DrumBeat: July 6, 2006

Update [2006-7-6 9:46:19 by Leanan]: With new record highs set for oil yesterday, there's a flood of peak oil stories today.

Billionaire investor Jim Rogers says Oil will hit well over $100 and stay high:

"We're going to have high oil prices for a very long time. The surprise is going to be how high it goes," Rogers said.

Reiterating earlier comment oil prices would hit at least $100 a barrel, he said: "It will be much more than $100 before the bull market is over."

What's more likely - stagflation or depression?
Yes, we had an oil shock in the ’70s. That oil shock was caused by an embargo. The oil shock now is caused by Peak Oil. Is there a difference? Yes, there is: In the former, wages rose to meet rising costs. Are wages rising now because of Peak Oil? I think not.

Saudi Crude Production Falling:

Apparently the story coming from the technical experts in the oil fields is very different than the story coming out of the political types in the royal family and the oil ministry. The ministry says it can boost capacity by 25% in two or three years, when there has been no ability to increase it at all over the last two years despite record prices. The technical types are saying that it will take fairly heroic measures to keep production flat.

My bet is that the technical types have it right. If the incremental oil to meet growing demand does not come from Saudi Arabia, it is hard to see where it will come from. If so, the bull market in oil is only beginning and we are unlikely to ever see $50 oil again, not in our lifetimes, our children's or our grandchildren's. In other words, peak oil maybe happening even sooner than I had thought, and I have been on the relatively pessimistic side. I hope I am wrong, but fear I am right.

But others aren't worried:

Non Peak Oil

...Every year we have more proven reserves at the end of the year than we did at the beginning, thanks to vigorous exploration and improved extraction technologies. This has been the consistent theme for as long as oil reserves have been calculated. There has never been a time that the oil industry has had less proven reserves at the beginning of the year than at the end, even with the intervening 365 days of consumption being factored in. Odd circumstances indeed for a scarce resource!

Old king coal to reign as fossil fuel continues to fire the future

Malthus was wrong: the world's population has risen sixfold since his day, while life expectancy has doubled. So will contemporary Malthusians prove right about energy?

The answer is: No. Moreover, without extraordinary action, the future lies with oil, gas and, above all, "old king coal", the fuel with which the industrial revolution began.

Grain production dropping; fuel thefts rising

Gunmen kidnap guard at Nigerian oil rig

Hit with rising gas prices, boaters are scaling back on trips

Saudi Aramco sees rig fleet at 121 by year end

China, Russia benefit from energy co-operation

Update [2006-7-6 10:39:11 by Leanan]: The EIA Weekly Petroleum Supply Report is out. Oil is dropping on stronger than expected gasoline inventories.

High gas prices are affecting retail sales:

Wal-Mart's sales at its stores open at least a year - a key retail measure known as same-store sales - rose just 1.2 percent in June, the company reported Thursday.

The world's largest retailer said total sales for the five weeks ended June 30 rose 10.4 percent to $33.12 billion from $29.99 billion a year earlier.

In a statement, Wal-Mart's chief financial officer Tom Schoewe said customers were consolidating their trips due to increasing concerns about high gas prices, but maintained the profit forecast for the current quarter.

Sales increased 3 billion dollars over June of last year, but it's a disappointment because same-store sales rose "only" 1.2%.

I guess 1.2% won't support the Ponzi scheme...

Question:  Since Walmart and Costco now sell gas at their stores, is the gas included in their "retail sales"?

If so, wouldn't the higher gas prices increase their retail sales?

That seems to have worked for CostCo.

However, it's becoming more and more difficult for independent retailers to get good prices on gasoline.  The gas stations that are connected with oil companies have a pricing advantage, and even large independents like Wal-Mart are hurting.

Interesting that same store sales are not keeping up with inflation, even after the added "juice" from the fueling stations. Even more interesting is that Wal-Mart same store sales track (at least by my recollection) the increase in non-salary wages. These increased much mre rapidly in the Clinton years, which accounts for most of Wal-Mart's growth.
I don't know about the rest of the nation, but in the Southeast, the gasoline concession at Wal Mart is contracted out to Murphy Oil Company. I don't know what the terms of the contract are, I am sure Wal Mart gets a share of the sales. But basically the company selling the gasoline is Murphy.
Must ... resist ... ponzi ... flag ... and remember that retailers are as old as civilization.  Models may change, and WalMart has shown intent to change their model in response to energy prices.
No one is expecting commerce to end.  It's the economic model that requires constant growth that's going to suffer.  (And no, it's not just Wal-Mart.  I picked on them because they named gas prices as part of the problem.)  

I mean, think about it.  They make 30 billion dollars in sales in one month...but it's not enough because it didn't increase enough over last year?  Crazy madness.

