free html hit counter Peak Oil Debunked: 292. MATT SIMMONS: NO NEED TO FEAR A RECESSION

Friday, April 21, 2006


Bad news, doomtroop. Now, even Matt Simmons is talking like POD. He says Ghawar and Burgan are screwed, and we're in for shortages, but there's no need to fear a recession, let alone a depression.

Read it and weep:
In Limerick yesterday, an industry expert warned there may be further crude price rises on the way.

Speaking at a conference in the University of Limerick yesterday, Mathew Simmons, an investment banker and expert on global oil reserves, warned that production from giant oil fields in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states may already have peaked, meaning imminent oil shortages.


Mr Simmons said, however, that there was no need to fear a recession.

He pointed out that higher oil prices meant more revenue for producing countries, which in turn would help to fuel global growth.

To prove the point, the International Monetary Fund yesterday raised its forecast for global economic growth this year to 4.9pc, the best since 1976.Source
-- by JD


At Friday, April 21, 2006 at 10:44:00 AM PDT, Blogger nick said...

While a recession is not a required symptom of PO, it most likely will be, IMO, due to political forces. But that's beside the point.

While a world wide recession most likely won't happen, that doesn't mean that one won't happen in the US. He cited the fact that producing nations will have even more money (producing does little unless you export, so exporting nations is more accurate). Is the US an exporter? Nope. In fact, higher prices will cause even more money to be drained from our economy, that's less and less money with which to implement needed programs such as mass transit, geothermal, wind, etc. Russia is going to be making so much money in the next few years off of oil that they probably won't have too hard of a time keeping themselves out of a recession and bringing their economy to a spending society to replace ours (and thus keep the 'world' economy).

"No need to fear a recession (if you make billions already off of oil)" is more like it.

At Friday, April 21, 2006 at 3:38:00 PM PDT, Blogger Override367 said...

We don't export oil, but the U.S. is the #1 exporter in the world of goods and services, things that developing countries are buying ALOT of as they export their oil.

At Friday, April 21, 2006 at 4:13:00 PM PDT, Blogger nick said...

Point well taken.

At Friday, April 21, 2006 at 4:46:00 PM PDT, Blogger DC said...

Right on, override. Globalization has removed much of the zero-sum paradigm of international trade. In an open, liberalized global economy, investments in one country can feedback to another country. I imagine this feedback can be especially strong for economies that churn out high value-added goods that can be easily transported across borders (i.e. microchips and consulting services vs. grain).

Along these lines, I'd like to plug Haussman's work on Economic Dark Matter:

I'm not sold just yet, but given that I think conventional macroeconomic thinking has failed in the current economic environment, I am a fan of the scholars pushing the envelope.

At Saturday, April 22, 2006 at 4:22:00 AM PDT, Blogger philipmartin said...

I can't exactly remember but I'm sure Matt Simmons made these points at last year's Peak Oil UK conference.

At Saturday, April 22, 2006 at 4:58:00 AM PDT, Blogger Dom said...

Now that Mr. Simmons is saying something "rational", he's to be listened to?

Two things I see: Rising oil prices should drive on the world economy. This is the gist of what Andrew McKillop has been saying for years: Rising oil prices stokes the world economy which then drives up oil and other energy consumption. So far so good.

McKillop is, however, a very convinced peak oiler, if not doomer. Why? Because he also sees that it's not a matter of price. Circulating money makes goods move. But what happens when there are less goods to move?
More money and less goods = hyperinflation (in the extreme.) I've hardly met anyone who recognizes this connection - although I spend too little time on the boards. "Tight Oil" is good for the economy. "Peak Oil", at least after the first wave of conservation has past, is something we've never experienced.

I doubt it will be good for the economy. I doubt it will be "stone age", like Simmons has said before, but it will certainly be an incredibly stony path.

At Saturday, April 22, 2006 at 6:48:00 AM PDT, Blogger russ said...


This is off topic but how many hybrids are on the road in Japan?


At Saturday, April 22, 2006 at 7:11:00 AM PDT, Blogger summerhome=wintersquat said...


