MR editorial, Dec. 2002
dmschanoes at earthlink.net
Sun Nov 9 14:34:47 MST 2003
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Flanders" <jonathan.flanders at verizon.net>
> But since David denies the findings of geologists, I think this discussion
has run it's course.
> Jon Flanders
Perhaps you are not aware of this-- but Hubbert was not a geologist-- he was
a petroleum engineer-- and in the business itself, oil that is, texas tea,
black gold, rude crude, they say the geologist is always smiling because he
always finds the oil and the petroleum engineer is always frowning because
he knows it's always too expensive to pump it.
Be that as it may-- there are geologists and there are geologists, Jon, and
significant numbers disagree with Campbell, Deffeyes, Duncan, Laherre, etc.
But talk about denial-- LP denies that the 90s were a period of growth, but
finds stagnation easy to reconcile with scenarios of accelerating petroleum
You deny that the issues are cost and profit, but have no problem adding
environmental costs depletion scenario, along with the costs of military
occupations into the anti-depletion analysis.
Yes the discussion has run its course, mostly in my opinion, based on your
denial of the production of oil as the production of a commodity, opting
instead for oil exceptionalism and entropy as the replacement for the
relations of capital.
I too don't see any reason to continue this discussion given that
predisposition-- but anytime somebody posts some misinformation from Grimes
or Harvey or the Mal-en-thus-iasts about the causes for the once and future
predicament of capital and the actions of its gofers, I'll do my best to
provide a Marxist response.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism