FAQ
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:55 am


Author Message
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2014 5:21 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
The EROEI for oil has been in decline for quite some time

And I never disputed that.

Right. But you also never explain how new technology can overcome the long term trend of declining EROEI, which ultimately means ever higher energy costs in the future. This trend seems to confirm peak oil theory. After all, we have had lots of technological breakthroughs over the years and yet EROEI continues to decline.

Image

Direct questions for you to consider:
1. Can new technology ever reverse the decline in EROEI? If so, how?

2. If not, how do we deal with ever rising energy costs in the future?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


I should jump in here. It is technologically possible to synthesize gasoline from air and water. It's energetically costly, though.

The only reason it is not being done already is because crude oil is still less expensive than what it would cost to synthesize the gasoline. If the price of crude oil ever rises above the cost of the synthesis option, however, then the technology would immediately be implemented, and the new trend would be a static price of gasoline that goes down over time (as the technology improves.)

The reason the technology can't improve right now is because it's not in use. There aren't really any businesses researching it because it can't be used to generate a profit right now. It will only become profitable once the alternative ceases to be cheaper.


So actually, the idea that the end of the oil reserves will spell doom for the world economy is a myth.

It could be a very interesting transition. I can envision "fuel farmers" setting up solar power arrays in places like Arizona, and then using solar power to synthesize the gasoline on hot days. (And just plain shutting down on cold/wet/dark days.) Alternating between periods of vacation time, and periods of intense work. Not such a bad lifestyle if you think about it.


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 3:35 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
There is the issue, though, of requiring a lot of water in Arizona or other sunny places, where water is not generally available in large quantities.

Why not make use of natural (rather than artificial) photosynthesis, by growing trees renewably and converting the biomass to gasoline. As with any synthetic fuel process, there are many intermediate processes that can tend to be glossed over but that add to the cost.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:31 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
bunbury wrote:
There is the issue, though, of requiring a lot of water in Arizona or other sunny places, where water is not generally available in large quantities.


Oil in its present form already has to be shipped to its final destination, so I don't see a difference.

Unless you are referring to the use of solar farms as a means of generating the electricity to create synthetic fuel, in which case yeah. I'd have to concede that it would be problem getting the water to the solar farms if they're out on the desert.

Quote:

Why not make use of natural (rather than artificial) photosynthesis, by growing trees renewably and converting the biomass to gasoline. As with any synthetic fuel process, there are many intermediate processes that can tend to be glossed over but that add to the cost.


That's not a bad idea in principle, however most of the land that can be used for that already has other purposes. The trees are already needed for lumber. Corn or other feedstocks are already needed for their food value.

In order to dedicate land toward biofuels, we'd have to take it away from those other purposes. Desert land, on the other hand, is cheap and doesn't have any other practical use.


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:46 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
Kojax wrote:
I should jump in here. It is technologically possible to synthesize gasoline from air and water. It's energetically costly, though.

The only reason it is not being done already is because crude oil is still less expensive than what it would cost to synthesize the gasoline. If the price of crude oil ever rises above the cost of the synthesis option, however, then the technology would immediately be implemented, and the new trend would be a static price of gasoline that goes down over time (as the technology improves.)


What would happen to the economy if the price of crude oil were to approach the price of the "synthetic option"? Hmmm...not really much of an option, is it?


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:06 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
Quote:
most of the land that can be used for that already has other purposes. The trees are already needed for lumber. Corn or other feedstocks are already needed for their food value.

In order to dedicate land toward biofuels, we'd have to take it away from those other purposes.


That's actually not correct. There are vast plantations of trees especially in the southeast USA originally intended for newsprint. These are now not needed for that purpose as people get their news electronically, and the trees are growing and approaching the size where harvesting becomes technically difficult. There is also a lot of construction wood waste, and in the Rockies there are millions of dead pines (which are hard to harvest, but there, nevertheless). The newsprint plantations are renewable, as the harvested trees are replaced by new plantings. Construction waste is typically landfilled or burned. So there is a vast reservoir of biomass without impacting agriculture, if only the gasification and conversion technology was up to the job.


Top
billvon
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:32 pm

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:23 pm
Posts: 86

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
What would happen to the economy if the price of crude oil were to approach the price of the "synthetic option"?


