[Marxism] Oil

S. Artesian sartesian at earthlink.net
Wed Jul 16 15:48:45 MDT 2008


Jon,

I really try not to cherry-pick. I think that the Hubbertists have really 
based much of their theory on cherry-picking:  i.e the shrinking field size 
of discoveries as time marches on; i.e the irrecoverability of high outputs.

I am certainly not a geologist, but the "basic geology" the Hubbertists hang 
their hats on has been disputed and refuted by just as many geologists, just 
as many petroleum engineers.

IMO, one of the problems with this argument, besides that we tend to repeat 
ourselves ad nauseum, is that we really wind up arguing about entropy--  
inevitable heat death of the universe; just the inevitable end period-- and 
use peak oil as a "vehicle" for that discussion.

Are supplies of petroleum finite?  Absolutely.  Have we depleted reserves so 
that availability and costs of energy are irrecoverable from present 
conditions?  There is simply no evidence to support that.

I do think the economics of capitalism, of oil production under capitalism 
explains what has happened with that industry since 1973 (and before) and 
the price changes of the commodity better than peak theory.

Speaking of geologists.  Old joke in the petroleum industry:  The Geologist 
is always smiling because he is certain he will find the oil.  The petroleum 
engineer is always frowing because he knows  his budget won't support the 
cost of the find.

Something like that.  Will check out the article.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jon Flanders" <jonflanders at jflan.net>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Oil


> For a good article on the North Sea see:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/04/oil.energy
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 17:03 -0400, S. Artesian wrote:
>> The life of the North Sea fields has extended far beyond original 
>> estimates,
>> beyond later estimates, and in particular estimates of the peak oil
>> theorists.
>>
>> The North Sea fields exhibit not one peak and decline, but
>> peak/decline/peak/decline and the output most certainly does not follow 
>> the
>> Hubbert bell curve.
>
> Its declining. The bottom line. You are of course entitled to your
> opinion as to why, cherry picked as it is to avoid basic geology.
>
> Jon Flanders
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net 





More information about the Marxism mailing list