Why do the poor have more free time?

[waste gate]

If you think it's OK to redistribute income but repellent to redistribute leisure, you might want to ask yourself what—if anything—is the fundamental difference.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161309/nav/tap1/

[Letum]

Well, here in the EU there are minimum amounts of holidays that employers must give and limits on the amount of hours employers can put people to work for so this is almost a non-issue.

[waste gate]

Well, here in the EU there are minimum amounts of holidays that employers must give and limits on the amount of hours employers can put people to work for so this is almost a non-issue.

Which is why your economies are always at the edge of disaster.

[Letum]

Well, here in the EU there are minimum amounts of holidays that employers must give and limits on the amount of hours employers can put people to work for so this is almost a non-issue.
Which is why your economies are always at the edge of disaster.

:rotfl: WHAT?

Seriously! Where do you come up with such ridicously broad statements like that!? :doh:

[Skybird]

Which is why your economies are always at the edge of disaster.

The living of many American workers is as well.

BTW, Germany currently is booming, while Alan Greenspan warned some days ago that the Us is close to a recession.
And the US still is world record holder in financial debts and state deficits.

All the Western economies are living on tick.

[CCIP]

I have a bad word ready to fly off my keyboard which I'd like to type but will not.

There are lazy poor people. Many lazy poor people. But never, NEVER, ever, make such @#%^#$@mn @#@#%^ed generalizations please. I take very personal offence at the generalized suggestion this thread makes, having grown up in a family that spent my entire lifetime and then some clawing their way out of poverty and still clawing away. And this is not a rare case. Likewise, I've seen far too many idle rich people to even begin to make an argument like that.

[Skybird]

I told him the same like CCIP just days ago, but it seems WG was not interested to think over how many people he necessarily offend by such generalizations and cynically scratch off the list.

[waste gate]

Well, here in the EU there are minimum amounts of holidays that employers must give and limits on the amount of hours employers can put people to work for so this is almost a non-issue.
Which is why your economies are always at the edge of disaster.

:rotfl: WHAT?

Seriously! Where do you come up with such ridicously broad statements like that!? :doh:

The 'European Union' is all about attempts to remain economically solvent. If your respective economies' were not in jeapordy why establish the Orwell 1984 block?

Haven't seen a headline like this coming from Europe.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=107132

[Skybird]

Haven't seen a headline like this coming from Europe.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=107132
Haven't considered some of the replies either.

Well, we know where this thread will lead to.
I'm out.

[Tchocky]

*loud profanities*

[Letum]

Well, here in the EU there are minimum amounts of holidays that employers must give and limits on the amount of hours employers can put people to work for so this is almost a non-issue.
Which is why your economies are always at the edge of disaster.
:rotfl: WHAT?

Seriously! Where do you come up with such ridicously broad statements like that!? :doh:
The 'European Union' is all about attempts to remain economically solvent. If your respective economies' were not in jeapordy why establish the Orwell 1984 block?

Haven't seen a headline like this coming from Europe.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=107132

:doh: Your seriously nuts waste gate! Europe contains sevral of the worlds strongest enonomys.

Anyhow, I'm with SkyBird:
I'm out of this one!

[waste gate]

Well, here in the EU there are minimum amounts of holidays that employers must give and limits on the amount of hours employers can put people to work for so this is almost a non-issue.
Which is why your economies are always at the edge of disaster.
:rotfl: WHAT?

Seriously! Where do you come up with such ridicously broad statements like that!? :doh:
The 'European Union' is all about attempts to remain economically solvent. If your respective economies' were not in jeapordy why establish the Orwell 1984 block?

Haven't seen a headline like this coming from Europe.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=107132

:doh: Your seriously nuts waste gate! Europe contains sevral of the worlds strongest enonomys.

Anyhow, I'm with SkyBird:
I'm out of this one!

That's what they tell ya. Yet, the EU and the Euro was formed.
You make me laugh:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

What happened to the Franc, Deutch Mark, Lera, etc., etc.

[ASWnut101]

:doh: Your seriously nuts waste gate! Europe contains sevral of the worlds strongest enonomys.

Anyhow, I'm with SkyBird:
I'm out of this one!


And some of the worst, excluding Africa. Look east.

