On Jan 31, 2007, at 13:24, Jonathan Grabert wrote:
If you assume that there are no new discoveries of oil deposits, if
you assume there are no advances in technology to extract more from
current deposits, if you assume there are no advances in technology to
mine other sources of oil (like shale), if you assume that processes
that use oil aren't made more efficient, then MAYBE those estimates
would be correct. But that's an awful lot of assumptions, and they go
against the entire history of oil production.
From what I've read, peak oil theories predict the production peak, and
include those assumptions. There are a lot of assumptions, and that is
why there is a lot of disagreement, but I *think* the predictions are
in the hundreds, not thousands, of years. I'll look for data.
Keep in mind that, when adjusted for inflation, the price of oil has
gone DOWN, not up. That's hardly indicitive of a lack of supply.
This graph seems to contradict your claim:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_Prices_1861_2006.jpg>
:-j
J/
----- Original Message ----- From: "John W. Cooper"
<jwcooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Eco Foundation Discussion List" <eco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Eco] Recycling and P&T's Bullshit
On Jan 31, 2007, at 11:37, Jonathan Grabert wrote:
Again, we are in absolutely no danger of running out of oil for
thousands of years.
Thousands? I thought current conservative estimates were between 50
and 200 years. I'll have to look again. This will no doubt start
another thread...
:-j
_______________________________________________
Eco mailing list
Eco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/eco
