From - http://issues.co.nz/bankinquiry

"Many New Zealanders are concerned about the high level of interest rates, difficult access to credit, and high profit-margins of our major retail banks.

The Reserve Bank is also concerned and has called on banks to reconsider their floating mortgage interest rates, noting that lower rates is crucial to New Zealand's economic recovery.

Unfortunately, the National Government has tried until now to block attempts to hold an inquiry into banks operating in New Zealand.

By doing so, they have denied the New Zealand public and businesses a chance to ask some important questions of our banks and to have their say. An inquiry is essential if home-owners, farmers and businesses are to have confidence in the integrity of our banks and banking system.

That is why Labour, the Greens and the Progressives decided to act and launch their own banking inquiry. The inquiry was held over 2 days beginning on 2 September. The submissions to the inquiry and ultimately the report of the inquiry will be published here on this website http://issues.co.nz/bankinquiry "

The rport has just been released and can be downloaded from the wbsite.

Should be fun.

Peak Oil, Yeh Right ..

We have been hearing the impending doom since the 1950's during which time we have consumed over twice the then known resources.

What a load of rubbish.
They are referring to conventional sources only.

You can make oil from limestone with a high temperature nuke using well know technologies and be CO2 net neutral at the same time by using the lime byproduct to absorb the CO2 emitted during consumption of the oil.

It just costs more than letting it flow from the ground.

The world has never run out of anything except the Dodo bird and the Scottish Auk
and I doubt they have had a big impact on your day to day lives.

Next time you hear peak oil - always ask and at what price ?

Oil at $ 20 / bbl peaked years ago - but we haven't " run out of oil "

At US $ 100 barrel - the supplies are virtually infinite as is the supply of limestone.
For example the Nullabor plain is virtually one big bloc of limestone.

Where's my HT!?!?!?

Robbed I tell you

@ #6
Now "˜regular' Americans are having to compete with immigrants for piecemeal work in places like Home Depot in Las Vegas,

that's what's happening to some extent in a sector of our tourist industry. Bus companies compete for cheaper kilometre rate (and need a market to sell down to when a bus ages) but with China the increasing sector (and others decreasing), native speakers out compete (incl. no flash uniform or union) and small groups in vans or two or three vans are driving people. I'm not sure if they include Helen Clark's "one thousand tour guides"

Here's an interesting editorial from the NYT rebutting the main claims of the peak oil argument:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html?_r=1

But surely Copenhagen is aiming for peak oil anyway? If we want to achieve stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 below 400ppm, we will have to cut back oil consumptions (as well as coal and gas) far more than the restrictions the Malthusians predict.

Troy said:

'The problem is that even if they are right.........'

My goodness Troy thats the first time I have heard you concede even for a moment that Peakoil might be fact rather than fiction. Perhaps you have started to delve a little deeper, or perhaps stories such as those coming from the IEA have started to shake even your bone hard convictions?

You are so very, very wrong that there is nothing to be done about it (and the fact that you use that as a fall back arguement tells me everything that I need to know about your position on the subject).

As a generalisation in my experience the folk who 'get' peakoil tend to have an engineering or science background - possibly because the problem involves analysis of data and information that cannot be summarised in a mere soundbite.

The people with a visceral negative stance to the problem tend to come from an economics or social science background.

Given the recent performance of the cult of economists I know which side of the question I am happier standing on.

Thanks for the link Rhys, it always pays to consider actions rather than words when trying to uncover a truth. The opinion piece you quote sounds superficially plausible but certainly the actions of oil companies and governments would indicate a high level of concern about future supplies.

Consider the recent deep water discoveries by Brazil, there is not even a proven technology to recover oil from these structures, depths and temperatures. Do you think they would even be considered if there was abundant oil just waiting to be sucked up?
What is the US doing invading middle East at enormous cost or China busy buying favour in African oil rich countries, why are we even contemplating shale oil with such miserable returns and at a cost of environmental carnage.
Michael Lynch's claims are absurd.

The problem isn't that we will run out of oil completely but that it will become so expensive as to impose another burden on debt ridden economies. This was confirmed by the Saudis decision to pump more and their comment that $80 was too high and could plunge the west back/deeper into recession. Yet almost all of the new marginal supply - tar sands, shale oil, extreme deep water, biofuel etc. is uneconomic at that price - we have a problem.