[Tchocky]

That's what they tell ya. Yet, the EU and the Euro was formed.
You make me laugh:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

What happened to the Franc, Deutch Mark, Lera, etc., etc.

Um, a new currency was formed to make trading easier and remove speculators. Good idea, too.

[ASWnut101]

So, you would need new currency because your trade was so poor? Doesn't that just point to a bad economy, all to geather?

[Tchocky]

So, you would need new currency because your trade was so poor? Doesn't that just point to a bad economy, all to geather?

No.

[waste gate]

That's what they tell ya. Yet, the EU and the Euro was formed.
You make me laugh:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

What happened to the Franc, Deutch Mark, Lera, etc., etc.

Um, a new currency was formed to make trading easier and remove speculators. Good idea, too.


Trading with who? The EU, and specutalors still exist. Currency is exchanged by speculators gambling on highs and lows every day of the week. I think they call it arbritage.

[Tchocky]

Trading with who? Internal trading within the Union. It removes exchange rate costs, which can be a real pain if you're doing cross-border business. It's also wonderful for traveling, holidays and the like. The change I get from a fiver in Dublin can buy me a newspaper in Koln. I love that.
The EU, and specutalors still exist. Currency is exchanged by speculators gambling on highs and lows every day of the week. I know what currency speculating is. And I know that currency speculators still operate. But no longer do they bet on Eurozone currencies, because my golly there's only one. I thought that was obvious.

[waste gate]

Trading with who? Internal trading within the Union. It removes exchange rate costs, which can be a real pain if you're doing cross-border business. It's also wonderful for traveling, holidays and the like. The change I get from a fiver in Dublin can buy me a newspaper in Koln. I love that.
The EU, and specutalors still exist. Currency is exchanged by speculators gambling on highs and lows every day of the week. I know what currency speculating is. And I know that currency speculators still operate. But no longer do they bet on Eurozone currencies, because my golly there's only one. I thought that was obvious.

If everyone uses the euro you are not really trading, you are purchasing.

Yous aid in one post that it stops speculating and in the next that you know it goes on. Make up yur mind and realize that you have given away your sovereignty for the Orwellian lifestyle you claim to dislike so much. 'You are the Eastern Block'.

[Tchocky]

If everyone uses the euro you are not really trading, you are purchasing. Explain the difference. Actually, explain the whole post. Maybe I'm thick, but I don't follow.

Yous aid in one post that it stops speculating and in the next that you know it goes on. Make up yur mind Waste gate, read this next part very slowly.

Post 1: a new currency was formed to make trading easier and remove speculators.
Post 2: currency speculators still operate. But no longer do they bet on Eurozone currencies

[waste gate]

If everyone uses the euro you are not really trading, you are purchasing. Explain the difference. Actually, explain the whole post. Maybe I'm thick, but I don't follow.

Yous aid in one post that it stops speculating and in the next that you know it goes on. Make up yur mind Waste gate, read this next part very slowly.

Post 1: a new currency was formed to make trading easier and remove speculators.
Post 2: currency speculators still operate. But no longer do they bet on Eurozone currencies

Read this very, very , very carefully Tchocky. I've already replied or given statements to these topics.

The EU's economy, measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was over 40 percent larger than the U.S. economy in 2004. However, when measured by purchasing power parity, which adjusts for living standards and costs, EU-25 and U.S. GDP are nearly equal. In per capita terms, U.S. per capita GDP is about 50 percent higher than that for the EU-25. The United States has grown faster economically in the early 2000s than the EU.

The poor still have too much leisure time and I want some back!!!

[Tchocky]

Read this very, very , very carefully Tchocky. I've already replied or given statements to these topics. No, you haven't. You haven't explained what the difference is between purchasing and trade, and I was looking forward to it :(
Ok, benefit of the doubt. You've replied? Please point me towards the replies/statements. I can't see any, but I might be looking in the wrong places. Link me to the posts where you've replied or stated your position. By the way, don't say "I dont answer questions to which you already know the answer", you've done that before and it's not an answer. If you don't want to answer, just say No.