Demand for oil would drop, and demand for alternatives (biofuel, natural gas, EV's) would increase. EV and battery suppliers, natural gas conversion companies, rapeseed farmers etc would make a lot of money, while oil companies would lose money.


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:30 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
billvon wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
What would happen to the economy if the price of crude oil were to approach the price of the "synthetic option"?


Demand for oil would drop, and demand for alternatives (biofuel, natural gas, EV's) would increase. EV and battery suppliers, natural gas conversion companies, rapeseed farmers etc would make a lot of money, while oil companies would lose money.


In your scenario, above, as oil gets more expensive, expensive alternatives may be substituted, but the overall cost of energy just keeps rising. And the overall energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) just keeps falling. Civilization as a whole will keep getting less and less useful energy at ever higher prices. Eventually, the economy must collapse. How could it be otherwise?


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:52 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
How could it be otherwise?

When the cost of alternatives continues to drop in parallel with their capacity increasing. This is pretty basic math, Futilitist, and it's been covered with you repeatedly in this thread and others. Why you wish to ignore the clear trend seen in renewable cost per watt only so you can continue beating a point long since debunked is rather odd.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 3:37 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
How could it be otherwise?

When the cost of alternatives continues to drop in parallel with their capacity increasing. This is pretty basic math, Futilitist, and it's been covered with you repeatedly in this thread and others. Why you wish to ignore the clear trend seen in renewable cost per watt only so you can continue beating a point long since debunked is rather odd.


You claiming victory in this debate is what really seems rather odd! I would invite the readers to review this thread to see if you have "long since debunked" my point. The "clear trend" in renwable cost per watt does not even begin to address the EROEI problem!

The title of this thread is "peak oil - does it matter?". Clearly it does.


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:22 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
The title of this thread is "peak oil - does it matter?". Clearly it does.

Are you now asserting that there is only one correct answer to a clearly subjective and opinion-based question?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 5:05 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
The title of this thread is "peak oil - does it matter?". Clearly it does.

Are you now asserting that there is only one correct answer to a clearly subjective and opinion-based question?

Huh?

iNow wrote:
...I don't even think we should be worrying about peak oil.


You are entitled to your opinion. I have a different view. We are having a discussion about that difference of opinion. I am asserting that my argument is much better supported and far more convincing than yours. I invite the readers to review this thread to confirm this for themselves.


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 5:15 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
The title of this thread is "peak oil - does it matter?". Clearly it does.

Are you now asserting that there is only one correct answer to a clearly subjective and opinion-based question?

Huh?

What part don't you understand?

Futilitist wrote:
We are having a discussion about that difference of opinion. I am asserting that my argument is much better supported and far more convincing than yours. I invite the readers to review this thread to confirm this for themselves.

And I have shared how your conclusion is rooted in flawed premises and the assumption of unchanging capacity and prices. Readers don't need your invitation to look back on the thread. You are being obstinate and preaching and unresponsive to valid counter points, as per usual.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:03 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
We are having a discussion about that difference of opinion. I am asserting that my argument is much better supported and far more convincing than yours. I invite the readers to review this thread to confirm this for themselves.

And I have shared how your conclusion is rooted in flawed premises and the assumption of unchanging capacity and prices. Readers don't need your invitation to look back on the thread. You are being obstinate and preaching and unresponsive to valid counter points, as per usual.


You haven't offered any valid counterpoint to my argument that the physics of declining EROEI means that we can expect higher and higher energy costs going forward, whether we switch to alternatives or not. Higher and higher energy costs will eventually crash the economy, leading to the worldwide collapse of modern industrial civilization and the subsequent die-off of most of our species. Thus, peak oil really does matter. A lot.


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:04 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
... the physics of declining EROEI means that we can expect higher and higher energy costs going forward, whether we switch to alternatives or not.

Since when do physics dictate economic issues?

Futilitist wrote:
Higher and higher energy costs will eventually crash the economy, leading to the worldwide collapse of modern industrial civilization

But costs decrease as advances are made. This is the core counter point you refuse to acknowledge despite its obvious veracity.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 2:30 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
... the physics of declining EROEI means that we can expect higher and higher energy costs going forward, whether we switch to alternatives or not.

Since when do physics dictate economic issues?

Since always! The physics of energy determines every activity on earth, including human economic activity. Economics is not a science because it does not acknowledge, or account for, this fundamental truth.

iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
Higher and higher energy costs will eventually crash the economy, leading to the worldwide collapse of modern industrial civilization

But costs decrease as advances are made. This is the core counter point you refuse to acknowledge despite its obvious veracity.

True, costs can decrease as efficiency increases, but not anywhere near enough to overcome the EROEI problem. And even if costs could decrease beyond the known physical limits, we couldn't possibly adapt fast enough. That would take decades, and things are already starting to wobble, economically speaking.

Peak oil should be a top concern for everybody. It probably would be, but for the efforts of determined peak oil deniers like yourself. Good job.


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 3:13 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
I find your opinion misguided and your conclusions on this topic incorrect for reasons already stated and repeated, but you are welcome to them.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
billvon
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 6:30 pm

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:23 pm
Posts: 86

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
You haven't offered any valid counterpoint to my argument that the physics of declining EROEI means that we can expect higher and higher energy costs going forward, whether we switch to alternatives or not.

There is an lower limit to EROEI, and that occurs when solar dominates our energy production. At that point since we cannot "run out" of sunlight energy prices stabilize, and then fall a bit as economies of scale make extraction cheaper. Solar EROEI is about 7; nuclear is 10-70 depending on fuel production process, and hydro is close to 100 (none of which rely on oil.) Oil's EROEI is around 10 right now and dropping as tight oil becomes a larger proportion of our production. As economies of scale kick in there expect a slight increase - but you're never going to see the oil EROEI's of the 1980's again (around 50.)
Quote:
Higher and higher energy costs will eventually crash the economy, leading to the worldwide collapse of modern industrial civilization and the subsequent die-off of most of our species.

I recall you expected "major civil unrest" to begin in the summer of 2013, leading to a worldwide economic collapse and the death of 95% of humanity. I take it you have revised your expectation again.
You also predicted gas prices would double every year starting in 2015. We are two months away from that, and gas prices are declining a bit. Will you revise that one as well?


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:57 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Once again... Peak oil is basically a theory based on a lack of imagination and the assumption of a static world.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:37 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Once again... Peak oil is basically a theory based on a lack of imagination and the assumption of a static world.

Good slogan. Nice grandiose declaration. You are, of course, absolutely entitled to your silly opinion, even if you can't support it.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:43 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
Nice grandiose declaration. You are, of course, absolutely entitled to your silly opinion, even if you can't support it.

It is curious to me that after 12 pages of thread and scores of posts where I've explained my reasoning, elaborated on my points, shared evidence in support of my specific claims, and supported my criticisms of your stance clearly and articulately that you would so nonchalantly and baldly assert that I cannot support my position.

Is this perhaps another example of your infamous challenges with basic reading comprehension, or are you just trolling? I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and so will assume it's the former.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: World War 3  |  Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:58 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
Hey Guys and Gals,

Here is something really interesting:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-2 ... m-reserves

"In the interest of analytical balance, we would do well to consider the possibility of war strategies when it comes to the global stockpiling of petroleum reserves. In the years leading up to the German invasion of Poland, the world witnessed dramatic decreases in the price of oil as well as massive increases in petroleum inventories, especially as the Texas fields began to produce.

These shifts in the global oil markets ran parallel to the deflation which had begun in October, 1929, and as such, we can see the same pattern repeating today as oil prices collapse, inventories are growing, and world wide deflation is deepening.


Whether by design or not, the lack of reduction in crude production around the world, and the growing stockpiles which isn’t slowing down, will only mean further decreases in the price of oil.

The growing deflation will obviously drive down the demand for petroleum products even further, while at the same time decreasing oil prices will continue to feed the deflationary pressure from the opposite macro position."


The historical parallels are chilling. Lots of automatic mechanisms are lining up to set the stage for WWIII.

Exponential Growth -> Overproduction -> Crash ->
Massive Productive Capacity Overhang Prevents Growth -> Deflation -> Oil Glut ->
Lot’s of Excess Fuel for War -> War -> Productive Capacity Overhang Eliminated ->
Exponential Growth Resumes

It seems that WWII averted a collapse by eliminating the overhang in productive capacity, creating room for economic growth. Can WWIII do the same thing for us today? I think peak oil will mean that history only repeats itself up to a point. But who knows? I don’t think we will have to wait much longer to find out.