Unless we are prepared to take mitigating action now the disruption could well be catastrophic.

LOL Wally - you and your copper. If its electric powered cars you favour its lithium producers which might give you a bigger bang for your commodities buck (and some of the other rarer metals).

Unfortunately even your metaphors are deficient Troy; a human population of 1-1.5 billion (around 75% of where we stand now) puts us back at pre-oil age mid-1800's global populations (how interesting that you should choose such a number). Even a modicum of historical knowledge would have informed you that Bronze Age populations were well below that.

You'll have to provide a fairly substantial reference for the probability based maths behind the Asteroid impact via reliable Energy figure you quote I am afraid - or is it something you just plucked out of thin air?

Pick my pocket? Well thats certainly out of left field.

2: Effect of fiscal multipliers can be as high as 2.5 (but drops to 1.1) which is contrary to Neville's piece...

http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~eichengr/great_dep_great_cred_11-09.pdf

Also cam across a piece that putting the money in the hands of the users rather than via the banks means the banks dont hoard it and in fact it gets spent....so there is a better effect per $.

regards

John B and others. No one recently has argued that we are past peak oil in the ground from conventional and unconventional sources. There are plenty of debates about extraction estimates. But please understand, the informed investors are concerned about peak supply. Whatever new technology you can dream up takes a while before hitting the refinery. The lack of investment in new wells in recent years has made for a supply cap. It is a temporal issue, and if demand goes up all that oil in the ground will stay in the ground and prices will adjust to form an equilibrium.

@John B: The world may well be able to afford $100 in your estimation, you are wrong, you miss one major economic and one fundamental cost point...then there is engineering..for the third.

Major: at $80 a barrel that 4% of GDP, $90 a barrel is 5% GDP(?), at which point the USA's economy (at least) goes into recession (or it has every time in the past). So What you are saying is lets have a permanent recession....for the next 30 years or more.

Fundamental: The $90 a barrel is really money to buy energy in order to extract energy....oil has between a 15:1 to 30:1 extraction rate (circa 1900s it was 100:1), so for $90's worth of energy in you get $1350 out to do useful work...oil shale and tar sands is 1.1:1 or even worse....Limestone which Ive not seen commented on cant be any better...probably way worse. So limestone is probably in the order of $160 of energy in for $80 out, it makes no sense as a NET energy contributor....its just a costly converter.

Engineering: The plant at 15:1 has to be big for 85mbpd....I dont know what limestone's return is but its no where that good i bet, in fcat Im having difficulty finding information, got a URL(s)?...so the plant to do this has to be significantly bigger and its going to cost a significant amount of money to build it and worst of all time to do so.....

Nuclear: The idea is to produce a transportable energy....it actually probably makes more sense to use nuclear plant to charge electric car batteries, more efficient and far far less water use and environmental damage.

"Global discoveries peaked in 1964 ?" yes obvious you have not even read basic data isn't it...

"There's oil into the foreseeable future "“ it just will cost a little more." No there is not....indeed there will be oil, just the world wont be able to produce enough per day, the production rate will decline the demand wants to increase and in fact accelerate.... Little more? no, a whole lot more....and our modern economy needs oil at under $80 a barrel, when its already $80 today. So a little more on the present price, even $10 let alone $30 or $40 means a permanent recession...

@Rhys: That NYT piece is shockingly in-accurate...

"In truth, the combination of new discoveries and revisions to size estimates of older fields has been keeping pace with production for many years." this is laughable and untrue in the real world anyway. What has been happening is we have consumed 10% of oil every 4 years, yet the nationalised oil companies etc dont revise their figures down for consumption (even if you believe their total numbers, which are probably an invention) yet discoveries are not listed....so the info is highly questionable....try looking at Norway's data for some accurate well published information....and they are past peak oil as the no3 producer...

@Andy

Maybe this might help then.

There are other real resources you should be more concerned about other then oil. Peak oil is a red herring and there are other resources in the Earth's crust that we should have a more tangible concern, but only slightly.

Peak Drinking Water
Peak Prosperous
Peak Silicon (i.e. Moore's law limit)

You can make a more persuasive argument about these above resources peaks that are far scarier then oil. However, I'm not concern about these as well and nether are you. Why? Because to assume that the current state of technology is the last and final stage of development is a very unacquainted view point. That and the only reason people harp on the oil bandwagon s that it's the one commodity that we track the prices daily. Diary prices are still higher per volume then oil yet I never hear about peek dairy. If you were truly concern about the Earth you would start talking about Peak Prosperous. Until you do I can't take any of your argument seriously.

You boys gotta stop with the hissy fits over who is right and who is wrong. If the stuff is running out, you will soon find out and iffin it's not it's not.

@Troy: There are indeed lots of peaks happening....peak oil will be the biggest, but its effects roll onto other peak minerals, ie those minerals are now getting expensive in energy terms to mine....indeed if oil doubles they are no longer economic at that price, so the price has to rise to cover energy inputs. Take copper Wally is into it....copper is indeed getting scarce but is its increase in price due to increased scarcity or too high a demand or is the increased energy cost driving up copper's cost? or at what ratio...? This increase then feeds through to increased costs in finished products which are shipped using oil....its all inter-related and all compounding (or so it seems).

"Diary prices are still higher per volume then oil yet I never hear about pe[a]k dairy."

Your logic is mind bogglingly illogical...you dont have any grasp of the economics, engineering or geology...you cant do to make statements like this...

Dairy is in effect a renewable resource it comes from grass that uses the sun....oil and most minerals are effectively not (not on a annual or even human time scale anyway, want to hang around for a few 100 million years and the carbon may indeed by then be turned back into oil and can be re-used).

"Because to assume that the current state of technology is the last and final stage of development is a very unacquainted view point."

Again you miss the fundimentals, it takes time to do science, invent and in turn, turn science into production technology takes time. It then takes time to scale that technology to the size needed to replace oil. To build refineries takes years, about 5 for a big one...and that today is a known technology...so realistically we need 20 years or at least 10 to ramp up alternatives and huge investment in capital plant to do so...Peak crude oil is past 2005~2008 was it....to maybe 2014 condensates will make up some of that shortfall after that demand destruction will come again if its that long away. So unless you dont plan on living past the next year or to, you get to watch...

regards

The solution to the world's energy crisis ( if there is a " crisis " ) is Indian curry . That stuff has gotta be the biggest producer of natural gas in the known universe . A good lentil curry , and you're smoking , baby , ooooooooh yeah !

@Wally: the thing is if we do nothing we suffer far more hardship, if we build alternatives we may do OK....so "waiting" to see the outcome is a bad call....though personally Im pretty sure that's exactly what's happened and what will happen again with AGW...

regards

Didn't the Jehovah Witlesses predict the world to end in 1999 ? Two of them called by the other day , I asked why they are still here . God isn't ready just yet , apparently . Mrs God has him on jankers . So we'll pencil in 2012 tentatively , as the date for the demise of mankind . Perhaps another of those committees or commissions , that the Labour party love so much , can look into it ?

Now were also going to run out of uranium and then thorium !

We have enough for thousands of years consumption even using present technologies at around today's prices.

First - Reuse the existing waste in MOX reactors

Then - use re-processing like the French do - solves the waste and increases the burn.

Then go to breeder technologies - limitless fuel.

As to the argument it will take years for new technologies to produce oil - it took less than 10 years to go to the moon, less than 4 years to build an atomic bomb.

Humans are very resourceful when they have to be.

That's what differentiates us for the apes.

The US operates on a gas habit at $ 2.60 a gallon.
Italy operates quite happily on US $ 4 a liter.

Price increases of oil at the pump will simply modify behavior - which is why you see Fiat 500's in Italy and V10 Dodge pickups in the US - getting fewer.

Technology, innovation and markets are very powerful tools indeed.

most of the world wont be able to afford energy and food"¦

Prove that please Steven.

You have completely ignored innovation and technology - such as I have cited in my post above. There is already a very low cost fix to AGW via pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. If we can move to laissez faire and sound money we'll be able to 'again' lift huge numbers of people to the middle classes, and as is provable, middle class families choose of their own volition to restrict family size, so solving the population problem.

Whereas all Green solutions are backwardly aimed at limiting human activity, and by doing so truly will have us all back living in caves, producing 20 children families to compensate for the 18 that will die because we've ignored the power of our minds.

LOL Mark you must have decided to give us all a laugh today.

Take us through the construction of a hose that stretches into the atmosphere again. Simple things - such as the material science involved in the building thereof, the rigidity of the structure necessary to stretch tens of thousands of metres vertically etc.

And then tell us what S02 forms in combination with water vapour - which it would do in the upper atmosphere. I will give you a clue - its a rather nasty acid. And then tell us what you think will happen once the millions of tons of said acid will do once it falls back down to earth? Perhaps a tad deleterious to the old ecosystem you might think?

Are you a religous person Mark? I think you must be to have such faith in such complete and absolute baloney.

Your right Mark - you are no scientist.

I find it fascinating that the folk that really don't have a clue about science are the ones most vociferous that science and technology will dig us out of the hole that we are in.

The 'Superfreakonomics' chapter on global climate change has been fairly heavily debunked. A good place to begin is http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/why_everything_in_superfreakon.php as this entry has links to both media articles, and to the original peer-reviewed scientific papers which Leavitt and Co cherry-picked and misrepresented.

If you go further back in the scientific literature, many years ago it was hypothesised that the Southern Oceans could be seeded with iron in order to sequester CO2 and counteract global warming. See this paper for why this was found to be unworkable, and not as simple as it might initially appear, due to unintended consequences and side effects:

Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography
Volume 48, Issues 11-12, 2001, Pages 2425-2438
The Southern Ocean Iron Release Experiment (SOIREE)

Yes, Andy, that is a interesting observation. The neverending march of technological progress - fits so nicely with the other "hands off" ideology, you see!

Hang on Mark, if your asking me for solutions - by extension - you are actually admitting that there is actually a problem in the first place ie AGW?

Correct me if I am wrong - I thought you were of the opinion that AGW was just some vile leftish plot (I know, you think EVERYTHING is a vile leftish plot, but bare with me on this one, I am still scratching my head in disbelief).

My goodness we are making progress!

Ummmm , I'm not the brightest spark in the camp-fire , but without science and technology , we would be where ? Around the camp-fire , picking ticks off each others hairy backs ! Go science . .........Ticks taste like poo .

Osty : Right you are . American's distrust and disrespect Canadians , erroneously , in the same manner as the English do the Welsh / Irish / Scots . And in the same manner that the Ozzies denigrate those sheep-shaggers in the shakey isles . Sad !

LOL, Mark you had to cover your tracks damn quickly there matey.

Kate, for the record, your knowledge of Rand (and I am on sturdy ground on this one) sounds pretty close to nil.

Though I am no Randoid - albeit, one hell of an impressed with the lady - so don't try and talk me into that camp. She didn't get everything right, and her life did not always follow the philosophy: she was human, it couldn't be any other way. Even 'I' have made the odd mistake :)

Hi Mark. I didn't mean to imply what Rand's thoughts on this might be - I'm more pointing out from a Lyotard perspective, the notion of metanarratives. Both the march of technological progress and the absolute faith in market forces (i.e. "hands-off" government) are metanarratives (i.e. grand stories) in the postmodern sense.

Im living in my own little world here but this is an interesting article if you need a break

Friedrich von Hayek

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aOp8Vr9G13z4

Kate, Friedrich von Hayek pointed out in 1944 that, even then, there was almost no one who could remember a laissez faire (i.e. "hands-off" government). The great lie that has been advanced, especially in the last decade or so, is that we have had capitalism and free markets. On the contrary, we have been run by a collective of collectivists who - hitherto - have told us that our sole reason to exist is to consume (so they could derive artificial tax receipts with which to purchase votes). Where was their concern for the environment and resources???

Now, whilst engaging in literally lunatic stimulus (to try and get us consuming again) they tell us that we must stop consuming!!!

I suspect the real 'acid test' for the AGW brigade is what are they doing - and what are the AGW elites doing - in terms of personal abstention. Are they slashing their personal living standards, will they forgo flying and having a car? Will the AGW celebrities curtail their consumptive lifestyles. Nothing would be more powerful than seeing such people really 'practice what they preach'. Attending expensive conferences (paid for by taxpayers etc) and offering pieties does not impress me. Let them sell their mansions, buy a Fiat 500 (one of my favourite cars incidentally) abandon air travel, and make do with one suit of clothes and I will take serious notice - because they will have led by example. (Good gracious, was that a pig I just saw flying past my window?)

I'll tell you one thing...we've passed "peak 2009". In fact I predict supplies of 2009 will be exhausted within a couple of months. You should get your hands on as much 2009 as you can because pretty soon the price is going to skyrocket.

Kate, ever the pragmatist ready to decorate the cell, said I think Hayek's writings are superb, but have become of more historical, than practical present interest.

Yeah, because we're heading back toward the Gulag and the Police State now, because our controlled economies are concomitant with controlled peoples, so what use is a man who thought that what life is all about, is freedom. Right?

I keep hearing myself saying, only twenty years after the Berlin wall fell, and we've come to this.

Osty said of Andy, I can't resist telling you that you come across quite arrogant in this thread.

Yeah, you're arrogant Andy ;)

But then Osty blew it by going on to say, Try and remain open to other peoples opinions

Well no, I couldn't disagree more. Why remain 'open' to an opinion that is blatantly wrong? That's the type of idiot Liberal mind-set that endeavours to remain so open to every single viewpoint, that it actually believes in, and ends up standing for nothing, and thus the glorious (start the choir now please) potential of a humanist, individual centred, free Western culture, is being spinelessly given away to the putrid evil of a multicultural tyranny. And Kate, you have much more to lose in that than me (just by the way).

So Andy should not remain open to an opinion he knows and can prove to be wrong, he should fight it and attempt to strike it down. He just needs to recognise in this instance it is his own opinion that is wrong, and mine that is the right one - and always will be because it is founded on the freedom of each individual one of us.

Okay. On we go.

Churchill also said,

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something,sometime in your life".

Well, as it happens, I have a holiday home in the Mahau Sounds, Marlborough. Might take you up on it. Some nice beers around Marlborough and Nelson now.

And I'm going to steal that Churchchill quote AndrewJ.

"Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate".

Thomas Jones ((1892 - 1969)

(Could've been any Libertarian though.)

Mark, putting aside hand-waving and ideological rhetoric, how is it possible to be so certain about the future, given that you're extrapolating from so many unknown factors? For example, you say with certainty that there will be technological solutions, and that there will be plenty of time. How much time, precisely, is there before a) we are forced to adapt; and b) the magical engineering scienticians come up with solutions? That isn't science. That's prophecy. And about as valid as other forms of prophecy involving chicken guts or tarot cards. The fact is that you don't know. Nobody knows. Your certainty is an illusion.

Those who lack an understanding of the underlying science, and yet feel qualified to make pronouncements with far more certainty than any legitimate scientist would, should perhaps familiarise themselves with the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Paper here: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

Kate - I fear you may have overlooked an important paragraph from Professor Einstein. Seems to me he may have had the same fears as Hayek:

"Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured"?

The plain fact is that socialism requires coercion and coercion requires the effective deployment of violence - and the sort of people who are willing to deploy violence, against their own kith and kin, are hardly the sort of people committed to freedom. Orwell's Animal Farm (and the fate of Boxer the cart-horse) is probably the best commentary on this horribly misguided political folly.

Good post Malcolm.

You'd be much easier to take seriously if you skipped the transparent 'mock the name' ploy, and addressed something of substance. Ad hominem, quote mining and argument from authority (even if it's Ludwig von Mises) are logical fallacies and really don't count. No matter how much you'd like them to.

Malcolm - I can now quote you - only substituting the word 'capitalism' for your point about 'socialism';

"... capitalism requires coercion and coercion requires the effective deployment of violence "“ and the sort of people who are willing to deploy violence, against their own kith and kin, are hardly the sort of people committed to freedom."

And the reason I can so easily make that substitution is because neither as an ideology in pure form has come to pass - and therefore there are thus no example social systems which we can hold up as the ideal implementation of the respective theoretical/ideological platforms.

Einstein also said "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be" - which I interpret to mean ideological fixation is a total waste of time and energy. I don't 'believe' in black or white - I believe in black and white.

Ah, ad hominem again Get a grip - it really is a ridiculous tactic. Frankly, I don't think there is a simple solution, as these are extremely complex situations with many, many variables. I'm just asking how you are able to justify your level of certainty as to a technological solution. Scientists have been beavering away on a lot of problems, one example being the treatment of certain cancers and viral diseases, and despite all the commitment, motivation and support in the world, have not delivered. Someday they may. But the relevant word is 'may'. Equally they may not, and the timeframe cannot be predicted. Anybody predicting the future with your apparent level of certainty is taking a leap which isn't supported by the available data.

In the von Mises quote a doubling in population is treated as a good thing. In the 19th century it possibly was, for many. What is your intention with this quote? Are you wanting to convey that capitalism is always good, that population increase is always good, or both? Whichever it is, I'd question the validity of saying that what's good for the 19th century is necessarily good for the 21st. Things are different now. You might also like to do some reading on the r/K continuum in ecology and the relevance of 'carrying capacity', the point at which a population becomes unsustainable, and exponential growth can no longer be supported.

I wasn't saying increasing population was good, Birdman.

Now, give me your solutions?

(Although given the illogical way you have tried to twist the Mises quotation, which shows a dearth of understanding about what socialism actually is, I am a bit worried by what they might be.)

Where exactly does socialism fit in the scenario of the industrial revolution in the period 1830 to 1760? No socialist society there. Are you trying to tell me that the Atlee government travelled back in time and threw clogs in the spinning jenny?

ETA: Unless your socialism comment was meant to be directed at Kate? That would make much more sense.

Returning to the Mises quote, if I'm not supposed to conclude that capitalism=population growth=YAY! then just what am I supposed to conclude from it? And I'd love to hear your thoughts on the r/K continuum as it applies to carrying capacity and population growth, especially in conjunction with what powerdownkiwi has already supplied regarding the finite nature of energy supplies.

As Mark suggests - the idea that capitalism requires coercion is insane because it reposes upon a system of willing exchange. Yet Kates's comments do us a huge service, in revealing how completely the socialist has draped his tracks in the thinest veneer of capitalism. Thus, as he helps himself to huge bailouts from the taxpayer - lien upon lien on current and future generations - he can blame capitalism and thus entrench, still further, his potential for even more obscene largesse in the future.

This is the difference! When the 'hype-paid' bankers of London and Wall Street get into trouble it is that tiny band of capitalists who say "let them go bust". "No say the socialists"! "We would sooner those struggling to get by on a modest income, struggling to pay the mortgage and feed the kids, are ruined than see the bankers suffer". As Orwell noted in Animal Farm "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

As regards the growth of population during the period described by Mises I think you will find this has to do with huge advances in things like sanitation. Thomas Crapper (or was it his apprentice?) did far more for Joe Public than the socialist ever did. Interestingly, there were later concerns over population levels and this exercised the mind of General Booth (founder of the Salvation Army) in his fascinating book "In Darkest England & the Way Out". Of course there were significant problems, but Churchill described the subsequent Victorian Era (really the high point of laissez faire) as "the Antonine Age" and it was a time of substantial European peace, individual liberty, and prosperity (from a low base).

In conclusion, do I detect another socialist hypocrisy - over Britain's population. Fascinating isn't it how a natural sharp increase in the 'indigenous population' 200 years ago is such a concern. Consequently, I invite them then to condemn the current FLABBERGASTING levels of immigration currently being imposed by Gordon Brown et al which threaten to drive the nation's population over 70,000,000. Never mind, huge numbers can apparently be accommodated along places like the Thames Corridor that - youve guessed it Mark - apparently face being washed away by global warming.

How's this...

"The Parliamentary Inquiry into Banking has found that New Zealand does not have a competitive banking sector. This lack of competition has cost their customers up to $2 billion of additional interest rate expenses," said Dr Norman."

http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/bank-and-tax-systems-due-overhaul

anyone feeling a little ripped?

Re- yesterday's discussion on NZ oil fields - another update:

----The Maari oil field and its adjacent Manaia field in offshore Taranaki has been confirmed as containing over 100 million barrels of recoverable oil.

This is twice as much as the 50 million barrels originally estimated for the main Moki sands reservoir at Maari.

This makes the OMV-operated Maari field much the largest crude oil field to be found in New Zealand and twice the original 50 million barrels found at the Tui fields.------

Good for the terms of trade (at least in the short term), effectively 2 years worth of consumption - though it will be spread over 10 years plus.

Chilean stock indices ABOVE pre-recession high ! Gold above $US 1100 . Timmy Geithner wants a strong $US , did he wink when he said that ? Retail sales up . House prices on the move . Fonterrible pay-out to $ 6 + /kg milk solids . More green shoots than a vegan's buffett table . Am I dreaming ? .........Is it after midnight .............Hmmmmmmmm , gummy bear beddy byes here I come .

I reckon Bill E and John K spent the night trying to get Nana out of their earholes. If they failed....Nana was sure to get through to the fat and be lodged there for good.

Help Wally out here....is he right in seeing future govt debt liabililities reaching at least 40 billion....private household debt close to 200 billion and climbing....and some sort of friggin carbon debt reaching 18 billion (per year) by 2020..???...is Wally going nuts or what?

Can't we jump to another head and keep sucking? How can govt spin solve a debt crisis of that magnitude. We know the fools think they can get by on doing nothing else!

http://www.321gold.com/editorials/field/field111109.html

A great article, and a welcome antidote to all 'misery guts' posters who always think that the end is nigh!

Ahhh Zimbabwe........'Derbyshire in the sun' as my Dad used to describe it.

LOL amazing - we lived in Zambia 1968-1972 (Dad was with Roan Consolidated Copper - ask me anything you like about copper Wally, LOL). Used to travel down to Zim on a very regular basis. The Derbyshire comment came about because Dad thought the rock formations in Zim (particularly around places like Leopard's Rock) reminded him of the Peak District.

Always thought Zim had the potential to be the economic shining star of Africa. Good farmland, reasonable minerals and good human resources. Ruined by Mugabe - let's hope Morgan can keep on the straight and narrow (he should have got the Noble Peace Prize).

@ Mark, Troy, John B, .. I see you guys are getting confused about the difference between Peak Oil production, and oil depletion. The two are obviously related, but you shouldn't get confused between them.

Let me give a simple example to help explain it to you..

Say you have an oil field in your garden. You dig a hole down to the oil with your spade, throw in a electric pump and start "producing" your well. Your 1 litre/sec pump can pump 1 litre of oil per second at maximum flow rates.

So if your lucky enough to have hit a good spot of very liquid/thin oil you can probably get 1litre/ sec out. Are you at Peak Oil ??

The answer is actually yes.. because you only have 1 pump. You can pump at 1 litre per second until you've sucked the spot dry under your pump. But unless you buy another pump, your at Peak Oil. But your garden is still full of oil, you haven't run out, you just can't pump any more.

So, obvioulsy you could buy all the pumps available, and increase production and suck all the easy to get oil out of your garden.

But here's a couple of things about oil.

1. Every field has a flow rate. If you pump too fast you strand the oil, so you have to pump at the fields flow rate, not at what your pumps can do.
2. The pressure in the feild declines the more you pump out. At some point the field stops flowing, and you need to inject water or nitrogen to increase pressure again.
3. Oil is graded in terms of quality and viscosity. The thicker the oil, the slower it flows. The best quality oil is always extracted first.
4. You have to transport it out and refine it to make it usable.

I hope you get the point, Peak Oil is about:
1. The number of physical wells you have producing around the globe.
2. The geology of the fields .. flow rates / quality.
3. Feild pressure .. and remaining reserves.
4. Transporting it away from teh fields, and to the refinery.
5. Refining the stuff. Not all oil is equal, neither is refining the stuff.
6. ERoEI. When it takes more energy than it produces, it isn't worth it.

Peak Oil is not just about running out of the stuff.

You have totally missed the point I have been trying to make.

Future oil won't come from traditional wells,
it will be converted from stranded gas, limestone with nukes, tar sands, shale, coal.

As prices rise more of these technologies will become economic.

Peak oil is a total nonsensical concept.

There will always be all the oil we need - it just won't come cheap from a well !

Dollar.. supply in the context you use is referred too as "production". But yes your right, Peak Oil is a concept about our ability to supply or produce oil and supply it to market.

John, understand your point completely .. but taking some future hydrocarbon source is available and could be extracted, converted (by the methods you mention) and refined, it is of a lower quality and would be at a lower global production rate. i.e the Peak of production was at the point when the easy to extract oil was depleted. Get it?

Latest report out has the sea levels rising by up to 1.5 metres over the next 90 years! That'll make life interesting along much of the NZ coastline. And all those rivers up which the tides run. Anyone want to buy a beach plot?

Jeez Malcolm you're a born agent. Right about CHCH...most of it will be under water. Maybe C. Cook will be proven correct afterall and we will have us a Bank's Island. That'll up the value of all the stuff on the 'island' . The time to buy is NOW.