Talk:Export Land Model

message: 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)

message: 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===
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)
thread_title: 1

message: 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)
thread_title: General case

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: No references ?

message: 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)
replies: text: NJGW, this is per WP:NPOV.--Environnement2100 (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 percentChina imports less, exports more oil products on price hikes worldwide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Environnement2100 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Opposite example" section original research? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Subsidized prices 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deadend 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Do we need this paragraph? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Changes to sections and new gallery

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Real-world Non-Examples

message: 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.()
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. () See de Sousa's World Oil Exports of 2008
Please fix links etc as needed.DLH (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: World Oil Exports Model

message: 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)
thread_title:  oil consumption v oil products consumption 

message: 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)
thread_title: To add to article