I’m intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Proved, probable or possible?
All of them, KC Brown (1989) is an example.
It literally isnt possible for their to be an excess of oil supply because oil will not move. It is possible for particular markets to have excess, which is what happened, but that was a preexisting trend (people expected pipelines to be the constraint and not storage) and oil staying in tankers happens often, like in 2016.
The reason why prices fall is that when the current fields deplete, business lobbies for more infrastructure in new areas which creates investment opportunities. The remaining resources are terrible but they still lower prices because they are something.
Hubbert predicted the peak of conventional oil in 1956 in 2000. He was right, and shale just dragged it along.
If peak oil happened 20 years ago then why is it suddenly affecting GDP by 10% today?
My whole understanding of supply & demand economics is being rewritten right before me own eyes.
It’s bloody miraculous I tells ya!
Because this is peak shale.
Supply and demand are irrelevant all that matters is peoples guess of future prices.
Negative prices dont reflect rational behavior for example, they are some technicality over the working of futures contracts.
Words are supposed to have meaning. These do not.
Okay doke I will speak in purely literalisic terms form now on.
I think a problem with a lot of clowns, as in this thread, is that there isnt a single reason you’re wrong.
Credit where credit is due, the collective “we” are searching for a single reason you are right.
Simply ban everyone who said things that dont make sense
Be careful what you wish for grasshopper.
I dont think you’re contributing to this discussion. Mods, please ban.
I’m a moderator.
No.
Dershowitz, you should realize that making extraordinary claims in Great Debates is going to require extraordinary evidence. Evidence which you have, to this point, failed to provide. You appear to be more witnessing an unusual economic point of view. That’s fine. Feel free. But it doesn’t give you immunity from criticism.
Oh, and if you ever ask for another poster to be banned? You won’t enjoy the outcome.
For those readers who may be puzzled by what’s going on here - or attempting to go on in a dyslexic sort of way - here’s the very short history.
The longer version is presented in an article, which is great background but not my sole source.
The root is “a model developed for the first time by Marion King Hubbert in 1956 which assumed that the oil production in a large geographical region follows a symmetric, bell-shaped curve. According to this interpretation, the peak production is reached when approximately half of the available oil resources are extracted.”
Several assumptions are hidden here. Although history does often conform to a bell-shaped curve of production, it doesn’t always have to. In practice, a UK study not referenced in that paper shows that peak production is more likely to occur at 25% extraction.
The other is obvious only to experts. Hubbert defined oil as the “conventional” crude oil that we think of when gushers are shown. Many sources of non-conventional oil existed then; shale oil is indeed one, but it and the others were then too small to affect the outcome.
Hubbert intended his model to be more of a warning than a prediction. If people understood that the supply of oil was limited, they could start taking actions to mitigate those effects on either the supply end or the demand end or on both.
That’s exactly what happened. Better methods were developed to find conventional reserves and to extract all the oil possible; offshore drilling was one. Non-conventional sources too expensive to exploit in 1956 (when a barrel was under $30 in constant dollars) were brought on line. And renewable energy sources now produce one-fourth of the world’s needs, at least six times that of 1956.
Demand was lowered by increasing mileage for cars, newer building techniques that require less heating and cooling, retrofitting existing buildings, and a host of other things.
Hubbert’s model was similar to some of those related to global warming, i.e. what would happen if we did nothing. But we did do things. Therefore the peak of production has less relevance today; it has been pushed off to an unknown future date in a world less dependent on oil.
What any of this can imaginably cause “retial sales, industrial production and other gdp related indicators [to be] inflated right now by st least 10%” is beyond my comprehension.