The EU's economy, measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was over 40 percent larger than the U.S. economy in 2004. However, when measured by purchasing power parity, which adjusts for living standards and costs, EU-25 and U.S. GDP are nearly equal. In per capita terms, U.S. per capita GDP is about 50 percent higher than that for the EU-25. The United States has grown faster economically in the early 2000s than the EU. You left out the "-15" that comes at the end of that sentence, the removal of those ten countries make quite a difference.

You also left out the part of the sentence that explains the per capita GDP gap. It should read "The United States has grown faster economically in the early 2000s than the EU-15, and with the relatively poor 10 new member states, U.S. per capita income has moved to a significantly higher level than that of the EU-25."

That was from the USDA (link below), and it would be nice in future if you could provide links/sources for your materiel. Use all the resources you like, but don't tailor them to fit your argument and try to pass it off as your own work. I'd like to think that this was an accident, but you've done this before.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=422259&postcount=11
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/EuropeanUnion/basicinfo.htm

[bradclark1]

If you think it's OK to redistribute income but repellent to redistribute leisure, you might want to ask yourself what—if anything—is the fundamental difference.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161309/nav/tap1/
Could it be something as simple as higher educated have better paying jobs but they are also salary and expected to work more. Hourly employees are hired for the 40 hours but the bottom line drives how many hours they put in. As an example a department store makes a good profit during Christmas so employees have 40 or more hours, but after Christmas business drops way off so hourly employees work hours are cut back as an attempt by the store to compensate.
It doesn't seem like rocket science to me.:hmm:

[joea]

Waste gate, your handle is quite appropriate. :rotfl:

[Sixpack]

I began typing, but will cut it short, since this topic has too many aspects.

Kind of sorry to see this USA economy versus Europe economy topic develop, but then again; we are competitors in the global market, and I say the United States of Europe shouldn't hold back. And that's only putting it short and mildly. With plenty more agressive and competitive guys such as I in Europe (no safety nets), USA, China and India would be mere European colonies :arrgh!:

[Letum]

I began typing, but will cut it short, since this topic has too many aspects.

Kind of sorry to see this USA economy versus Europe economy topic develop, but then again; we are competitors in the global market, and I say the United States of Europe shouldn't hold back. And that's only putting it short and mildly. With plenty more agressive and competitive guys such as I in Europe (no safety nets), USA, China and India would be mere European colonies :arrgh!:
would be mere European colonies.........again. ;)

[Sixpack]

Copy that :know:

[Bertgang]

I can't understand why this discussion took this turn.

On my point of wiew, UE and US and the so called third world have very little to do with the starting post.

Here is only matter of wrong and stupid use of statistics.

I have a relationship with one of the richest man of my country (not Berlusconi, anyway) and I could agree that, forced by his businnes, he really has very short free time.
His sons and daughters, anyway, have more free time than anybody I could think: they simply waste their lives dropping off the window daddy's money.
I also know another one with the same attitude: he was rich, now is poor, never made something intelligent during about fourty years of life.

Someone really poor has probably plenty of free time, as an unemployed homeless hardly can spend his days working; not by his choice, simply by a nasty doom hard to modify.

A sort of slave, with a terrible job in mines, fields, illegal factory, and so on has very little free time; maybe he doesn't know at all these strange words.

I could break the fingers to the idiot who wrote the rewiew.

[Fish]

Well, here in the EU there are minimum amounts of holidays that employers must give and limits on the amount of hours employers can put people to work for so this is almost a non-issue.

Which is why your economies are always at the edge of disaster.

The Netherlands :

Economy - overview:
The Netherlands has a prosperous and open economy, which depends heavily on foreign trade. The economy is noted for stable industrial relations, moderate unemployment and inflation, a sizable current account surplus, and an important role as a European transportation hub. Industrial activity is predominantly in food processing, chemicals, petroleum refining, and electrical machinery. A highly mechanized agricultural sector employs no more than 2% of the labor force but provides large surpluses for the food-processing industry and for exports. The Netherlands, along with 11 of its EU partners, began circulating the euro currency on 1 January 2002. The country continues to be one of the leading European nations for attracting foreign direct investment. Economic growth slowed considerably in 2001-06, as part of the global economic slowdown, but for the four years before that, annual growth averaged nearly 4%, well above the EU average.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/nl.html

[waste gate]

That is a nice description Fish. But the essence is in the numbers and compared to Samolia your nation is certainly an achiever.