It looks like your backing off from the very name of this site: debunking the theory that peakoil is near, and instead are just throwing boogers at the usually right wing cynics and green apocalypse opitimists.

The other day I noticed that a veggie delite at Subway is $2.50- the same price it was in June of 2001, even though a price for a barrel is now about twice as much. And if gas prices ever go high enough to pinch the suburban lifestyle, there are all sorts of responses. I have a feeling the Americans will do what they know best: imperialist war, coal, nuclear power, drilling Yellowstone. Rest assured, the biological holocaust will continue.


At Saturday, April 22, 2006 at 9:25:00 AM PDT, Blogger Paul Ramsey said...

Mario, be careful about showing too much concern for the non-human natural world, or JD will call you a traitor to the species, and muse on your potential plans for mass human extermination. Remember, in the immortal words of JD, "the earth is a rock", so nothing we do to it really matters, as long as the human cargo remains in good shape.

At Sunday, April 23, 2006 at 2:53:00 AM PDT, Blogger DC said...

Rest assured, the biological holocaust will continue.

I hope so because I have a mighty tasty recipe for braised Komono Dragon that I've been dying to try. ;-)

Glib? Perhaps, but well within the context of any banter including the above garbage.

At Sunday, April 23, 2006 at 3:19:00 AM PDT, Blogger JD said...

Mario, be careful about showing too much concern for the non-human natural world, or JD will call you a traitor to the species, and muse on your potential plans for mass human extermination.

Paul, that's overstating it a little. If you're referring to our earlier exchange, I did not accuse you of having a plan for human extermination. I accused you of being mixed up and conflicted, like a German before WWII saying: "Well, of course we shouldn't kill the jews, but it is very true that Germany would be better off with them all dead."

I said that in response to your comment that "The Earth *would* be better off with 90% of the human population dead."

At Sunday, April 23, 2006 at 3:45:00 AM PDT, Blogger JD said...

P.S. to Paul:
You are right that I am not an environmentalist, and am hostile towards environmentalists in many ways. You are, however, glossing over the points we have in common.

While our goals may differ, I am very much in favor of walking lightly on the earth. When the U.S. congress was trying to sneak through ANWR drilling during the holidays, I made a very vocal stink about it right here on this blog. Which is more than I can say for the fartmobile driving "environmentalists" in the peak oil community.

So I don't think it's quite right to peg me as having no concern for the environment.

At Monday, April 24, 2006 at 2:50:00 AM PDT, Blogger Alex said...

I suspect we may have passed Peak Simmons. Since his book last year, he's roared through a lot of progressively wilder predictions especially in the post-KatRita panic, been wrong, and he now seems to think he's right about the oil but the economy's gonna be OK - which makes no sense at all.

Wasn't it actually Matt Savinar (of all people) who suggested the reason why so many peak gurus are retired is that it's a psychological projection of their own mortality?

At Monday, April 24, 2006 at 8:16:00 AM PDT, Blogger Override367 said...

What I don't get is why the peak oilers don't just move to Canada. The theory is that the US is going to collapse *before* peak oil, because other countries will pull out of it, meaning our government will implode and we won't be a serious threat to anyone (except for our nukes). However Canada is already selling refined tar sands to China, and will continue to be able to provide it's own domestic need for oil for over a century - so why not move to Canada?

Seems like they'll weather peak oil just fine in Alberta, after all the US cant really go to war with them for their oil if our entire country has collapsed now can we? China might even build them some nuclear reactors to better process the *massive* amount of tar sand up there.

At Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 7:03:00 PM PDT, Blogger Phillip said...

oh jesus JD - don't you know that the oil shocks of the 1970s and early 80 lead to global economic stagnation and recession -for god's sake learn your histroy boy.

At Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 12:33:00 PM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, Matt Simmons was WAY off. No chance of a recession. Maybe you need to go and read his book after all.

At Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at 7:05:00 PM PDT, Blogger Theo_musher said...

The recession is caused by peak oil? Really anonymous?


Post a Comment

<< Home