taking reserves into account, his estimates imply 4 per cent growth a year, whereas, depending on price, CGES forecasts between 1 per cent and 1.3 per cent, while Opec has 1.7 per cent.

At the top end of its range, CGES believes demand will be 87.7 million barrels a day, within its expected production level.

Nevertheless, as Wood Mackenzie points out, nothing can be taken for granted. In a note last week it said: 'There is no escaping the fact that oil and gas are finite resources: the more that has been found, the less that remains to be found.'

The crux is: will exploring and finding new reserves be worth it for companies? Theory suggests that as easy resources are depleted extraction becomes more difficult, but that reduction in supply increases price, underpinning the eventual return for companies.

Wood Mackenzie is sceptical. It points out that between them major western countries need to find reserves equivalent to Angola's every 15 months just to stand still.

It shows that new areas such as Alaska face difficulties because of extreme environmental sensitivities and regulatory concerns. Other areas, such as Nigeria, and newer ones, such as Benin, are uncertain. Companies must take greater risks - such as exploration in ever deeper water, and expensive investment in extraction from shale beds.

And it points out that reserve replacement has often been achieved by shuffling finds into the proved category rather than actually finding more oil (which underlines the importance of Shell's declassification of reserves).

Eventually, it will be down to consumers to decide when the price of oil and gas makes it no longer worthwhile investing in things that are powered by them. It is likely, concedes Takin, to be well before our notional 2.3 trillion barrels are used up ... whenever that may be.




To: AC Flyer who wrote (47068)3/6/2004 8:55:51 PM
From: Ilaine  Respond to of 74559
 
There is some interest to be found in the suggestion that cessation of immigration caused some sort of "bust" in the US economy -- I did look at that a few years ago and found that the evidence was unpersuasive for several reasons.

The main reason is that the US economy was not the only economy in the world involved in the Great Depression, but the facts you state are specific to the US.

The clearest linkage, as I have stated before, is between countries on the gold standard - which largely suffered depressions. Countries which used silver money and countries which used both did not. This is not due to a flaw in gold, per se, but in the fixed ratio of pounds to dollars. The British economy was, if I recall correctly, the largest in the world at the time, although perhaps the US had eclipsed it by then.

Nevertheless, I do agree with your argument that declines in productivity caused by declines in relative numbers of adults in their productive years is difficult for economies, whether the increase is in older adults, as in Japan, or young children, as in countries stricken by HIV.

Not sure about the "40 to 50" argument, but certainly a relative decline in the percentage of productive adults.

In that same vein, consider the European loss of men in that same age bracket after WWI - the 1920's were very productive in Europe. But also consider the US baby boom post WWII, accompanied by a growth spurt.

At any rate - depressions are different from Great Depressions. Anything that went into the chain of cause and effect that turned a depression into a Great Depressions matters, of course. What I am quibbling with is just how much a birth dearth or an adult dearth contributed, especially because electricity and machines were increasing productivity.

One of my pet theories has to do with worthless people (people who were unable to become productive in another line of work) being put out of work - as El Mat was recently describing - if that was going on then the relative lack of adults shouldn't have mattered. The machines made up for that.



To: AC Flyer who wrote (47068)3/6/2004 10:02:28 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
Hmmm. I see that Christina Romer has written an excellent treatment of the multiple causes of the Great Depression which will be published in the next edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Good job from Romer, who is one of my favorites.
emlab.berkeley.edu



To: AC Flyer who wrote (47068)3/7/2004 7:44:01 AM
From: KyrosL  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
AC Flyer I find your demographic argument plausible. But what if you are off by a few years? 2010 is not that far off.

Have you taken into account that unemployment is hitting boomers with good white collar jobs a lot harder than previous recessions, thus forcing them to "retire" a lot sooner?

If you are off by 5 years, your theory will neatly match Jay's expectations.



To: AC Flyer who wrote (47068)3/7/2004 9:58:14 AM
From: smolejv@gmx.net  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
Hi AC:

First of all let peace and the force be with you;) Just a dissenting opinion on >> a secular decline in final domestic consumer demand<< as the fundamental cause of economic depressions: I'd venture to say the consumer demand correlates with but does not cause a decline. It sounds to me like saying, he or she "died because the body cooled down to room temperature". The cause according to DJ? Id say it's the drop in net investment. But that's those Austrian-minded Europeans who keep pushing this argument;)