The problem is that your economy being well above the EU average is holding you and your nation back. Another nation is pulling the average down and your nation as a consequence. The creation of the EU has pulled the Netherlands into that race for the bottom that is the hallmark of socialist societies.

GDP: $612.7 billion (2006 est.)
Debt: $1.899 trillion (30 June 2006)

Your county's debt is better than three times its income.

[Letum]

the EU average is holding you and your nation back. Another nation is pulling the average down and your nation as a consequence. The creation of the EU has pulled the Netherlands into that race for the bottom that is the hallmark of socialist societies.

Prove it.

There is no significant change since NL joined the EU when one looks at the graph of economic growth for that country.


GDP: $612.7 billion (2006 est.)
Debt: $1.899 trillion (30 June 2006)

Your county's debt is better than three times its income.

More than a little out of context. Most economies have more debt than GDP.



Why, in your opinion, do you think most of Europe has joined the EU?
Do you believe that economists from 27 different countries have all made the same mistake?

[waste gate]

the EU average is holding you and your nation back. Another nation is pulling the average down and your nation as a consequence. The creation of the EU has pulled the Netherlands into that race for the bottom that is the hallmark of socialist societies.

Prove it.

There is no significant change since NL joined the EU when one looks at the graph of economic growth for that country.


GDP: $612.7 billion (2006 est.)
Debt: $1.899 trillion (30 June 2006)

Your county's debt is better than three times its income.

More than a little out of context. Most economies have more debt than GDP.



Why, in your opinion, do you think most of Europe has joined the EU?
Do you believe that economists from 27 different countries have all made the same mistake?

Here is a link to the fact book that Fish used to bolster his argument.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

You can look up the EU countries yourself. Most have a trade surplus so I was mistaken. The Netherlands are pulling the rest down. Sorry Fish.

Regarding economists. Socialist economists will always point towards socialism.
Not your best argument Letum. I feel bad for you.

[Letum]

the EU average is holding you and your nation back. Another nation is pulling the average down and your nation as a consequence. The creation of the EU has pulled the Netherlands into that race for the bottom that is the hallmark of socialist societies.
Prove it.

There is no significant change since NL joined the EU when one looks at the graph of economic growth for that country.


GDP: $612.7 billion (2006 est.)
Debt: $1.899 trillion (30 June 2006)

Your county's debt is better than three times its income.
More than a little out of context. Most economies have more debt than GDP.



Why, in your opinion, do you think most of Europe has joined the EU?
Do you believe that economists from 27 different countries have all made the same mistake?
Here is a link to the fact book that Fish used to bolster his argument.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

You can look up the EU countries yourself. Most have a trade surplus so I was mistaken. The Netherlands are pulling the rest down. Sorry Fish.

Regarding economists. Socialist economists will always point towards socialism.
Not your best argument Letum. I feel bad for you.
1) Who said the economists where socialist?

2) Why do you think is there is no significant change (compared to non EU members of Europe with similar economies) since the NL or the UK (can't find data for other countries atm) joined the EU when one looks at the graph of economic growth for those counties?

*edit* btw, the CIA Factbook is known to be inaccurate. They disagree with the IMF and the World bank on several topics.

[Takeda Shingen]

Regarding economists. Socialist economists will always point towards socialism.

Socialism is an economic term. If effect, what you have just said is that the economics of socialism produce a socialist economy.

[waste gate]

Regarding economists. Socialist economists will always point towards socialism.

Socialism is an economic term. If effect, what you have just said is that the economics of socialism produce a socialist economy.

My policy is not to respond directly to moderators due to the conflict of inerest they display when they insert themselves into the thread. It's been my experience that nothing good can come of it. I will make a limited exception here and point you to your own signature.


You asked about idle, remote things, but what lay closest to you; that which you needed to know did not occur to you. Now, when I guess it, you go insane: I have won your wily head!

[SUBMAN1]

If you think it's OK to redistribute income but repellent to redistribute leisure, you might want to ask yourself what—if anything—is the fundamental difference.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161309/nav/tap1/

Can I ask who came up with these numbers about 36 and 40 hr.s wk? Can I move to that country? Oh wait, I'm in that country. I think this Slate magazine writer is on crack about the office hours spent. All I see from everyone I know is that they are speding 'more' time at the office every single year than they used to. Maybe it is because we are in the skilled group and I don't know too many people who lounge around all day.

