We keep coming back to the issue of the government bailout of the North American automakers because it seems so symbolic of the challenges now being confronted as the economy tanks and different ideological views of how best to solve the problem are hashed out…
Last month, in advance of the most recent budget from the deficit-busting “Conservative” government, Buzz Hargrove, former head of the Canadian Auto Worker’s Union, pled the case of the Canadian automakers to the panel of entrepreneurs (“Dragons”) from the CBC’s venture-capitalist program (yes, the irony is ripe indeed) as to why the auto sector deserved help.
Given a fictional amount of $20 billion to disperse in order to boost the Canadian economy, the “Dragons” gave precisely ZERO to the auto sector. Unsurprisingly, anarcho-Capitalist Dragon Kevin O’Leary called the Big 3 “losers” that should just be allowed to fail.
Clement’s bailout case is even less convincing than Buzz Hargrove’s, if that were even possible:
First we have Clement arguing that the bailout of GM will be by way of repayable loans on “commercial terms”. Commercial terms? What an inherently deceitful concept that is, since there are no commercial terms on which third party non governmental lenders would provide financing to GM, which is why the bailout is necessary in the first place. Sheesh.
Second we have Clement voicing support for the GM proposal before he has any firm idea on how much money is required? File that under dead stupid and incompetent.
Then we learn that the bailout money isn’t for GM proper, but rather to allow GM to make good on its unfunded pension obligations, whereby the proposition has now become that GM will preserve a mere 7,000 jobs if Canadian taxpayers underwrite the open ended long tailed liability associated with 52,000 retired GM employees? With odds like that, taxpayers can only be assured of losing.
And now we have Tony Clement bravely saying that the Government won’t lend any additional money to GM, if they come a calling at some later date. This is anything but awe inspiring. We have the Government of Canada prepared to throw $7 billion at GM to support some ill defined strategy, knowing full well that it may be insufficient? Talk about backing a known loser. What’s the point of bailing out a sinking ship? Not a dime should go into bailing out GM, unless Canadian taxpayers can be assured that the plan has been stress tested as being fully funded, otherwise what’s the point? Until Clement can ensure Canadian taxpayers that this bailout money is full and sufficient in terms of creating a viable GM, then it merely becomes an grand political exercise in buying time, and wasting taxpayer money.
If Mercedes can come out with a Smart Car, why can’t Tony Clement and Michael Bryant come up with a Smart Bailout, assuming such a beast exists?
O’Leary is a dick. At least when he is on BNN, Amanda Lang is right there to call him on his BS.
Brent — I’m not against extending credit to the automakers as a “bridge” to help them restructure, but you raise some quite valid points about the absurd nature of the proposition being floated by the government — i.e., their willingness to provide billions of dollars while knowing full well this amount will in all probability be wholly insufficient to achieve the ultimate objective of shoring up a core part of the manufacturing sector.
O’Leary’s view is rather reminiscent of Ron Paul’s. Say what you will, but at least these guys are committed to their beliefs. Begrudgingly, and with clenched teeth, I have come to accept the fact that these companies require funds to stay afloat…but ONLY for the benefit of the myriad workers that would be unemployed if they failed. I am deeply troubled by the idea of private corporations that are “too big to fail”. This concept essentially gives these behemoths a free pass to run themselves into the ground with poor planning and shitty overpaid execs, all the while confident that public funds will be available to bail them out. As usual, the greatest burden of their mismanagement is borne by the least well paid and least culpable people on the payroll.
Amen to that.
I fully agreed with the Dragons’ zero-dollars-for-Buzz decision. In fact, I would have made him pay Canadians $20 billion for being a bum the last 30 years or so.
I think it’s unfair to dismiss all of his arguments in such an offhand way. Many of the points he raises are quite legitimate in my opinion. Aside from the matter of healthcare costs (which is the proverbial 500 lb. gorilla in the room), there is, in fact, a double standard when it comes to the way in which foreign automakers are subsidized and protected within the global market.. If one assumes the “free market” position then it has to be accepted that in many respects, both American and Canadian manufacturers aren’t playing on a level playing field with their competitors.
At the risk of stroking with a very wide brush, the “system” is desperately attempting to correct itself, from the scheister banksters to the automobile manufacturing industry. By putting the TBTF gun to taxpayers’ heads, the inevitable is merely bumped up several years or to the next generation…with the next generation carrying the cost. Nice work if you can get it!
To blow through the myriad of complexities currently in play one arrives at a simple principle: subsidization, be it the banksters, the automobile industry, Cape Breton coal, a Canada Arts Council artiste, etc. is a false propping up of the incompetent, redundant, irrelevant, useless, passe, etc. To claim that it is essential to do so for the sake of the economy is illusory. It is essential to do so maintain the glue of social and political institutions, not the economy.
At some point in time “the hurt” will have to be encountered. By jacking the taxpayers, pols are merely pushing away the inevitable with a hidden motive of, “Not on my fucking watch!”
BTW, there is no Canadian automobile manufacturing industry. There are American, Japanese, Korean, etc. automobile manufacturing industries with branch plants in Canada. Despite its gull wing doors, the Bricklin did not fly. But that was an entirely different scam altogether.
I wonder sometimes if the “doomers” and other folks intellectually disposed that way, which together seem almost to be gleefully praying for the collapse of everything as they presumably covet the oh-so precious “hard assets” they’ve been hording, will ultimately reap some grim and perversely smug satisfaction at the end of the day. After all, in order to be proven ideologically “correct” necessitates effectively destroying the lives of millions of people — something that seems not to concern or disturb them in the least bit. It strikes me as a somewhat odd frame of mind… It’s very much reminiscent of the apocalyptic “believers” that inexplicably cherish and nurture the thought of the End of Days — same zealotry and arrogant fanaticism at the heart of it, along with a churlishly cruel desire for mass retribution, supreme “judgement” some kind, and a fiercely passionate need for ultimate, righteous vindication on a personal level.
BTW, there is no Canadian automobile manufacturing industry.
While there’s certainly no indigenous companies designing vehicles with an ostensibly “Canadian” imprimatur, that totally ignores the hundreds of OEM producers of parts and equipment not to mention all of the related companies connected to the automotive sector that currently employ tens of thousands of people. But hey, they’re all headed for the ash can of history, right… so who gives a flying fuck about them and their puny, insignificant lives?
Ba ha ha ha ha!!!
“O’Leary is a dick.”
That may well be, but when it comes to the auto industry bailout, he is absolutely correct. Don’t buy into the nonsense about the industry’s troubles being caused by the unions. That’s BS – The CAMI plant in Woodstock (Toyota) pays identical wages and benefits as the Big 3 and, until the recent down turn, were making profit. GM, Ford and Chrysler have been losing money for years even before the downturn.
This is a problem with mismanagement at the top, cottled by the already existing protectionism of our government. Why should we give money to, in a sense reward, the very people who screwed up in the first place.
They should go out of business. If they can’t make a product people want to buy, they should go out of business.
Period.
And once that happens, others will purchase their capital – the plants, the tools, the knowledge – and re-purpose them in enterprises that will make profits and put people to work. Hell, the workers themselves could do that.
Know this though. If you want this bailout to go ahead, you really need to stop whining about the “failure of capitalism” or the “free market”. By bailing out, you are not even allowing that to work (even if one accepts incorrectly that 3 indigenous and protected corporations operating in the absence of tariffs their competition faces is somehow ‘the free market’) – in the free market and capitalism, if you mess up, you go out of business and someone else uses your capital more productively. That’s how it works. So how can it be a ‘failure’ if its not allowed to work the way it is supposed to?
Its really simple – if GM want’s my money, they make a product I want to buy. Otherwise they don’t get it. And if that happens enough, they either change or die. No backdoor stealing of my money through taxes to keep making crap no one wants to buy, just so Jim Flaherty can buy votes and keep people working.
Red, re “that totally ignores the hundreds of OEM producers of parts and equipment not to mention all of the related companies connected to the automotive sector that currently employ tens of thousands of people.”
Correct, which is why my assertion was qualified with “manufacturing industry.” Parts and equipment manufacturers are totally dependent on the latter, ergo tanking respectively.
No one whom I know in the Post-Peak Oil community is “gleefully praying” nor standing in line to “reap some grim and perversely smug satisfaction at the end of the day.” We simply compute the data at hand, draw relative conclusions, and adapt accordingly. For well over a decade now liberal do-gooders and political hacks of all stripes have been shamelessly yodeling the strictures of non-sustainability. Well, guess what? The table of consequences has been laid out; the feedback arrows of non-sustainability are puncturing many, many comfort zones. The actual terrain and effect on human lives is shockingly different from the yadda yadda yadda of scoring political and PR brownie points. And, lo and behold, no one really likes it all that much wah wah wah, yet are still not prepared to adapt accordingly. Nature dictates; adapt or perish.