It is a Ponzi scheme. People no longer buy stocks because company XYZ makes $1,000,000 a year, every year, and has $50,000 of profit a year, every year. No, they buy company ABC because it made $1,000,000 5 years ago, then $2,000,000 4 years ago, then $4,000,000 3 years ago, then $8,000,000 2 years ago... That sort of nonsense cannot continue forever and it won't. The notion that a company making a good profit has "problems" because it grew at "only" 1.2% rate is a mental masturbation only possible in the current ultra-warped perspective built around seemingly endless cheap energy. That's going to change and historians will look back and wonder what sort of mental illness gripped our entire culture.
This the kind thing I'm resisiting.  People invoke "ponzi" and then forget that WalMart is engaging in commerce, and providing a tangible service.  People cook WalMart food in their WalMart pots.  Ponzi, in the true sense, was selling a false hope of purely paper manipulation and profits (postal coupons).

Now ... you wanna go on about leverage and risk?  Pfft.  Retailers have been around since the dawn of civilization.  Wine merchants sold product shipped in those amphorae on those little Roman ships.  Were some of them leveraged too far, and did they suffer when ships sank, etc.?  Sure, why not.  That too is as old as civilization.

... but there is a clear difference between a retail business and a paper company.

If you can run a Ponzi scheme with a fake company, does it make it not a Ponzi scheme if you use a real company instead?
I think the obvious extremes are a good solid company with products and services ... and then out at the other end a company with nothing but paper.

In the middle we have to distinguish between companies that are merely "overvalued" (quite common) and companies that are running a true scam (somewhat less so).

I recall a computer add-on company of some kind (sound boards?) who was discovered to have taken massive numbers of returned and defective product, and stashed them in a warehouse ... trying to keep them off the books.  They certainly veered into scam territory, who knows by what incremental path.

It's not the company that's running a scam.  It's the entire system that's a scam.

When the music stops, the ones who came in late - the ones at the bottom of the pyramid - are going to be screwed.

I understand that this is your perspective.
Ponzi defrauded new investors (new devotees) by mis-informing them that the money older investors received came from profits recouped off of real investments when in fact it was just the money of new investors (new entrants into his system) being passed forward to older entrants.

Of course this sounds strangely similar to our US Social Security system.

Does it correspond to other parts of our "system"?
What other parts are built on mis-information and fraud?

Ponzi, Pyramid, same basic animal. One criterion for identifying a 'Pyramid' scheme is the proportion of 'product' that is moved, as opposed to simply expanding the pyramid by recruiting more suckers.

Seems to me that the Ponzi scheme idea is only partly true and only on a long time frame. Product is being delivered as long as we have the cheap energy for creating it. As cheap energy wanes off, the Ponzi component of the whole shebang gets larger because more is promised and less delivered.

It's really more of a 'Squander' scheme, with the empty promise of being able to squander endlessly into the future.

There is an interesting line between the two.  Market systems have always allowed, as part of the game, for the seller to make his best case for value, even as the buyer denigrates it.

In the market 5K years ago:

Trader: I have these jars of excellent imported wine, I will sell them for just 6 coins.

Merchant: They smell like they're starting to go off to me.  I'll be lucky to move them before they go sour. 3 coins.

Trader: Are you serious?  I should take these to the palace, for they are truly suited for kings ... 5 coins.

Merchant: You know, the local stuff is getting much better.  My customers are starting to prefer it.  4 coins.

... and so one.

If you ask me, they "analysts" on CNBC in the afternoon are just playing the role of "Trader," one (again) as old as civilization.  They are putting the best possible face on their products.

We've actually decided (as a society) what constitutes a scam, and embodied that in a whole series of laws and institutions.

Some people want to throw that over and say it's all a scam ... while I think it's useful to distinguish from things that are merely overvalued or oversold.

Traders of 5K years ago did not possess technology of neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), nor did they possess "mass" media for simultaneously programming the masses all at once.
If that stuff was so good, I'd be out driving my Chevy Avalanche right now ;-)  ... and neither of us would be at TOD.

Maybe we have enough generations history dealing with swarmy salesmen to develop neural countermeasures.

"Maybe we have enough generations history dealing with swarmy salesmen to develop neural countermeasures."

You do. I do. But advertising still has some sway with us. And a large fraction of society's neural countermeasures aren't nearly as well developed.

Heck, my university educated mother can't resist buying a new household product after a new round of advertising hits the television. And I don't think she's atypical.

Honestly, if it didn't work, do you think companies would spend billions on advertising? Check out No Logo by Naomi Klein.

Most people still are.
"There ain't no peak oil, it's just them dang oil companies gouging us!"
Of course, the oil companies are milking the Oil Peak! It would be no fun otherwise, in accord with that Jay Hanson character. Jay Hanson is the definitive Doomer. Doomer or not, I'm sure glad - and gladder by the day - that I never had kids for their sake. After all, it will get harder to go about daily missions as time goes by.

While the Cuba powerdown is romanticised, an alternative situation can exist in the form of North Korea. Not good! As if Cuba wasn't bad enough, North Korea is a micro-case of America but with capitalism - only making things worse. Get ready for a looooong ride doooooooooooown! We are misappropiating resources to the military NOW. To be honest, I don't want to see that wreck from a cockpit!

Things will not be good during ANY "powerdown". It seems that a powerdown does require a "command economy" but the way it's done make a giant difference. Fidel did maneage a "powerdown" though admittedly not optimally. Much more likely our own powerdown will be way sub-optimal. Democracy, like capitalism takes a powerup case, so all bets are off.

It's no wonder why doomers love the oil peak topic! PO allows for doomers to have fun. It is up to us and people to remediate it like Y2K but it will be harder by far. Can PO be remediated? We will sure find out, most likely the hard way, as TSHTF.

I think the mis-communication here is this: the retail sales are a real business, no problem there.  But the people buying stocks in the company are paying a price that is based on the assumption of infinite "growth".  If the company stops growing then the stocks lose value, even though actual sales and  profits remain the same.  The stock system is the Ponzi scheme, along with the whole "growth"-based financial system.  Without "growth", there is no reason for more "investment", and no way for "money" to "make more money".  Imagine that, making money will require work!

BTW I keep putting "growth" in quotes because the only thing that truly grows is the throughput of nonrenewable resources and the destructive impact on the planetary environment.  When economists learn to subtract as well as add, the externalized costs will show that the "growth" is a loss to most of us.

Growth for it's own sake is the ideology of the cancer cell.

I don't think anybody out there expects any company to exhibit "infinite" growth.  IMO you put the quotes on the wrong word ;-)
I think you're wrong on that.  

Like Kenneth Boulding said, "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

Amen. Ken Boulding is one of my six favorite economists. (I've listed the others elsewhere.)
Don, can you list 'em again?  We need them all together in one convenient form.
John Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman, George Stigler, Robert Heilbroner, Lester Thurow . . . .
Great list. I think Stigler is the best of the batch. His understanding of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs -- and how that shapes human investment and indirectly regulatory agencies -- is brilliant.
This is the first time I've seen anyone mention Kenneth Boulding anywhere. He was the subject of my senior thesis and I studied under him at University of Colorado.  If we had listened to him 30 years ago, it is unlikely we would be in this mess --- including overpopulation.  
Let us hope then that most of us are neither ;-)
I suspect most people who invest in the stock market buy into the infinite growth thing at least somewhat.  Some may think they can time the market and get out before it tanks, but most are probably like those Enron employees, who just never imagined the company stock could stop increasing in value, let alone decline.
I think we crossed timescales in the last few posts.  It's one thing to look for "the next Polaroid" as people did in the 80's (when they should have been spotting "the first Microsoft").  It's another thing to make aggregate growth predictions for US (or world) companies over longer timescales.

While fossil fuels last they will provide (in combination with technology of the day) a "harvest" or "return" or "growth."

We like to point out that oil shale has the energy density of mere baked potatoes.  Well, if there were a few billion tons of baked potatoes out there (even inedible) somebody would probably mine them too.

Ultimately, on the long timeline, we will be working with resources lower in energy density, but with a higher technological lever.  It's science fiction to say, at that far distant point, what the outcome will be.

Ultimately, on the long timeline, we will be working with resources lower in energy density, but with a higher technological lever.  

Then that's where we disagree.  I don't think we'll be able to maintain our technological complexity on a diet of inedible baked potatoes.

Pessimists seem certain about a lot of things, but to be certain about the far future seems like the riskiest proposition.
I consider myself a realist, not a pessimist.  :)

And I think our past is a pretty good signpost of what our future will be like.

The old line is "to predict the future, you've got to invent it first."

Can you tell me what the best shale technology will look like in 100 years?

Depends on how you define "best."
Another old saying is "don't count your chickens until they're hatched."  I try to keep that strategy with respect to energy technologies.

It stikes me now that both "cornucopians" and "doomers" are making the same mistake and counting chickens.  The cornucopians see infinite chickens, and the doomers see zero chickens.

;-), moderates wait until they hatch.

By then it will be too late.
That, again, presupposes an outcome.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I always say "prepare for the worst, hope for the best".
Some things to note about our past: ball bearings are easy to make, but we only started deploying them widely in 1900. Ball bearings have a profound efffect on our lives, an effect that was masked by oil.

Shiny reflective surfaces (i.e. solar ovens) are a recent invention. Bu