This isn't to say that I am not researching ways to move out of the office however. I am thinking I want to play the stock market full time at some point in the future, and I can do that from home.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I began typing, but will cut it short, since this topic has too many aspects.

Kind of sorry to see this USA economy versus Europe economy topic develop, but then again; we are competitors in the global market, and I say the United States of Europe shouldn't hold back. And that's only putting it short and mildly. With plenty more agressive and competitive guys such as I in Europe (no safety nets), USA, China and India would be mere European colonies :arrgh!:
I'm all for a strong Europe - I like a lot of European products and would like many more! Cars for one example. Beer is also high on my list! For electronics though, nothing beats American made electronics - simply the best in the world, but you also pay a premium for it - something I am willing to pay! Not too much comes out of Asian countries that I would consider good though - all garbage except for the occasional Japanese product - but forget China! :down: 99.999% of everything out of CHina = garbage. For South America, etc., I'm not even sure what they are doing down there. Can't remember the last time I saw something from there - except the occasional coke trafficking on the local news channel.

So if I had a vote, I'd vote for European and US economies to continue making their fine products. Anything from anywhere else in the world is pretty much garbage - made on a qty, not a quality scale. Of course, something like a car seems to have more an more Asian parts in it lately. Along the same lines, I have been noticing a general decline of the quality of cars in the last 10 years - coincidence? I think not!

Just my 2 cents.

-S

[XabbaRus]

Could you name the us made electronics? I thought they were all made in China nowadays? ;):p

[SUBMAN1]

Could you name the us made electronics? I thought they were all made in China nowadays? ;):p
McIntosh
Fluke
Mark Levinson

To name a few. I mean how many do you want?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I really hate the obscenely rich. They dont pay tax, and they were born into the money they spend. So why tap the poorer people's salaries when there are others who wipe their arse with £50 notes?

[waste gate]

I really hate the obscenely rich. They dont pay tax, and they were born into the money they spend. So why tap the poorer people's salaries when there are others who wipe their arse with £50 notes?

Why would you hate the 'obscenely' rich? Is it because you are not goal oriented or because you want to bring everyone down to your level? Forbes magazine just recently pulished their list of billionares and most are 'self made' rich.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/03/07/billionaires-worlds-richest_07billionaires_cz_lk_af_0308billie_land.ht ml

[Takeda Shingen]

Regarding economists. Socialist economists will always point towards socialism.

Socialism is an economic term. If effect, what you have just said is that the economics of socialism produce a socialist economy.

My policy is not to respond directly to moderators due to the conflict of inerest they display when they insert themselves into the thread. It's been my experience that nothing good can come of it. I will make a limited exception here and point you to your own signature.


You asked about idle, remote things, but what lay closest to you; that which you needed to know did not occur to you. Now, when I guess it, you go insane: I have won your wily head!



I am not aruing for or against your position, nor am I embroiled in your discussion. I simply draw your attention to the fact that you are misusing the term 'socialism'. I do it every time someone abuses economic or political terms. If the members are going to argue with such authority, it seems reasonable that they should know what the terms mean.

I shall keep my head, mein freund.

[stabiz]

Gotta stop reading threads started by waste gate.

[waste gate]

Gotta stop reading threads started by waste gate.

That's right block out the other opinion. You will grow that way.

I was talking to Neal about this tendancy very recently.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I really hate the obscenely rich. They dont pay tax, and they were born into the money they spend. So why tap the poorer people's salaries when there are others who wipe their arse with £50 notes?
Why would you hate the 'obscenely' rich? Is it because you are not goal oriented or because you want to bring everyone down to your level? Forbes magazine just recently pulished their list of billionares and most are 'self made' rich.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/03/07/billionaires-worlds-richest_07billionaires_cz_lk_af_0308billie_land.ht ml


You say "most" are 'self made' rich. I mean the ones who do nothing to earn the wealth they get born into. And no, this has nothing with "bringing everyone down to my level" whatever you think that may be. I am merely saying that those who are born into vast amounts of wealth and do little to earn it are irritating.

