[extropy-chat] Debate on Peak Oil
mlorrey at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 27 03:54:06 UTC 2005
--- Matus <matus at matus1976.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
> > I find the case for Peak Oil and quite soon compelling. But
> whether we are nearing the Peak rapidly or not is in a way
> irrelevant. If most
> Has any resource, ever, reached a peak and then declined while demand
> continued to be at least consistent? Ever? Why all of the sudden
> are we suggesting it will happen with Oil?
What I find very compelling is that wikipedians have exposed that the
wikipedia article on abiogenic petroleum theory has been hacked with
unjustified critical alterations by an anonymous user at Halliburton,
alterations that try to cast doubt on abiogenic petroleum origins.
(See "Possible conflict of interest")
Why would Halliburton seek to do this? Perhaps because the theory and
its supporting evidence (as well as the fact that abiogenic oil is the
standard accepted theory in Russian geology circles) cast serious doubt
on the "Peak Oil" proponents?
I also see major hype about "Peak Oil" coming from sources like
Halliburton, yet both Saudi Arabia and Iran's oil ministers both assert
that the problem with gasoline prices and the panic-driven spot
markets, is that there is a very serious shortage of refining capacity,
NOT production capacity. I talk to folks in the Iranian oil industry
who can't give their oil away at $30/bbl.
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
-William Pitt (1759-1806)
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the extropy-chat