On the menu tonight is MEAT AND POTATOES! Yummy!

We are not going to see support for mitigation of oil until every single producers admits they are well past peak. Physical evidence alone does no good.

There is a strong element of belief in all this. Unfortunately, as Memmel and so many others here point out ... the beliefs are ALL WRONG!

IEA sez:

The current financial crisis is not expected to affect longterm investment, but could lead to delays in bringing current projects to completion, particularly in the power sector. P39 Exec Summary

I'd suggest the IEA hire an economist ... unfortunately, most of these are servants of the status (or stasis) quo. Things really ARE different this time. The "current financial crisis" is a long- term shift in the economic ground rules even if one leaves the micro- economics that surround petroleum production untouched. There will simply be less (or no) credit available to anyone in a few years and this will become a permanent state of affairs.

As a 'financial lifeboat', a locally distributed hard- currency regime could be built from scratch but the available credit from such a system would be hard pressed to meet the needs pressed upon it.

The likelihood of a hard- currency regime happening in the current political environment is almost non- existent.

Nate sez:

Ironically, the day of this IEA release calling attention to the precarious nature of future energy supply is being met with fresh 3 year lows on oil prices. Unfortunately, recent market events, only indirectly related to oil, will now likely set July 2008 in stone as the date of maximum world oil production, despite the 'best-best case' scenario portrayed in the IEA report. Up against near double digit depletion rates and higher cost (lower energy gain) prospects, the oil industry now also faces a growing lack of confidence in the international financial system where near herculean investment is needed (37 times the recent controversial $700 billion bailout package in US), and credit, especially when the price of oil is well below the marginal cost of extraction makes approving new projects, let along continuing existing production, problematic. Though not explicitly stated, one may infer that there is now increased risk that these investments will not be made. Furthermore, the goal of OECD governments of procuring cheap energy is incompatible with these investment goals. And still further, the goal of OECD governments of having cheap energy is incompatible with their goals of reducing CO2 emissions.

The market is wicked; it is inherently unstable. The idea that markets can faithfully serve the financial needs of investors is being unmasked as a fantasy. In all instances, the stable market is a manipulated market; the breaking of the hedge funds is giving all a view of the 'Free Market' at work. Markets are inherently and destructively unstable. This is my own personal opinion and is not shared by 'legitimate' economists.

Nate sez more:

As has been written here often, the world's fiat currency reserves and financial assets, which works as a system of exchange and store of value because everyone agrees that it does, nominally dwarfs the amount of real commodities. Leverage, and leverage upon leverage provided by easy credit not checked by biophysical realities unleased a massive speculative bubble in financial asset classes in recent years. Though some claim this was an oil bubble, the facts suggest it has been a bubble in all paper assets, the unwinding of which, though largely over, has spilled over into the real economy. Earlier today Russia, the world's second largest oil producer, lifted their short term interest rates to 12% to defend the ruble. The currency traders, out of defense, are playing increasingly serious games of hot potato. Hedge funds and money managers, part of a global derivatives market measuring north of $700 trillion dollar earlier this year (in perspective that was 10 times the value of a 1 trillion barrel yet-to-be-recovered oil resource at $70 a barrel)

The unwinding of paper assets is just beginning; there is a lot of paper out there and the belief holds that the market will 'turn around some day (tomorrow would be nice.) Most 'investors' don't mean to day- trade, they hold until retirement ... or until the doomsday market hits and stop loss orders (or margin calls) eject them. What is happening (starting in credit- landia) is a market clearing event; all speculators will be broken before the bottom is reached. Real estate will be valued as unimproved land, stocks @ pawn- shop valuation and bonds will tell us the future was ... in Paul McCartney's famous lament ... "Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away ... "

Solutions:

- An Oil Drum solution would be an 'Alternative Economic Convention' that would sharpen the focus of non- establishment thinking and press to change public policy. I can think of several very smart persons who would have something useful to say; Nouriel Roubini, Michael Shedlock, Doug Noland, Umair Haque, Greg Mankiw, Nassim Taleb, Herman Daly ... the people here could certainly add more names.

Something needs to be done to move the situation from 'top dead center'. Have this convention and ask Obama Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to attend.

:)

Solutions:

In a general way, the ultimate solution is obvious: since underground resources are being depleted (hydrocarbons) or will become inaccessible (metals and minerals) because the those being depleted, the only solution is to move to reliance on above ground resources -- soil, water, forests, oceans, etc. all of which have been seriously damaged. This means radical retrenchment of course. The hope is that science will allow us to rejuvenate the soil, the forests, etc. There is just no other place to go -- simple logic.

But getting there, the transition, that's the toughie. I am tending to think we need two economies: ONE is the global and national market economies; TWO is the the new non-or-local-market economy.

TWO is what needs to grow, and it needs to be where people can go if there is no longer room for them in the ONE economy or they are willing to be pioneers or early adapters. It needs to be an economy based in small dense towns surrounded by agriculture and light industry. It needs to be mostly and as much as possible self-sufficient in basics. Their claim on underground resources need to be, say 5 or 10 pct of that of those in the ONE economy. The gov't(s) need to fund and encourage and protect these TWO economies. They are the future.

The ONE economies cannot and will not disappear overnight. But shrink they must. They are the ones consuming the finite underground resources. It's a tricky matter distinguishing between necessary interim industries and totally parasitic ones (which have been getting the bailouts). The guidance of traditional economists, or at least the more radical of them, will be needed to avoid prematurely crashing the whole system.

Over the next 20-30-40 years the transition needs to be made from ONE to TWO. At that point ONE will be small relative to ONE, and subservient to it, literally. But TWO will be important, because that is the world link, the fiber that hold humanity, science, culture together as one -- otherwise we become disconnected tribes, and we will not have the advantage of science in restoring a badly damaged natural enviornment.

On the one hand, I know this is sounds utterly unreal, even ludicrous. And of course it will not be readily adopted. On the other, what choice is there? What other possible route is there to survival?

Well said.

We need to "Grow" a new economy. One not based on oil and fossil fuels. The monetary system, money and investment if you will, needs to be linked to this new economy.

By default fossil fuels, and the economy tied to them, must shrink and eventually perish just like an individual business that has outlived it's usefulness, say making rotary phones, perishes over time.

We are in the very beginning of the transition between the two and it will get worse before it gets better. The money doesn't know where to go yet.

"The likelihood of a hard- currency regime happening in the current political environment is almost non- existent."

Not related to a hard-currency regime but I heard that 1.2 million copies of a spoof New York Times were handed out. The headlines were "Iraq War Ends" & "Nation Sets its Sites on Building a Sane Economy".

Shame it's just a spoof but maybe it will help remind the politicians why they are there. Oh, i forgot with over a million lawyers who are vastly over represented in government there's little chance.

It's also online.
http://www.nytimes-se.com/