Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

haggis

Members
  • Content Count

    190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About haggis

  • Rank
    HPC Poster

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • About Me
    Master of the eplipsis...
  1. Take your peculiar loathing for the lady in question out of the picture and have a look at those bins blocking the sidewalk. Whether you're a renter or rentier, homeowner or passerby, that is one butt ugly streetscape thanks to a parade of garbage containers. I don't much like the cars either... One of the things in life I enjoy most is a stroll down a pleasant streetscape. I'm kind of shocked anyone thinks these things are actually acceptable?
  2. She's right - they're ugly and unnecessary blights on the urban landscape. I can't believe there are comments that laud these abominations purely because of schadenfreude. Forget your agenda, the public realm deserves to be treated with more care. That's the part of urban living we all have to deal with and quite frankly, some half-wit bureaucrat in the waste or accounting department is the last person I want making aesthetic decisions regarding the the streetscape of towns and cities.
  3. Keep in mind that everything the Wilsons have done is legal. Also, every city bonus underwritten by taxpayer funds was likewise legal. As were all the Enron shenanigans till they weren't. None were ethical. What you have to ask yourself when entering any business transaction, is simply, 'Am I trustworthy, or am I a c..t'? I choose the former, and if it costs a bit more I don't give a d.mn. Because in the long run it is far more worthwhile to be trustworthy. I am relentless during negotiations but once the deal is struck, I'll stick by my word. Gazundering and gazumping are both shit.Ty practice.
  4. Goofball money may be as good as some BTL's money but quite frankly you're there to negotiate not preach. No one ever cut a better deal for themselves by antagonizing everyone sitting across the table from them. As I said we keep negotiations short, sharp and to the point. Leaving an offer on the table for a fortnight is counterproductive. And you can line up financing prior to making an offer. And you should be very quick to walk away if things don't go your way - it's your money after all.
  5. Well, as the poster who has singe-handedly refuted every post on this thread you've presented yourself as something of a pundit regarding the debate. That makes it perfectly legitimate to point out some egregious failings in the veracity of your facts and your maths. That being said, it doesn't invalidate your knowledge of everything by any stretch. But you'll have to accept that we're not going to take your word at face value. That's just the price you pay for being adamant and sloppy. I think your core arguments have been pretty convincingly dissembled by myself and others. Some of the items above are axiomatic - of course population will peak and probably decrease. Of course efficiency and conservation will improve. Of course there are alternative energies. That isn't the point however - energy will get more expensive and that will hurt the economy. Much of what we take for granted as the modern lifestyle is premised upon virtually free energy. You seem to think that only the marginal societies (3rd world) get stuffed whilst we carry on happily - well, the reality is that many of the energy margins in question exist within our own societies. In certain areas (like the US southwest commuter cities) we're likely to see the economic collapse of large conurbations as the cost of energy prices the commuter lifestyle out of existence.
  6. That would be great if your maths were correct. Exponential requires one of these ^, whereas the actual formula is EROEI = Usable Energy / Energy Expended. When EROEI gets low enough the demand side created by the amount of energy required to liberate energy creates its own substantial drag. EROEI formulas fail to account for downstream expenses like refineries, offshore platforms etc. are neither cheap nor quick to construct (if you can even get the environmental approvals). It also fails to fully account for exploration, development, shipping, profits, massive CEO salaries, marketing & research etc. So a net gain is chipped away quite substantially by the efforts to secure further reserves and market the stuff you've actually produced. We've used the easy 100 X stuff and are now into the sub-10 X stuff in under a 100 years. So we have a clear matrix of declining EROEI, static reserves, and increasing demand. You've managed to understate the population of Canada by about 35% (its over 30 m rather than 20 m), overstate the production of automobiles by 45% (you say 80 m reality says less), and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of maths via your comments on exponential growth above. Quite frankly, your fact checking and maths are dubious so why should any of us take anything you're asserting at face value?
  7. Actually it's maths grounded in current production technology and known reserves. As far as the Canadian tar sands are concerned the natural gas peak was around 2000. However, you miss the larger point which is that in order to process 3.6 trillion barrels of goop we'll run out of cheap energy somewhere along the way. To assume it's 3.6 trillion barrels of cheaply and easily accessed energy is fallacious. No one denies that technology will improve extraction process efficiency. However, there is an undeniable deteriorating trend in the EROEI for all types of energy production - crude used to be 100 X in the days of pretty much no technology and the Saudi can now only manage 10 X EROEI. Why is that? Well, it's because the cheap and easy to get stuff is gone. For the obvious reason that it was easy to get at and cheap. That's great news. But the facts are that the world is still using 85 million barrels per day. And demand (though not refining capacity) is growing. As stated, energy could be had at 100 X EROEI about a century ago versus less than 10 X now. A smart person would connect the dots - it will probably get more expensive to create energy to fuel modern economies. Which will act as a drag on those economies and hinder development in the third world. Nothing beats fossil fuels - they do what a lot of other energy forms can do plus a whole worrying host of things that alternative energy can't do. I've yet to see any practicable alternative to jet fuel. Modern farming and it's commensurate high yields require carbon based fertilizers etc. Plastics anyone? I actually think we'll never run out of fossilized energy per se, I just think that the stuff will become so damned expensive it'll be used like platinum and titanium. They sure won't be pumping it into SUV's so people can drive to shopping malls.
  8. Tar Sands aren't much of a straw to grasp at due to the high EROEI to create energy coupled with the massive environmental destruction. At first glance it seems that the prospect of 3.6 trillion barrels of tar sand reserves dwarfs the 1.75 trillion barrels of conventional oil reserves. But tar sands currently have an EROEI of about 5.5 X whilst Saudi oil is about 10 X. As fields get depleted the EROEI creeps up until basically it ain't worth getting it out of the ground from an energy perspective. So, in reality the tar sand reserves are similar to oil fields in the amount of energy they can theoretically produce at current production energy inputs. However, in Canada they use natural gas to process the tar sands - but natural gas production peaked a few years ago. Alternatively, they can use the bitumen to process the tar sands in which case the EROEI falls to about 3 X. Let's say that the tar sands can be processed with natural gas and bitumens for an average EROEI of 4.25 X. And we'll ignore the huge inputs of water required and the vast environmental cost. The reality is that the imputed reserves are less than world oil reserves when you the consider the actual energy available for use. EROEI Oil Reserves - best case scenario is about 10 X in Saudi but the average is dropping as fields get depleted, and is far less in hard to access fields such as offshore. Tar Sands - best case scenario is about 5.5 X but in reality is about 4.25 X When you consider that at the turn of the 20th century energy was available at about 100 X EROEI and look at prospects going forward it's pretty conclusive that we've passed Peak Cheap Energy. Whether we've passed a theoretical Peak Oil is moot if the damned stuff is locked in the ground and too energy intensive to process for human use. The notion that scientists will magick up free energy for everyone is nonsense. Nothing beats the 100 X oil that fueled the economic boom of the past century. It was a one-off, never to be repeated, boon to development. No matter how clever the science, the basic metrics are that cheap energy is a thing of the past. Which is going to hugely impact the growth of economies.
  9. Agent wants to sell to a colleague for 25% BMV - so he solicits bids 30% BMW from you. He then sells to colleague at 25% BMV, and if challenged he can dust off your bid and say hand on heart that he got the multiple offers and selected the best offer for the Vendor. Agent makes double commission and split of the profits when property developed or sold at market value.
  10. The Lost Generation??? What fu_king planet are you from? If you want grief I suggest you pick up a book. My grand-dad lost his only two brothers to a high explosive shell which left nothing but a red mist. My great uncle was cooked in a tank in Italy with all his crew. We - the entire post-war generation - are the most molly coddled, wrapped up in good feeling, spoiled crop of humans who have walked the earth.
  11. Yes. In the depression hundreds of banks went under along with the depositors savings. This led to the formation of the FDIC to insure bank deposits.
  12. Comments from a junior minister do nothing to establish Browns culpability in the creation of this sorry mess. They do, however, shine a bright light on the hypocephalic qualities of elected officialdom. Brown deserves a kicking for many things, but it seems axiomatic that a global credit bubble and housing boom were the result of larger dynamics than Brown. His 'stewardship' of the economy was incompetent and his subsequent efforts to manage the crisis will only serve to deepen and prolong the problem. That's what he deserves a kicking for.
  13. What's the difference between a circus and Lehmans? A circus has a cunning array of stunts. Lehmans had a stunning array of ....
  14. Now is a good time to hit your thumb with a framing hammer...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.