And for your information, I am very goal orientated. My goals just arent making astounding amounts of money and sitting on my high horse thinking I'm better than everyone else.

[waste gate]

I am merely saying that those who are born into vast amounts of wealth and do little to earn it are irritating.

You speak of your royalty? Not my fault, your fault.



My goals just arent making astounding amounts of money and sitting on my high horse thinking I'm better than everyone else.


I cannot think of a better way not to make money than to sit on that horse.

Also, I don't care where you place yourself on any strata, be it economic, social, or
what beer you drink. Removing the incentive to succeed in any endevour is wrong.
If it were not for personal endevour the human race would not have progressed beyond...........

[ASWnut101]

bye bye thread...well, maby...not.


nevermind.

[Gizzmoe]

Gotta stop reading threads started by waste gate.

Do that, but it´s unnecessary to inform the whole world about that decision! It leads to nothing but hard feelings.

[Fish]

Something to think about Wastegate.

Oil companies running hard to stand still


Phil Hart
March 16, 2007

DURING a previous oil price crisis in the United States, a jovial service station attendant may have remarked to customers that "We've run out of $2 gas, but we've got plenty of $5 gas". Attendants on the trading floors might today observe that we've got plenty of $80 (US) barrels, but we're running short of $50 barrels.

Last Friday, the US Energy Information Administration released oil production data to the end of last year. Crude oil production was nearly 200,000 barrels a day lower than in 2005. Total liquid supply was flat. That's gripping news and should be enough to rattle any economist's confidence.

Despite a calm hurricane season, record prices and a forecast consensus from energy agencies that supply would continue to grow, oil production stalled last year. Were the oil companies not trying hard enough?

Chris Skrebowski, editor of the British oil industry journal Petroleum Review, would not agree. He has just published his annual Megaprojects report. The numbers show the global oil industry implemented oilfield projects providing an extra 3.2 million barrels a day to the market last year.

This is a historically high level of activity. So why was production flat, and even falling in many countries? The answer begins with "d" and gets to the heart of the debate about when global oil production will finally peak and begin its terminal decline: depletion.

A typical oilfield is a layer of sandstone buried far underground, with oil filling the tiny spaces between the grains of sand. Buried so deeply, the oil is under extreme pressure. When a well is drilled into the reservoir, the oil eagerly flows up to the surface. Then, with less competition for space in the reservoir, the pressure falls and the flow rate declines. To compensate, the operator drills more wells and can put in place elaborate mechanisms to maintain pressure in the field.

For several years, even decades for the largest fields, it is possible to continue extracting oil at a high rate. Inevitably though, the amount that flows from the reservoir begins to decline.

Many of the world's largest and oldest oilfields are succumbing to this fate; production is falling, sometimes rapidly. Two of the biggest fields, Cantarell in Mexico and Burgan in Kuwait, are confirmed in this category. Even the giant Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia, the largest discovered, may be showing the same symptoms of old age.

Despite enormous industry efforts, production from the largest fields and regions such as the North Sea is declining. Companies must now exploit new frontiers. They are taking enormous strides; into deep water off Africa and Brazil, remote areas of the Caspian and East Siberia, and also into unconventional Canadian tar sands. All this and more in a bid to shore up falling production in old heartlands.

The oil industry is running hard but only just managing to stand still. The size of discoveries in the new frontiers is falling. Depletion, the rate production is declining in existing oil provinces, meanwhile, increases.

In just a few years, the scales that are now finely balanced between new production coming on stream and declines in mature regions may lean more heavily on the side of depletion. Peak oil would then be behind us and our economies will be forced to survive with less oil each year.

What then for oil prices? Supply can no longer increase to meet rising expectations. Increasing oil prices over the past five years, and the subsequent fall in vulnerable housing markets, have pushed the US towards recession. Perhaps that move already has enough momentum to keep a lid on consumption. If not, prices will rise again to further destroy demand. Either way, the fate of the world's largest economy may already be sealed.

Phil Hart is petroleum facilities engineer, Melbourne, for the Association for the Study of Peak Oil.

www.aspo-australia.org.au/ (http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/)

[Skybird]

Something to think about Wastegate.

