Yet another take on Hubbert's peak

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx 07/09/01 03:47PM >>>
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.

((((((((((

CB:  Seems like the most rational  (:>)) approach would be to prepare for a worst case scenario, given even the experts don't seem to be sure. Then if there's lots more than the worst case scenario, hey,  preparing for the worst won't have hurt anything.
I don't mean to say preparing for the worst case ( in this case) is easy; and eventually some new types of fuels we would have to find.

But even if it is not "as finite", I find it hard to believe it is not finite, so eventually the "worst case" will come anyway , so why not start preparing for it , even if it's 500 years. Might take that long to discover new fuels.

I realize this is very longviewism, and in the long run we are all dead , and all that.

Then when you add in global warming, that adds another jag.