There is no “zealotry” nor “arrogant fanaticism.” Actually, a more realistic charge of “arrogant fanaticism” can just as easily be laid at the feet of technological determinists, cornucopians, and believers in unlimited growth of everything, a mathematical absurdity and impossibility unto itself. So just who is it who is crazy and wearing the tinfoils hats? It is that type of “zealotry” that is truly blind to the enormity of the historical crisis that has been entered upon.
Re “…so who gives a flying fuck about them and their puny, insignificant lives?”
You’re such a liberal. Tsk tsk. You take it all too personally. Ban-ki Moon has for the last year been voicing concerns (most recently at Davos) for the “bottom billion.” We are barely into it and the die-off is already underway. And what have you done recently in your Western, cyber-comfort to deflect their pain and suffering?
Flip open a newspaper. Take a step outside your front door. Take a look…a real look. It is staring you right in the face. Deal with it…or not.
Ronin – I don’t think RT is shy of understanding what’s going on, but you have a problem. You put down and hate everyone and everything and try to portray yourself as some high level intellectual.
We’ve been caught between corporate greed and union greed.
SR — It seems to me, based on a good many of your past comments here that you seem to take a positive (and it might be said, rather perverse) delight in the prospective failure and imminent collapse of the current system. That’s just my impression — I could of course be quite mistaken about that.
We must cast the “false god” of ideology aside here – this is a matter of Industrial Policy.
Much wealth, R&D spin-offs, and value-added employment are at risk here and I am not talking about the status quo.
The CAW must change and accept a good living rather than a great living.
The Senior Management of the Big Three have to stop being such individually self-interested pricks and dispense with the short-term thinking of the equity markets.
We – as investors – must change and stop placing unrealistic expectations on the Publicly-traded Firms. THIS is the root of the problem.
The Management Team of the Big Three has only been giving Wall Street what they have demanded over the last 30 years – all while tethered to CBAs that are strucutured like it is 1972 all over again.
Having said all that, it is mind-boggling to me that the liberal free-marketeers here actually believe that the Japanese Auto Companies could ever create the value-added industry and spin-offs in North America that the Big Three provide.
Do you even understand how the technology spins-off to other industries?
We must bridge them – as a matter of Industrial Policy in order to secure a “wealth of nations.”
And Canada must speak loudly, that any attempt to repatriate large swaths of the sector to the USA will result in a “leaving tax and/or penalty.”
RuralSandi, re “You put down and hate everyone and everything.”
Yes, I “put down” what I consider to be blindness, bullshit, human arrogance, vanity, etc. If you have ever read carefully, what I “put down” are ideologies, perceptions, false assumptions, etc., never individuals…unless they initiate a spat. Such is my prerogative.
You would be hard pressed to find any “hate.” It is a stupid and useless emotion. I purged it decades ago. So yet another bubble to be burst for you (or not), but whatever it is that you “feel” relative to my comments happens to be your shit. Odd fucking world, ain’t it?
Re, “…try to portray yourself as some high level intellectual.”
In my last undergrad year I was asked to sit in on a post-graduate course for credits. It was the equivalent of skipping a grade. The post-grad students were rightly offended and pissed off. They were even more pissed off when I blew them out of the water with my paper. That, however, is mere intellect. It cannot displace nor challenge the smarts picked on from the street. Yapping in cyberspace behind masks of anonymity is child’s play and easy. Putting one’s balls on the line and owning one’s statement is difficult.
http://www.ngnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=115945&sc=49
“Trying” is a recipe for failure. I don’t do “trying.” I am a “high level intellectual.” False humility, in many ways, is a far greater character defect than is false pride. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, again, it is hardly my problem.
Red, re “…you seem to take a positive (and it might be said, rather perverse) delight in the prospective failure and imminent collapse of the current system.”
Ditto re RuralSandi, those are your filters at work, not mine. Having said that, I have been waiting for this crisis for 25 years. I thought that I would not live long enough to witness its arrival. Now that it is here, damned if I am going to pull in my horns. Do you have the slightest idea what is going on here? We witness the initial stages of the collapse of a civilization! How it plays out on the colonial fringes of Canadian society and politics is peanuts. What a great honour and privilege it is to be alive for this and, in turn, to do the right thing.
As for our little exchange, YOU initiated. One should at all times take into consideration the likely consequences of one’s conduct.
“high-level intellectual …”
Heh. LOL.
“high-level ideologue” sure.
Yes, I did and, as I said, it was just my impression (or my “filters at work”).
…I have been waiting for this crisis for 25 years. I thought that I would not live long enough to witness its arrival.
How odd.
Red, re “How odd.”
Why “odd?” At circa 1980 it was evident that: 1. the major philosophical and political showdown over the past century or so as to who owns the means of production was not the problem; the “problem” was the actual means of production itself, i.e. industrialism; 2. relative to the latter, the stuff that keeps it going, natural resources, is finite; 3. we’re fucked.
That’s where it had been left (futile sojourn with the Greens 1984-86 inclusive) until my introduction to Peak Oil several years ago. The “oxygen” of industrial civilization has about 20-30 years left in the tank.
I, nor anyone else, can wish the condition away. The movie can’t be edited towards a happy ending. This literally is not a rehersal. It is what it is. The absolute clarity and enormity of it, once one cops to it, carry both horror and hope…or so I have found the experience to be. Over time, hope conquers horror. Then all that’s left to do is for one to open one’s gob and speak it.
…and prepare accordingly.
Dillon said:
“O’Leary is a dick. At least when he is on BNN, Amanda Lang is right there to call him on his BS”
Amanda Lang is a veritable fountain of BS herself.
Take for example her position on income trusts.
She is staunchly defending Flaherty’s lies about tax leakage. What would she possibly know about that subject, that she didn’t learn taking Architecture at the University of Manitoba?
SR — It seems a bit “odd” (for lack of a better word) to spend half one’s life with such bleak outlook on things. Granted, that’s just my superficial way of characterizing it. You most probably don’t view it that way at all. I’m similarly puzzled by people of faith who are firmly convinced that the Apocalypse is imminent, or at least will surely take place within the span of their lifetime. To them, it’s a very uplifting thing, apparently, whereas it just seems catastrophically awful prospect to me (quite aside from the fact that I can’t bring myself to actually subscribe to that kooky set of religious beliefs).
I don’t know, maybe I just can’t “deal with it” (to use your expression) because it would surely lead to an unbearably crushing state of depression. As someone frequently prone to emotional despair (for whatever reason — whether it be a fairly reasonable product of circumstance or just unfortunate chemical make-up), life is something of a struggle at the best of times. Willfully compounding and exacerbating the problem with relentless pessimism (or “realism” if you prefer) likely wouldn’t be a very healthy thing to do. I suppose there’s something to be said for just being a total downer about absolutely everything, pissing on the “misguided” optimism of everyone else, scoffing at their pathetic lack of awareness and so on, but the conviction and powerful certitude needed to pull that off somehow always escapes me.
RT: I don’t know if SR’s end-of-days rantings are any different than those claiming that the second coming is at hand — neither of which I would deem “realism”. Faith is faith regardless of within whom or what you choose to place it. I’m sure that SR will claim me “blind” to the reality of his fevered imaginings, but so too does the guy on the street corner handing out pamphlets about how the government is sending out microwave signals inducing us all to run up our credit debt.
Red, re “It seems a bit ‘odd’ (for lack of a better word) to spend half one’s life with such bleak outlook on things.”
Who said it was “bleak?” That is a value judgment, in this case, yours. It’s an analysis, a perception. It just is. It can be debated till the cows come home, at a very interperonal level like this, or on the greater socio-political level. It is the condition that will determine “right” from “wrong” and “realistic” from “unrealistic.” Looking about this world that we share, at the manner and the speed with which things are unfolding and imploding, I am tended to venture a guess that my position holds a certain degree of credence. There, how’s that for intellectual diplomacy? LOLOL
counter-coulter: What the fuck do I know? I’m an “idiot.” Remember?
C-C: We all hold certain beliefs that constitute our understanding of things, so I’m a little reluctant to be too dismissive of those I don’t happen to agree with or that are inconveniently displeasing to me. When it comes to something as incredibly complicated as the global economy, I tend to be a little skeptical that anyone has the absolute TRUTH… As it is, we now have the spectacle of dueling Nobel-Prize winning economists and all sorts of intelligent/informed people taking opposite positions and disputing what’s actually going on and how best to address the problem. We have people who dispute the lessons of the past, interpret history differently and extrapolate scenarios accordingly. We have people like Mr. Ronin who it’s learned have been waiting for a complete economic collapse for the better part of the last 30 years… to do what? Prove their hypothetical notions correct, apparently.