Oil companies running hard to stand still


Phil Hart
March 16, 2007

DURING a previous oil price crisis in the United States, a jovial service station attendant may have remarked to customers that "We've run out of $2 gas, but we've got plenty of $5 gas"...
(...)
... prices will rise again to further destroy demand. Either way, the fate of the world's largest economy may already be sealed.

Phil Hart is petroleum facilities engineer, Melbourne, for the Association for the Study of Peak Oil.

www.aspo-australia.org.au/ (http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/)

He...! :nope: Doomsday predictions are my domain...!!! :arrgh!:

[Fish]

Something to think about Wastegate.

Oil companies running hard to stand still


Phil Hart
March 16, 2007

DURING a previous oil price crisis in the United States, a jovial service station attendant may have remarked to customers that "We've run out of $2 gas, but we've got plenty of $5 gas"...
(...)
... prices will rise again to further destroy demand. Either way, the fate of the world's largest economy may already be sealed.

Phil Hart is petroleum facilities engineer, Melbourne, for the Association for the Study of Peak Oil.

www.aspo-australia.org.au/ (http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/)

He...! :nope: Doomsday predictions are my domain...!!! :arrgh!:

Had a bad drink yesterday, sorry. :cool:

[Skybird]

Had a bad drink yesterday, sorry. :cool:
Try Dalwhinnie or Auchentoshan, then you can't go wrong. ;)

[Kapitan_Phillips]

You speak of your royalty? Not my fault, your fault.

How is that my fault? What control do I have over the royal family?

[Letum]

You speak of your royalty? Not my fault, your fault.

How is that my fault? What control do I have over the royal family?
Well, technically you could vote for a politician who is against the Royal institution, but that still does not make it your fault!

Apart from that I would just ignore comments like that from Wastegate. A case of him typing and not thinking I think. ;)

[Tchocky]

Gotta stop reading threads started by waste gate.
That's right block out the other opinion. You will grow that way.

I was talking to Neal about this tendancy very recently.

On this topic, how about an answer?

[ASWnut101]

Something to think about Wastegate.

Oil companies running hard to stand still


Phil Hart
March 16, 2007

DURING a previous oil price crisis in the United States, a jovial service station attendant may have remarked to customers that "We've run out of $2 gas, but we've got plenty of $5 gas". Attendants on the trading floors might today observe that we've got plenty of $80 (US) barrels, but we're running short of $50 barrels.

Last Friday, the US Energy Information Administration released oil production data to the end of last year. Crude oil production was nearly 200,000 barrels a day lower than in 2005. Total liquid supply was flat. That's gripping news and should be enough to rattle any economist's confidence.

Despite a calm hurricane season, record prices and a forecast consensus from energy agencies that supply would continue to grow, oil production stalled last year. Were the oil companies not trying hard enough?

Chris Skrebowski, editor of the British oil industry journal Petroleum Review, would not agree. He has just published his annual Megaprojects report. The numbers show the global oil industry implemented oilfield projects providing an extra 3.2 million barrels a day to the market last year.

This is a historically high level of activity. So why was production flat, and even falling in many countries? The answer begins with "d" and gets to the heart of the debate about when global oil production will finally peak and begin its terminal decline: depletion.

A typical oilfield is a layer of sandstone buried far underground, with oil filling the tiny spaces between the grains of sand. Buried so deeply, the oil is under extreme pressure. When a well is drilled into the reservoir, the oil eagerly flows up to the surface. Then, with less competition for space in the reservoir, the pressure falls and the flow rate declines. To compensate, the operator drills more wells and can put in place elaborate mechanisms to maintain pressure in the field.

For several years, even decades for the largest fields, it is possible to continue extracting oil at a high rate. Inevitably though, the amount that flows from the reservoir begins to decline.

Many of the world's largest and oldest oilfields are succumbing to this fate; production is falling, sometimes rapidly. Two of the biggest fields, Cantarell in Mexico and Burgan in Kuwait, are confirmed in this category. Even the giant Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia, the largest discovered, may be showing the same symptoms of old age.

Despite enormous industry efforts, production from the largest fields and regions such as the North Sea is declining. Companies must now exploit new frontiers. They are taking enormous strides; into deep water off Africa and Brazil, remote areas of the Caspian and East Siberia, and also into unconventional Canadian tar sands. All this and more in a bid to shore up falling production in old heartlands.

