Talk:Export Land Model

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Added some detail explaining Export Land in the context of global Peak Oil. This article could do with some graphs showing GDP, production and consumption for example countries such as UK, KSA and US TobyK 13:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


1[edit]

This theory assumes that the buying power of the exporting country keeps constant over time. Il a real world, the price of any commodity that goes scarce, as shown in the graph, will go up. The number of customers, in the producing country, who can buy at the new, higher price, will go down, not up.

If the buying power of customers in importing countries was very superior at the beginning of the curve, it will lose some advantage, but not all of it : exterior buyers will raise the price to the point where the producing country cannot afford the commodity it is producing.

This is currently the case for gems : many developing countries (like Myanmar or Madagascar) are producing gems, and you do not see their nationals walk in the streets with jewellery : it is totally exported to countries where buyers can afford them.

It is currently (2007) the case for natural gas : some producing countries, like Argentina, are forced to subsidize this commodity, because its price is climbing faster than the buying power of the poorer population.

As a summary, if the buying power differential is important at the beginning of the price crisis, the poorer producing country will have to cut down its consumption faster than the richer importing countries.

So, I propose to add the following paragraph.

General case[edit]

The case drawn above applies only when the buying powers of the importing and exporting countries remain the same throughout the crisis ; it is generally not the case. In a shortage crisis, the commodity price will likely go up ; fewer customers will be able to afford it in both countries. If the importing country is poor, its buying power will go down faster, and it will have to cut down its consumption faster. If the importing country is richer, it will loose less customers, and the exporting country will have to cut down its own consumption faster, in spite of the fact that the commodity is produced on its soil.

The "accelerating effect" described above will then apply to the poorer countries, with a corresponding "dampening effect" to the benefit of the richer countries. Both effects are in action right now (2007) as oil price is going up.

Thanks for your comments.

Additional comment : the link below shows the ratio Price of gasoline/daily GDP for a number of countries, producers and consumers together. You can see that producers and importers are all mixed up ; you also can guess that the countries on top of the chart will have to cut their consumption faster than the countries at the bottom.--Environnement2100 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC) http://thaicrisis.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/gasvsdailygdp.png[reply]

Comment: You're trying to apply the laws of supply and demand, but you're not taking into account that the world is not one big free market - sovereignty and survival trumps the free exchange of goods quite often. Gems are a nonessential good - the utility of little green bits of paper is vastly greater than a few gemstones. An oil-less society at present is so much of a hardship it's unthinkable for a leader to suggest not consuming any in favor of little green bits of paper. In the third world, we have riots in reasonably rich countries that are having to scale back their consumption by removing subsidies, and we have riots in poor countries that no longer have the money to import as much oil (urban poor who depend on oil-powered powergrids are particularly susceptible). The producing country will always be able to afford the goods it is producing, if it feels greater need to consume them rather than export them, and this need is expressed somehow in the leadership of the country. 69.140.102.62 (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No references ?[edit]

Not wanting to rain on the parade, but in this entry :

  • there are no sources
  • all references are from blogs.
  • some blogs referring to the others.

Anyone available to improve all that ?--Environnement2100 (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I googled Export Land Model, and found an NY Times article on it, a CNBC story on it, and an ASPO presentation on it. I've added those urls in the Links section. Hope that helps. NJGW (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Callahan (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Opposite example" section original research?[edit]

Environnement2100, I wanted to delete your section because it is original research, but instead I inserted information that seeks to explain the numbers you cited. There remain many questions, such as how reliable the information from the Chinese government is, the percentage of production gain over the same period, the relative growth (or decline) of Chinese domestic demand compared to domestic oil production, what exactly is ment by "oil products" in the article you cite... to name a few.

You have a bad habit of not paying attention to what others are saying, and you also make sweeping reverts without even reading what was changed (such as the gramatical changes I made to your poorly written edit). You also seem to have an agenda against this theory, as shown by your previous posts on this talk page. Please try to be objective and look at the sources more closely. NJGW (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NJGW, this is per WP:NPOV.--Environnement2100 (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly "is per WP:NPOV"? You'll have to be more specific and address the statements I've made above. NJGW (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. Stating "WP:NPOV" is insufficient. I'm glad you guys came here to talk things over. However, you need to be more careful of the rules against edit warring. Both of you have made too many reversions that you know the other is going to disagree with. I'm guessing that this edit is the one you're talking about? Environnement2100, What's NPOV about that edit? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI both, I do not seem to have used the word "improvable", but it does describe the state of this entry, which I confirm provides the POV of his/their author, and is unable to provide any opposite POV. Hence my intervention. I confirm this is a WP:NPOV problem, which NJGW is turning into an edit war (quote :"I wanted to delete your section"), for a reason he/she might care to expose ; NJGW already proved he is favorable to edit wars instead of consensus. I added a short enough sentence providing the opposite POV, including the corresponding source ; it stands in a separate paragraph quite cleanly. Please note the original paragraph is as follows, and let me know what you do not like with it :

== Opposite examples == This model is negated by recent evolutions consecutive to the high barrel price : in the first 10 months of 2007, China's oil products imports actually declined 8.9 percent from the same period of the previous year ; in the same period, exports were up 30.4 percent[1].

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Environnement2100 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to your questions and accusations are all very clearly laid out above. The article is about an economic theory (vetted by the economic industry and accurately predictive of real economies), not someone's opinion. The reference you provide does not discuss the topic because the phenomenon you point out is subject to many variables (some of which are laid out above) which are not addressed by the reference you provide. Therefore your conclusion that it is an "opposite example" is original research, and technically should be deleted. Instead of starting an edit war, I thought I'd add a sentence that clarified the actual situation, and explain my position here. Not exactly sure how that constitutes an edit war, though your undoing of my gramatical and prose corrections along with my addition as "irrelevant" was an odd move. By the way, by "improvable", do you mean "could be made better" or "not provable"? NJGW (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Environment2100 - you have also misread your sources. They do not say what you think they say. For a better description, try this page: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/12/content_7410289.htm China continued its trend of rapidly rising oil imports, while reducing its imports of finished oil products. Evidently, they increased the size of their domestic refinery industry , instead of relying on overseas ones. As such, I'm removing your section - something I would have considered even without that link (it's sniping, anecdotal, original research, and it doesn't attempt to disprove any general economic models, for reasons stated above). Lesqual (talk) (04:30, 13 March 2008)

References

  1. ^ China imports less, exports more oil products on price hikes worldwide

Subsidized prices[edit]

"This theory assumes that the buying power of the exporting country keeps constant over time. Il a real world, the price of any commodity that goes scarce, as shown in the graph, will go up. The number of customers, in the producing country, who can buy at the new, higher price, will go down, not up." That would be true if the market law was applied, but it's not always the case. Most exporting countries sell fuel in inner markets well below market price, and do not reflet the rise in worldwide crude oil price, to buy social peace. --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an embedded assumption that the subsidies can be maintained in the face of reduced export income. It very much depends on how much of the government budget is funded by oil exports. There's a heavy political component to what's actually going to happen. TMLutas (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadend[edit]

I've tagged the article with deadend, because there are only two links within the actual artice (so not including catagories or other stuff at the very bottom). --nappymonster (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need this paragraph?[edit]

Do we need this?

Analyst Jeff Vail, in an April 2007 posting on his Energy Intelligence blog, titled Five Geopolitical Feedback-Loops In Peak Oil, explained the Export Land Model concisely thus:

“Export-Land” Model: Jeffrey Brown, a commentator at The Oil Drum, has proposed a geopolitical feedback loop that he calls the “export-land” model. In a regime of high or rising prices, a state’s existing oil exports brings in great revenues, which trickles into the state’s economy, and leads to increasing domestic oil consumption. This is exactly what is happening in most oil exporting states. The result, however, is that growth in domestic consumption reduces oil available for export. In states, such as Mexico, where oil production is also in decline, the “export-land” model predicts that oil exports will decline much faster than oil production—and this is exactly what is happening, with the latest PEMEX report showing 5% production decline year-on-year, but 11% export decline. Ultimately, the effects of the “export-land” model itself suffers from diminishing marginal returns—when exports shrink sufficiently, the oil-export revenue per capita will actually begin to decline (eventually reaching zero, no matter how fast prices rise), at which time the force behind rising domestic consumption will be eliminated.

-NJGW (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this particular quote is perhaps the best verbiage I've seen describing what ELM is about. 64.38.167.71 (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to sections and new gallery[edit]

I have just made some major modifications to include graphics that use data from the 2008 BP Statistical Review to show how it applies to real countries. I've done my best to improve the appearance but am relatively new to the wikipedia community.

I've also refrained from including in-article references to the on-line tool I used to make the images: mazamascience.com/OilExport/. I don't want to seem like I'm just tooting my own horn. But I do believe that the "Energy Export Databrowser" I've set up at the previous URL makes it very easy for folks to convince themselves of the validity of the ELM and which countries it applies to. -user:Jonathan Callahan

Great job Jonathan, it looks good. I went ahead and removed the maps from each of the graphs so they're easier on the eyes (don't need a world map repeated 6 times in the same space). I'm still trying to play around with where all the graphics and table should go to make this article look best. Feel free to join in. NJGW (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real-world Non-Examples[edit]

Uhm, I gotta say that this section is of questionable value. You could say any place is a non-example if it doesn't fit the criteria of the model. Maybe talking about why they don't fit the model (using refs that are discussing this very issue) is interesting, but it would make lots more sense to me to limit the page to a description of the model and examples. NJGW (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this need further discussion, but for now i add a sentence saying that these countries don't subsidised local oil price, unlike most oil exporters. --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally added this section because several people -- including those who came up with the Export Land Model -- keep referring to the UK as a stellar example of ELM. Perhaps this page is not the place to rebut this claim. I'll admit that it seems kind of odd on this page if you haven't read those pages that talk about the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.167.71 (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norway and UK are developped countries, with relatively high per capita oil consumption for a long time (since even before they found oil) and flat population. It's it what make their case different from the "export lands", very simply? --193.252.49.20 (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Oil Exports Model[edit]

Recommend adding this section that takes the "Export Land Model" and applies it to the whole world, as follows:

Summing the individual country Export Land Models gives a global World Oil Exports model. Assoc. Prof. Kyle Saunders, (a.k.a. "Prof. Goose" at The Oil Drum) posted comprehensive projection of World Oil Exports developed by "lads" based on national production and consumption parameters.("World Oil Exports: A Comprehensive Projection". The Oil Drum. October 10, 2006 - 10:13am. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help))

This preliminary model did not account for some 20% of global oil. Luís de Sousa, is updating this World Oil Export model based on a systematic projection for each country. ("World Oil Exports [00] Introduction". The Oil Drum : Europe. June 27, 2008 - 9:55am. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |Author= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)) See de Sousa's World Oil Exports of 2008

Please fix links etc as needed.DLH (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is covered in the second paragraph of the lead. The only problems with expanding this article to include the above refs is that they have not been shown by 3rd party reviewers to be reliable sources. I'll add them to the external links section as that seems appropriate. NJGW (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oil consumption v oil products consumption[edit]

I believe that actual oil consumption in Iran is largely stagnant and has been since the 1980s when we started to embargo Iran's oil and gas refining sector. Oil products such as gasoline have rising consumption levels and for that commodity Iran has been a major importer for many years. There's some significant glossing over regarding what's actually happening. crude oil does not equal refined petroleum products. It's very unclear how that's being converted. TMLutas (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links content to be put into article prose?[edit]

To add to article[edit]

To add to this article: an explanation of exactly what the word "land" means in the context of the term "Export Land Model." This is not clear at all in the current version of the article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Export_Land_Model&oldid=1201877548"