Is “Peak Oil” real? Who knows… There seems to be some validity to the theory, but there are plenty of people who will dispute it. At the moment, we’re awash in oil and commodity prices are ridiculously low — sadly to those who were banking on a punishing price curve that seemed to be escalating through the roof. The “Peak Oil” folks don’t seem to want to consider the potential resources that may be unlocked from the arctic slopes (and not just the tiny part of the ANWAR wilderness reserve). And then of course there are the people who subscribe to the idea of abiotic oil (which could conceivably be limitless, relatively speaking).
At the same time, we have what’s shaped up to be an endless dispute over climate-change with some arguing we are fouling our own nest and dooming mankind to destruction on that basis and others who argue that the anthropogenic factor is a minimal factor in scheme of things. And so on.
Everyone has facts, figures and “experts” to back up their positions and support their arguments.
It all gets a bit confusing at times.
You can put me down in the “hoax” category* for that one. The only ones who seem to believe in that are oil company apologists / global warming deniers.
* There are also ample links within that article to other studies of “abiotic oil”.
Re: auto sector bailout, I’m all for supporting the auto sector in these extraordinary economic times, but not for bailing out the executives and shareholders of the auto corps. Letting them go bankrupt in order to restructure might be the way to go, but I’m not sure if that’s possible. If it isn’t and the only way to keep the auto companies going through the current recession is to bail them out as is, I’d say we have to bite that bullet for the time being and let them stand on their own, or fail, when the recession is over. Right now the economy needs stimulus and needs it badly. Ideally that stimulus would be both effective and smart. Paying people to dig holes and then fill them up again would be stupid spending, but it would still be very effective stimulus. One would hope we could do better that that, though, with some intelligent spending as well. Supporting auto companies will at least get some automobiles manufactured, as opposed to bailing out banks which to my mind is akin to throwing money on a bonfire.
SR — Who said it was “bleak?” That is a value judgment, in this case, yours. It’s an analysis, a perception. It just is.
Um, I did… More precisely, when I said: “Granted, that’s just my superficial way of characterizing it” by way of qualifying my description of your outlook as being “bleak.” I have to say that there’s something more than a little impertinent, if not downright rude, about moralistically castigating someone for something they’ve already quite freely and openly admitted. And I quite deliberately was trying not to make a “value judgment” here, so to impute that I did so seems not only unfair but needlessly defensive.
By the way, I find something amusing in your statement that “It’s an analysis, a perception… etc” Well, that hardly seems much better than me saying that I was simply offering up my “impression” of what you had written. It too “just is” in the most barely existential sense, but so what?
It can be debated till the cows come home, at a very interperonal [sic] level like this, or on the greater socio-political level. It is the condition that will determine “right” from “wrong” and “realistic” from “unrealistic.”
I’m actually not that much interested in determining “right” from “wrong” in this context. It really matters little way to me one way or the other in a conventionally “moral” sense. I tend to just follow where facts and evidence lead me and when I run into a situation where these things are variously entangled, embattled and diametrically conflicting (as seems to be the case when approaching a good many “big issues” that we’re faced with) sometimes it’s maybe best to stand back and see what happens in terms of awaiting for something approximating “truth” (or “reality” if your prefer) to emerge from the fray. Now, it has to be admitted that may just be a general consensus of opinion (which is rightfully suspect for all manner of reasons) or it could be something a bit more rigorously scientific that’s capable of standing up to close scrutiny and demonstrable provability.
Looking about this world that we share, at the manner and the speed with which things are unfolding and imploding, I am tended to venture a guess that my position holds a certain degree of credence. There, how’s that for intellectual diplomacy? LOLOL
I’m quite prepared to “guess” that your “position holds a certain degree of credence” as well. In fact, I’ve never said anything to the contrary. This however is part of my problem… I’m quite willing to admit that a lot of different ideas have relative credibility, but I’m simply unwilling to subscribe over much to any of them. History is massively littered with innumerable theories that were held to with dogmatic belief and powerfully compelling arguments on the part of zealous apologists and advocates convinced of their absolute righteousness… But alas, quite frequently it turned out that they were sadly wrong.
C-C: The only ones who seem to believe in that are oil company apologists / global warming deniers.
F. William Engdahl, the author of “A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order” is an “ex-Peak Oil believer” (Wow. There’s so much wrong with that…) who subscribes to the notion that oil is actually produced in the Earth’s core by some mysterious force of nature…
Maybe God put it there as a test of faith. You know, like he did with all those dinosaur bones.
Same kind of thesis… but this guy is interviewed on the REAL News.
Oy.
maybe god put those dinosaur bones there so bill hicks could make brilliant comedy…;-)
He works in “mysterious ways” and all that.
Not that matters probably, but the CAMI plant is in Ingersoll, Ontario, and builds Suzuki and GM stuff. The Toyota plant is in Woodstock, Ontario, and builds Toyota
Both are doing well despite the current economic decline happening. So far at least.
Red, re “Is ‘Peak Oil’ real? Who knows… There seems to be some validity to the theory, but there are plenty of people who will dispute it.”
Not even The Star stories of last week stooped to calling Peak Oil a theory. Would you consider the mathematical equation of 2-1=1 to be a theory? Of course not, yet that is the Peak Oil condition in a nutshell: two trillion barrels created by geological forces minus one trillion barrels (used over a 100-year span) equals one trillion barrels (the amount remaining with a depletion slope of 30-40 years).
For someone who is forever heralding the virtues of science, your spin sure does negate the work done by some of the world’s leading geologists. Independent studies conclude that Peak Oil production will occur (or has occurred) between 2005 to 2010 (projected year for peak in parentheses), as follows:
-Association for the Study of Peak Oil (2007)
-Rembrandt Koppelaar, Editor of “Oil Watch Monthly” (2008)
-Tony Eriksen, Oil stock analyst (2008)
-Matthew Simmons, Energy investment banker, (2007)
-T. Boone Pickens, Oil and gas investor (2007)
-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005)
-Kenneth S. Deffeyes, Princeton professor and retired shell Geologist (2005)
-Sam Sam Bakhtiari, Retired Iranian National Oil Company geologist (2005)
-Chris Skrebowski, Editor of “Petroleum Review” (2010)
-Sadad Al Husseini, former head of production and exploration, Saudi Aramco (2008)
-Energy Watch Group in Germany (2006)
I have this picture in my head. Eager monk reporting to his Abbot: “Don’t worry about those tinfoil hat Copernicans, Sire. It’s all theory.” As it was while Coperinus was alive. We enter the Keplerian stage of theory to praxis.
As for Engdahl, major brain fart siding over to the abiotic crowd, IMO. Now that’s bunk!
Here’s what Abdallah S. Jum’ah, Saudi Aramco’s president and CEO, said during his address at the 11th Congress of the World’s Energy Council in Rome last November:
What are you thoughts on that?
That’s my take on ‘peak oil’ as well, Sebastian. The only argument is where it belongs on a time graph. That said I’m pretty sure it’s been used in various ways to manipulate prices and make oodles of money. Information is asymmetrical and the markets are not perfect by any stretch.
Nobody except the abiotic kooks is arguing that oil is an infinite resource, so “peak oil” has to enter into the equation at some point in time. I’m just not convinced that we’re at the top of the peak yet. It’s certainly not cause to panic.
Red, my thoughts are that we have a contradiction between the former Aramco head of production and exploration, and the sitting Aramco president and CEO. The former would seem to have nothing to lose by speaking his “truth” while the latter would seem to have a great deal to lose if his “truth” coincided, especially taking into consideration the time-bomb of the world in general, and the Middle East in particular. Neither of us can “know” more than this, but we can place our bets on motives behind the conflicting statements.
spek, re “time graph” if I understand you correctly, ASPO’s fairly conservative depletion rate of roughly 4%, all things being equal, comes in around 35-40 years to depletion. Don’t forget that as much as 20-30 percent may get left in the ground because it will not be cost effective, from an energy perspective, to bring it to surface. The IEA, normally the very obedient mouth-piece for the G20, has dangled a possible depletion rate as high as 8% in its recent yearly report.
Who knows for sure. My position is that within a hisorical context, i.e. the end of a 200-year civilizational blip on the passage of time, a span of several years or a couple of decades is insignificant.
BTW, Red, have you actually ever read “Post-Peak Oil and NAmerican Regional Secession?” I can understand agreeing or disagreeing with me, but on my end I have at least put my postion down on paper. It all comes down to energy, or lack of it. The Aztecs had a greater understanding and appreciation about the foundation of their civilization, i.e. the sun, than do we. Granted, the human sacrifices may have been going over the top a bit.
Here, allow me to pitch again:
http://novacadia.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/post-peak-oil-and-namerican-regional-secession/
Also, the Saudis are notorious for cooking their books. There are geological numbers, there are economic numbers, and then there are political numbers.
I’ll try to get to it when I have some free time. Might be a while though.