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:30 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
FYI---Here is a really good site where peak oil issues are discussed freely and openly:

http://peakoilbarrel.com/


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:59 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
World Economic Forum: Global Risks 2015 report.

Energy price shock listed as #6 in terms of impact, but doesn't even make the top 10 in terms of likelihood. While it is currently trending in the wrong direction as a result of pressures it's creating in Russia, it's also #4 in terms of us having made the most progress over the past 10 years to improve.


http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2015/

Image

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:50 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
World Economic Forum: Global Risks 2015 report.

Energy price shock listed as #6 in terms of impact, but doesn't even make the top 10 in terms of likelihood. While it is currently trending in the wrong direction as a result of pressures it's creating in Russia, it's also #4 in terms of us having made the most progress over the past 10 years to improve.


http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2015/

Image

What do you think the chances are that the people behind the World Economic Forum: Global Risks 2015 report would want us to fully grasp the seriousness of our current dilemma? Wouldn't such a revelation just cause panic, which certainly wouldn't have good results.

Why do you have such faith in government mouth pieces?

Why do you think they are telling the truth?


---Futililtist :ugeek:


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:42 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow,

I think you overestimate the benevolence of our so called leaders.


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:38 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
I think deflation trends start because investors like to see the value of something - anything at all - moving. They don't care what direction it is moving in, because there will always be something going up in value, and that gives them somewhere to park their money.

Workers tend to naively believe that there would be more job opportunities available to them if only they were allowed to contract at a lower price.

Consumers always want cheaper goods, and naively believe that it is possible for someone else's wages to go down while their own wages remain high. Convincing oneself that you can make changes to one part of the system with zero impact to any other part of the system. A variation of "free lunch think".

And then when it doesn't work, they do what a degenerate gambler at the horse races would do when he's behind: they double down. Convince themselves that the reason it isn't working is not because their plan is (and always was) flawed, but rather it's because they're not implementing it completely enough. So they lose, then double down, then lose some more, then triple down, then lose some more, and quadruple down. All the while borrowing more and more money to fund their next attempt.

If only they'd just give up on trying to get something for nothing.


Top
billvon
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:15 am

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:23 pm
Posts: 86

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
What do you think the chances are that the people behind the World Economic Forum: Global Risks 2015 report would want us to fully grasp the seriousness of our current dilemma? Wouldn't such a revelation just cause panic, which certainly wouldn't have good results.

Some of those people would stand to profit handsomely from such panics - and thus would have an incentive to cause them. There are plenty of historical precedents, going back to the 1600's.
Quote:
Why do you have such faith in government mouth pieces?

I have zero faith in the ability of government mouthpieces to successfully engage in coordinated and perfectly secretive misinformation campaigns. They are simply not competent enough to pull that off.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2015 6:09 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Futilist, you understand, right? That the price of crude will and can only rise to the point where it is higher than the cost of synthesized alternatives? When those two match up, and stay matched up long enough for the infrastructure to be built, the price will go back down to the level of the cost of producing the synthesized version and stay there until the end of time.


The economy of Russia and Saudi Arabia might suffer horribly from that transition, but in the USA everything will be just fine.

As the leading producer of corn, the USA can get diesel for its shipping fleet by producing corn oil and either burning that directly in the diesel engines (with some modification to the engine), or using a fairly easy chemical process to convert corn oil the rest of the way into proper diesel.

If that gets arduous, another option would be shaling the coal reserves.

So basically the USA will not suffer very much when the crude runs out.


Top
billvon
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:31 am

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:23 pm
Posts: 86

Offline
kojax wrote:
Futilist, you understand, right? That the price of crude will and can only rise to the point where it is higher than the cost of synthesized alternatives?

I think it's pretty clear that he does not understand that.
Quote:
So basically the USA will not suffer very much when the crude runs out.

I think we will suffer mightily if it happens rapidly, since we can't adapt quickly to losing our primary source of transportation fuel. However, if it happens slowly, we will gradually change over to a mix of biofuels, natural gas, electric vehicles and (if we can restart nuclear power) hydrogen. This is happening already. Society will certainly change as the era of cheap oil comes to an end but it won't be all bad; the new jobs from the above industries will partially compensate for the loss of jobs in the petroleum industry.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   


Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy