Brin-l Digest, Vol 381, Issue 3

[Wayne Eddy]

Hi, Dan, everyone.

The article suggested by Kevin (http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm) 
suggests that world oil production has already peaked and the amount 
produced annually will continually drop, and the price of oil will 
continually rise.

I don't know that this necessarily means a doom & gloom future is a 
certainty, but I would have thought that even if the data and dates were 
wildly inaccurate, the general scenario (reduced availablity of fossil 
fuels) is a logical certainty.  I am interested why you think that "the peak 
oil arguement is arm-waving nonsense."

What I really wonder though, is why all the "arm waving" about global 
warming?  It seems to reason that if fossil fuel consumption is destined to 
drop as a result of scarcity, Kyoto is a waste of time and fossil fuels. 
Why try to legislate a reduced reliance on fossil fuels when it is a 
physical certainty anyway.

I imagine some will say yes but global warming is bad for the planet, and 
peak oil is only bad for humans.  I beg to differ, if I was an wild animal, 
I'd be hoping for a human golden age.  Climate change could we be a luxury 
compared to a billion hungry human hunter gatherers.

Regards,

Wayne Eddy


>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: <dsummersminet at comcast.net>
>To: <brin-l at mccmedia.com>
>Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:06 PM
>Subject: Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 381, Issue 3

>As for peak oil production, with all due respect, a close (we spent 5
>Christmases in a row together) friend had primary responsibility for his
>company's participation in _the_ major new US oil play.  I personally know
>the factors involved.  The peak oil arguement is arm-waving nonsense that
>has nothing to do with the actual ecconomics of the oil patch. For example,
>the arguement doesn't explain why oil fell to (inflation adjusted) prices
>not seen since the Great Depression in 1998.  I have a model (which is
>based on plain Jane vanilla ecconomics) that does explain it.  Isn't a
>model that fits data superior to a model that has been repeatedly falisfied
>when used in the past?

>Dan M.