Talk:Export Land Model

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)

---

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.

[edit] General case

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

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)

[edit] No references ?

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)

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)

[edit] "Opposite example" section orignigal research?

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)

NJGW, this is per WP:NPOV.--Environnement2100 (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)