The oil industry is running hard but only just managing to stand still. The size of discoveries in the new frontiers is falling. Depletion, the rate production is declining in existing oil provinces, meanwhile, increases.

In just a few years, the scales that are now finely balanced between new production coming on stream and declines in mature regions may lean more heavily on the side of depletion. Peak oil would then be behind us and our economies will be forced to survive with less oil each year.

What then for oil prices? Supply can no longer increase to meet rising expectations. Increasing oil prices over the past five years, and the subsequent fall in vulnerable housing markets, have pushed the US towards recession. Perhaps that move already has enough momentum to keep a lid on consumption. If not, prices will rise again to further destroy demand. Either way, the fate of the world's largest economy may already be sealed.

Phil Hart is petroleum facilities engineer, Melbourne, for the Association for the Study of Peak Oil.

www.aspo-australia.org.au/ (http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/)

Sorry to march on in here, but just what does this have to do with the topic?

[Fish]

Something to think about Wastegate.

Oil companies running hard to stand still


Phil Hart
March 16, 2007

DURING a previous oil price crisis in the United States, a jovial service station attendant may have remarked to customers that "We've run out of $2 gas, but we've got plenty of $5 gas". Attendants on the trading floors might today observe that we've got plenty of $80 (US) barrels, but we're running short of $50 barrels.

Last Friday, the US Energy Information Administration released oil production data to the end of last year. Crude oil production was nearly 200,000 barrels a day lower than in 2005. Total liquid supply was flat. That's gripping news and should be enough to rattle any economist's confidence.

Despite a calm hurricane season, record prices and a forecast consensus from energy agencies that supply would continue to grow, oil production stalled last year. Were the oil companies not trying hard enough?

Chris Skrebowski, editor of the British oil industry journal Petroleum Review, would not agree. He has just published his annual Megaprojects report. The numbers show the global oil industry implemented oilfield projects providing an extra 3.2 million barrels a day to the market last year.

This is a historically high level of activity. So why was production flat, and even falling in many countries? The answer begins with "d" and gets to the heart of the debate about when global oil production will finally peak and begin its terminal decline: depletion.

A typical oilfield is a layer of sandstone buried far underground, with oil filling the tiny spaces between the grains of sand. Buried so deeply, the oil is under extreme pressure. When a well is drilled into the reservoir, the oil eagerly flows up to the surface. Then, with less competition for space in the reservoir, the pressure falls and the flow rate declines. To compensate, the operator drills more wells and can put in place elaborate mechanisms to maintain pressure in the field.

For several years, even decades for the largest fields, it is possible to continue extracting oil at a high rate. Inevitably though, the amount that flows from the reservoir begins to decline.

Many of the world's largest and oldest oilfields are succumbing to this fate; production is falling, sometimes rapidly. Two of the biggest fields, Cantarell in Mexico and Burgan in Kuwait, are confirmed in this category. Even the giant Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia, the largest discovered, may be showing the same symptoms of old age.

Despite enormous industry efforts, production from the largest fields and regions such as the North Sea is declining. Companies must now exploit new frontiers. They are taking enormous strides; into deep water off Africa and Brazil, remote areas of the Caspian and East Siberia, and also into unconventional Canadian tar sands. All this and more in a bid to shore up falling production in old heartlands.

The oil industry is running hard but only just managing to stand still. The size of discoveries in the new frontiers is falling. Depletion, the rate production is declining in existing oil provinces, meanwhile, increases.

In just a few years, the scales that are now finely balanced between new production coming on stream and declines in mature regions may lean more heavily on the side of depletion. Peak oil would then be behind us and our economies will be forced to survive with less oil each year.

What then for oil prices? Supply can no longer increase to meet rising expectations. Increasing oil prices over the past five years, and the subsequent fall in vulnerable housing markets, have pushed the US towards recession. Perhaps that move already has enough momentum to keep a lid on consumption. If not, prices will rise again to further destroy demand. Either way, the fate of the world's largest economy may already be sealed.

Phil Hart is petroleum facilities engineer, Melbourne, for the Association for the Study of Peak Oil.

www.aspo-australia.org.au/ (http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/)

Sorry to march on in here, but just what does this have to do with the topic?

Not with the topic but with Wastegate screwing europe.:yep: