[extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ?

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> > 
> As I used to work in (or at least on the outskirts of) the industry I
> can attest that this is more or less correct.  There are no known  
> technologies that can significantly increase the productivity of a  
> field without shortening its productive lifetime or prevent its  
> eventual decline in production.   Some of this is simple common  
> sense.  It is not a "view". 

Not quite. We recover an amazingly small percent of oil from any given
field. It used to max out at about 10% of what was in the ground. Today
its about 30% if the drillers drill out multiple holes from the
wellhead and turn them to parallel the surface to capture more of the
area of the field. Newer technologies to get more oil out of the ground
won't reduce the fields useful life, because the extra oil was never
gotten before. What is more, new technologies to extract more oil from
a given field means that older fields that were assumed to be spent
under old technology can be reopened and drilled with newer
technologies to extract oil that could not be gotten before.

Furthermore, your 'view' also ignores utterly the well documented
phenomenon of reservoir refilling. A wildcatter friend of mine makes
lots of money opening up old spent wells to find a lot more oil there
than the engineers once said was there. It is percolating up from deep
deep reserves and likely from inorganic sources, as the Russian
inorganic oil theory is gaining more ground and acceptance (the
Vietnamese Tiger fields would not function if inorganic oil was not a
reality).

> What is a view is the notions portrayed 
> of what the consequences of world wide oil demand outstripping supply
> will likely be.   But that demand will outstrip supply is
> incontestable.

If it is assumed that technology is not going to advance and lead to
more efficient consumption (as happened in the 80's). Thinking
otherwise is also unextropic.

> 
> >
> > Needless to say, this is not a very Extropian image of the future!
> 
> Being Extropian does not include living in denial of real problems!  
> Extropianism is not simply wearing high tech rose-colored glasses.

Extropianism also does not deny that technology increases resource
utilization efficiency and that resources always get cheaper over time.
It doesn't take rose colored glasses to be optimistic, only a lack of
denial about future technological advances.

> Non-fringe major financial sources have talked about spikes to $100  
> per barrel.  When that happens will you believe the problem is real? 
> What would constitute enough evidence to convince you that we face a 
> very real problem?

Considering in real dollars the 1979 prices were over $80/bbl in
current dollars, it would have to be significantly more. $80/bbl prices
today would trigger a market backlash as was seen in the 1980's of
econoboxes and hybrid/electric/fuelcell technologies. That price level
will also attract the capital to bring tar sand derived oil and gas to
market. Once the capital is invested in that infrastructure, prices
will remain stable for another century at a minimum.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail