Charles Brown wrote:
CB: Wouldn't it be moving toward more than half empty , hasn't the half used up been in a little over 100 years, and aren't we using it up at a much faster rate today than it was being used up 75 to 100 years ago ? So, _if_ it is half empty, wouldn't the other half be used up in less than 100 years at the current rate ?
Yeah, except that the glass keeps filling - maybe not at the rate it's being drained, but discoveries happen all the time, and old fields give up more oil than was thought possible because of technological trickery. And, there was that story in the WSJ a year or two ago saying that some geologists think that oil is burbling up from deep in the earth - that maybe it's not as finite a resource as was thought.
Doug
- Re: : Yet another take on Hubbert's peak, (continued)
- Re: : Yet another take on Hubbert's peak, Ken Hanly Tue 10 Jul 2001, 00:13 GMT
- Re: Re: : Yet another take on Hubbert's peak, Sam Pawlett Tue 10 Jul 2001, 01:34 GMT
- RE: : Yet another take on Hubbert's peak, Mark Jones Tue 10 Jul 2001, 09:42 GMT
- Yet another take on Hubbert's peak, Charles Brown Mon 09 Jul 2001, 19:25 GMT
- Re: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak, Doug Henwood Mon 09 Jul 2001, 19:49 GMT
- RE: Re: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak, Mark Jones Mon 09 Jul 2001, 19:55 GMT
- Re: RE: Re: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak, Doug Henwood Mon 09 Jul 2001, 20:10 GMT
- Re: Re: RE: Re: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak, Jim Devine Mon 09 Jul 2001, 20:19 GMT
- RE: Re: RE: Re: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak, Mark Jones Tue 10 Jul 2001, 09:45 GMT