Oil Production Curves for 42 Countries!
news.interpac.net
Never published anywhere before! See Oil Production Curves for 42 Countries
at http://dieoff.com/42Countries/42Countries.htm
---------------------------
One hundred years ago, fundamentally stupid economic theories led to two
world wars with millions killed:
"By the end of the seventies the free trade episode (1846-79) was at an end;
the actual use of the gold standard by Germany marked the beginnings of an
era of protectionism and colonial expansion. the symptoms of the dissolution
of the existing forms of world economy -- colonial rivalry and competition
for exotic markets -- became acute. The ability of haute finance to avert
the spread of wars was diminishing rapidly. For another seven years peace
dragged on but it was only a question of time before the dissolution of
nineteenth century economic organization would bring the Hundred Years'
Peace to a close." [p. 19, Polanyi]
Today, the same stupid economic theories are still being taught to students
all over the world and are leading to a new generation of world wars with
billions killed:
"Protesters representing a rainbow of causes attempted to disrupt Tuesday's
opening session of the World Trade Organization conference. Activists in
large numbers vowed to shut down the city with acts of civil disobedience.
At one location, police used tear gas to clear protesters." [ CNN, Nov. 30,
1999]
Neoclassical economic theory teaches that we will never "run out" of a
commodity. This is because as prices increase, we will use less-and-less of
it, but there will always be some available at some finite price.
Practically every economics textbook teaches this, but every economics
textbook is wrong because "energy" is fundamentally different from every
other commodity.
There is no substitute for energy. Energy is the prerequisite for all other
commodities, so if we "run out" of energy, we will "run out" of everything
else too.
By definition, energy "sources" must produce more energy than they consume,
otherwise they are called "sinks". By definition, energy sources have "run
out" when they consume more energy than they produce. This universal energy
law holds no matter how high the money price of energy goes.
Economists are blind to the unique properties of energy because economic
methodology is inherently defective. Economists first abstract all
commodities to money -- which of course, obliterates all qualitative
differences between the commodities themselves -- and leaves economists
uniquely unqualified to know the relationships between the commodities they
purport to study.
"The origins of the cataclysm lay in the utopian endeavor of economic
liberalism to set up a self-regulating market system." [p. 29, THE GREAT
TRANSFORMATION, Karl Polanyi; Beacon, 1957]
Jay -- www.dieoff.com
Robert Coté
<j...@chatzilla.com> wrote:
> [ Permission to repost expressly granted. ]
>
> Never published anywhere before! See Oil Production Curves for 42
> Countries
> at http://dieoff.com/42Countries/42Countries.htm
> ---------------------------
Here! Published twice monthly and always available! See the
real Oil Production Curves and Consumption and Reserves and
Forecasts and Projections and Special analysis an ... for
EVERY Country at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/
Now, the Energy Information Administration, part of
the US Dept of Energy doesn't have a catchy name like
dieoff.org but they do have some credibility.
Time to trot out the "Club of Rome" again Jay?
Paddy O'Connolly
***
So what is the club of rome??
Cuideigian
Robert Coté <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:techscan-2E45E9...@news.gte.net...
Do I detect a touch of disingenuousness? -Oil- production is not quite the
same as -energy- production - with not all oil being used for energy, and
not all energy being produced from oil. The oil production data is not so
readily available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/ and the data I did
find did not contradict the data at
http://dieoff.com/42Countries/42Countries.htm.
Aaron M. Renn
>Time to trot out the "Club of Rome" again Jay?
>
>
>So what is the club of rome??
Did you somehow lose access to AltaVista or something?
--
Aaron M. Renn (ar...@urbanophile.com) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
Brian Allardice
>There is no substitute for energy.
True, but there are many substitutes for oil. Try hydrates, for a start.
Cheers,
dba
Paddy O'Connolly
Did you somehow lose access to AltaVista or something?
***
Whats wrong with posting something, We don't we just drop the old line like
Joke #1, or #2, and expect folks to know what that means,
Hard disks are cheap these days, folks can post stuff we don't need to go
back to the archives every minute,
Gary Dye
Paddy O'Connolly <pa...@alt.net> wrote in message news:821pm3$1tj$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> Time to trot out the "Club of Rome" again Jay?
>
> ***
>
>
'Tis a group of mafia figures from wealthy countries who have funneled lots of
taxpayer money to mafia figures in Third World countries. Every once in a while,
they clear the books so that they can funnel more money to these same mafia figures.
--
"Their slush fund is called the IMF (International Mafia Fund)." -- Gary Lyndon Dye
Bill Shatzer
"Gary Dye" <Gary...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Paddy O'Connolly <pa...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:821pm3$1tj$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> > Time to trot out the "Club of Rome" again Jay?
> > So what is the club of rome??
> 'Tis a group of mafia figures from wealthy countries who have funneled
lots of
> taxpayer money to mafia figures in Third World countries. Every once
in a while,
> they clear the books so that they can funnel more money to these same
mafia figures.
Sigh! Go to: http://www.clubofrome.org/ for information on the Club of
Rome. It is a "think tank" with a progressive/liberal slant and, except
for its slant, not that different from the libertoonian's favorite
"think tank", the Hertitage Foundation.
The Club of Rome is not funded by any government and doesn't funnel
money any place. It sponsors research and produces reports and
publications on issues it feels warrant public attention and organizes,
from time to time, various colloquia, as "think tanks" are wont to do.
It is most noted for its 1970 report "The Limits of Growth" which took a
rather Malthusian (indeed, extremely Malthusian) view of future economic
growth. The report became something of a "best seller" at the time.
But, ya' know how it is with Gary "Die, die!" Dye. Everything is a part
of the conspiracy.
Peace and justice,
--
- Bill Shatzer - bsha...@orednet.org-
"Being weak minded is not necessarily a detriment"
-Jesse Ventura-
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
news.ilhawaii.net
news:techscan-2E45E9...@news.gte.net...
> Time to trot out the "Club of Rome" again Jay?
Why don't you tell us what you know about the Club of Rome Robert?
Jay
Cuideigian
>
> That would be Mar 98 "Preventing the Next Oil Crunch"
> Read it last Februrary but then I've had a continous subscription to
> SciAm since 1971. You underhanded little swipe at my lack of education
> aside, the article has a couple of valid points concerning the possible
> overreporting by some traditional oil reserve holders.
Actually you undermine your argument with your ad hominiums.
>Of course it
> fails the test when it comes to reliable oil fields. Take the Channel
> Islands area off Santa Barbara. Proven EXTRACTABLE reserves were just
> increased to 11Bbls.
Which would supply the US demand for oil for just how many minutes?
>Your premise is the same one that has been shown
> false for 120+ years. The switch from whale oil lamps to petro based
> was resisted because there was an inexaustible supply of whales and the
> Penna fields had at best a few years. Hmmm.
Sounds like you're arguing against yourself here - you don't want to switch
from current supply because you claim that the oil fields are
"inexhaustible".
Well, Robert. The big difference I can see, is that the curves show things
happening in a few years from now and not 20 or 30 years away. Where the
problem comes in, is that basing all your transportation on oil makes
demand/supply "inelastic" -- which means if demand goes up or supply down
then price goes through the roof because there's no alternatives --- and
those alternatives take time to build. For instance, InterstateMAX light
rail in Portland is in the planning/approval stages right now, if approved,
it will not begin operation until 2004 - about the time some forecasters say
gas prices could start skyrocketing.
ze...@magicnet.net
then.
----------
In article <824c67$63g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Bill Shatzer
<bsha...@orednet.org> wrote:
> In article <tub14.113$OH2.27447@pm02news>,
> "Gary Dye" <Gary...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Paddy O'Connolly <pa...@alt.net> wrote in message
> news:821pm3$1tj$0...@dosa.alt.net...
>> > Time to trot out the "Club of Rome" again Jay?
>
Bob Tiernan
> Sigh! Go to: http://www.clubofrome.org/ for information on the Club
> of Rome. It is a "think tank" with a progressive/liberal slant and,
> except for its slant, not that different from the libertoonian's
> favorite "think tank", the Hertitage Foundation.
I doubt that the Heritage Foundation is the favorite think tank
of libertarians. That nod would go to the Cato Institute.
The Heritage Foundation is more of a Republican think tank
with the usual religious slant, as well as endorsements for
some law and order nonsense. I used to get their quarterly
publication but discontinued it after a guest article writer
defended warrantless searches of public housing units under
the guise of "emergency inspections" to find guns (these were
being pushed by Clinton and other liberal gun-grabbers). The
Heritage Foundation had many good stances, but is hardly
libertarian. Strike three again, Bill. Heritage Foundation
ineed!
Bob Tiernan
Do you think that banning legal possession of easily
concealed novels will stop criminals from reading?
-- anon.
news.ilhawaii.net
news:techscan-99552F...@news.gte.net...
> } (None of the Club of Rome's predictions have failed. Apparently,
> } [Nobel Laureate] Friedman didn't bother to do his own research...
>
> Excuse me BUT the Club of Rome in 1972 stated flat out that there
> were between 20 and 31 years of oil left. That prediction has failed.
Not true! In fact, the COR assumed known reserves would quintuple: 50
years. 1972 + 50 years = 2022. See http://dieoff.com/page169.htm
Where did you get your infiormation Robert?
Jay
Paddy O'Connolly
***
A libertarian is just a republican in sheeps wool, so why wouldn't a libby
endorse the Heritage Foundation??
In fact since I'm quite familiar with Heritage I would say they're very
"libertarian",
Bill Shatzer
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Bob Tiernan wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > Sigh! Go to: http://www.clubofrome.org/ for information on the Club
> > of Rome. It is a "think tank" with a progressive/liberal slant and,
> > except for its slant, not that different from the libertoonian's
> > favorite "think tank", the Hertitage Foundation.
> I doubt that the Heritage Foundation is the favorite think tank
> of libertarians. That nod would go to the Cato Institute.
Oh well, I stand corrected then. To those of the libertarian persuation,
the distinctions are, no doubt, important. To the rest of us, it's kinda
like the differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks or the
Stalinists and the Trotskyites. Important in the internal struggle, no
doubt, but kinda same-o, same-o to those of us on the outside looking in.
But, no slander was intended. If it is the Cato Institute, then the Cato
Institute is shall be!
Peace and justice,
Robert Coté
<j...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> "Robert Coté" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:techscan-2E45E9...@news.gte.net...
>
> > Time to trot out the "Club of Rome" again Jay?
>
> Why don't you tell us what you know about the Club of Rome Robert?
In article <7bsljb$l...@igc.apc.org>, "Jay Hanson" <j...@qmail.com> wrote:
} ---------------
} [ here is a snip from www.dieoff.com/page168.htm ]
} Nobel Laureate Friedman: Why an illusion?
}
} Ravaioli: Because we know it's a limited resource.
}
} Nobel Laureate Friedman: Excuse me, it's not limited from an
} economic point of view. You have to separate the economic from the
} physical point of view. Many of the mistakes people make come from
} this. Like the stupid projections of the Club of Rome: they used a
} purely physical approach, without taking prices into account. There
} are many different sources of energy, some of which are too
} expensive to be exploited now. But if oil becomes scarce they will
} be exploited. But the market, which is fortunately capable of
} registering and using widely scattered knowledge and information
} from people all over the world, will take account of those changes.
} [22]
}
} (None of the Club of Rome's predictions have failed. Apparently,
} [Nobel Laureate] Friedman didn't bother to do his own research...
Excuse me BUT the Club of Rome in 1972 stated flat out that there
were between 20 and 31 years of oil left. That prediction has failed.
Since the dawn of the petroleum industry in the mid-19th century,
concern
has been expressed about the imminent exhaustion of the world's
petroleum
supplies. From today's perspective, such concerns were certainly
premature,
and even ludicrous:
* "Hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature's
laboratory!"
--advertisement for "Kier's Rock Oil," 1855
* ". . . the United States [has] enough petroleum to keep its kerosene
lamps burning for only four years . . . "
--Pennsylvania State Geologist Wrigley, 1874
* ". . . although an estimated two-thirds of our reserve is still in the
ground, . . . the peak of [U.S.] production will soon be passed--possibly
within three years."
--David White, Chief Geologist, USGS, 1919
* " . . . it is unsafe to rest in the assurance that plenty of petroleum
will be found in the future merely because it has been in the past."
--L. Snider and B. Brooks, AAPG Bulletin, 1936
More recently, The Limits to Growth--a report produced in 1972 by an
organization called The Club of Rome--said the world had only between 20
and 31 years' worth of known petroleum reserves left. But 22 years later,
the world had discovered enough oil to have more known reserves than at
any time since 1948! Additionally, new reserves are being found
throughout
the world every year.
------------------------------------
In article <7e1a7q$g...@igc.apc.org>, "Jay Hanson" <j...@qmail.com> wrote:
>Robert <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
>news:7dttc1$plf$1...@news-1.news.gte.net...
>
>> The 1972 Club of Rome report predicted without any codiciles that the
>> worlds' supply of oil would be gone by 2003. They were/are wrong.
>> You are talking out of your ass and the smell is 30 years old. The
>> fact that oil energy prices are lower and even their longest
prediction
>> of 2003 was wrong means that even the premise behind these doomsday
>> predictions are wrong. Stop wasting bandwidth with these repeated
>> lies.
>
>Robert, you don't have the book, haven't read the book, don't even care
what
>it says.
I certainly don't care about a 27 year old uniformly discredited attempt
to hold the worlds' economy static at 1975 levels or else face disaster.
They predicted 7 billion people. What's a billion more or less?
Food supplies are growing 1.5 times the population.
They predicted that gold would be gone by 2001 even though current
consumption is many times higher than their highest prediction.
------------------------------------
In article <7g73qv$kse$1...@glisan.hevanet.com>, "LB" <l...@nomail.com> wrote:
> Robert Coté wrote in message ...
> >In article <7g636f$poe$1...@glisan.hevanet.com>, "LB" <l...@nomail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "The world is not running out of oil—at least not yet. What our society
> >> does face, and soon, is the end of the abundant and cheap oil on which
> all
> >> industrial nations depend."
> >>
> >> http://www.dieoff.org/page140.htm
> >
> >Oh no, not the 1972 Club of Rome report again. Every single prediction
> >that could be tested has been proven wrong. Go look at their "other"
> >natural resources predictions like gold or chromium.
> >
> >Mr. Hanson is a chicken little pay no serious attention.
>
> Scientific American published similar report to Hanson's not that long
> ago. Between Scientific American and Robert Coté, I know which one I find
> more credible.
I've commented on this before:
In article <35872925...@news1.banet.net>, roc...@banet.net (Rock
Miller ) wrote:
=On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 02:56:16 GMT, tech...@west.net (Robert Coté)
=wrote:
=
=>In article <3585d636...@news1.banet.net>, roc...@banet.net (Rock
=>Miller ) wrote:
=
=>Would that be much higher oil prices:
=>1860-present?
=>1920-present?
=>1960-present?
=>1980-present?
=>1990-present?
=>1995-present?
=>1997-present?
=
=2005 on, or so. There was an article in Scientific American about it
=recently. Worth a read, if you care to educate yourself.
That would be Mar 98 "Preventing the Next Oil Crunch"
Read it last Februrary but then I've had a continous subscription to
SciAm since 1971. You underhanded little swipe at my lack of education
aside, the article has a couple of valid points concerning the possible
overreporting by some traditional oil reserve holders. Of course it
fails the test when it comes to reliable oil fields. Take the Channel
Islands area off Santa Barbara. Proven EXTRACTABLE reserves were just
increased to 11Bbls. Your premise is the same one that has been shown
false for 120+ years. The switch from whale oil lamps to petro based
was resisted because there was an inexaustible supply of whales and the
Penna fields had at best a few years. Hmmm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <79tjpm$1...@igc.apc.org>, "Jay Hanson" <j...@qmail.com> wrote:
> Franco Bernabé, chief executive of the Italian oil company ENI SpA, sees
> a "peak" in global oil production in 2005. And a "peak" in global natural
> gas production in 2010. [ FORBES, June, 1998,
> http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/0615/6112084a.htm ]
An example:
"From 1980 to 1997, their [non opec producing private companies]
reserve-to-production ratio declined from 18 years to 12 years."
In other words in 1980 they had enough to last until 1998 but
by 1997 they had enough to last until 2009.
Saudi Arabia has an honest 261 billion barrels of extractable reserves
with current technology. They currently produce 8 million barrels
per day. Gee only 90 years' worth. Even if they needed to supply
the entire worlds' needs they could beat the 2005 number by themselves
with current technology and unchanged behavior.
We are not running out of oil. Internet myth at best.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <7c61fg$26c$1...@nina.pagesz.net>, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George
Conklin) wrote:
} In article <7c4vvm$f...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
} Duncan MacGregor <aa...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
} >
}
} The problem is that the current uses of crude oil
} >are both wasteful AND damaging to the environment. There are plenty
of ways
} >to use crude oil (notably in durable goods) that are much less
wasteful.
} >[I should note here -- for completeness -- that some of the creation
and usage
} >of durable goods produced from crude oil is not as damage-free as one
might
} >like;
}
} It is less wasteful to encourage cars which burn less
} fuel (BTUs per passenger mile) than transit does.
}
} The Economist this week has a regression line showing oil
} prices in 1997 dollars from about 1850 on. The trend is for
} falling prices throughout the era, with the 'oil shocks' now
} completely played out and the line pointing downward in
} price. It might fall to $5 a barrel yet if the trend
} continues. If it does not, $10 would be the trend line for
} about 100-year interval, based on the graph (but not the
} trend line) shown.
I saw this too. I wonder why the Economist doesn't get any
credence in theses ngs. One thing that was ommitted from the
chart was the productivity of each bbl of oil. Nowadays the
same 55 gals does a lot more. The energy to refine is much
less and the end products are more specialized and there are
no byproducts. From a price standpoint this makes oil per bbl
look less cheap but from a productivity perspective much much
cheaper than the straight constant dollars per barrel figure.
---------------------------------
Of course we are back to those evil high oil prices of 1995
so maybe the DOE, SciAm authors, The Economist, Laureate
Freidman, and me are all wrong. Or maybe Jay Hanson and
"LB" are wrong.
Jay, got any bets I can take? Put your money where your
mouth is. Put up or shut up. Oh and what did the US
Dept of Energy say or Exxon say when you presented them
with your "data?" Speak up, I can't hear you.
Gary Dye
Bill Shatzer <bsha...@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:824c67$63g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <tub14.113$OH2.27447@pm02news>,
> "Gary Dye" <Gary...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Paddy O'Connolly <pa...@alt.net> wrote in message
> news:821pm3$1tj$0...@dosa.alt.net...
>
>
> > 'Tis a group of mafia figures from wealthy countries who have funneled lots of
> > taxpayer money to mafia figures in Third World countries. Every once in a
while,
> > they clear the books so that they can funnel more money to these same mafia
figures.
>
> Rome. It is a "think tank" with a progressive/liberal slant and, except
> for its slant, not that different from the libertoonian's favorite
> "think tank", the Hertitage Foundation.
Or was it the Paris Club that I was thinking of?
>
> The Club of Rome is not funded by any government and doesn't funnel
> money any place. It sponsors research and produces reports and
> publications on issues it feels warrant public attention and organizes,
> from time to time, various colloquia, as "think tanks" are wont to do.
Rome, Paris -- what's the dif?
>
> It is most noted for its 1970 report "The Limits of Growth" which took a
> rather Malthusian (indeed, extremely Malthusian) view of future economic
> growth. The report became something of a "best seller" at the time.
In 1970, I was in the 5th grade, fer Chrissakes!
>
> But, ya' know how it is with Gary "Die, die!" Dye. Everything is a part
> of the conspiracy.
And now they're screwing with my memory!!!!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
"Or was it the Club of Antwerp?" -- Gary Lyndon Dye
Chris Lawrence
>Sigh! Go to: http://www.clubofrome.org/ for information on the Club of
>Rome. It is a "think tank" with a progressive/liberal slant and, except
>for its slant, not that different from the libertoonian's favorite
>"think tank", the Hertitage Foundation.
I don't think libertarians are particularly enamored of Heritage; it's
chock-full of social conservatives (like the AEI), even though they're
not Buchananite in economics (yet). I suspect most real libertarians
(i.e. people who might actually call themselves libertarians) prefer
the Cato Institute or the Reason Foundation...
But that's getting even more off-topic ;-)
Chris
--
=============================================================================
| Chris Lawrence | Get Debian GNU/Linux CDROMs |
| <qua...@watervalley.net> | http://www.lordsutch.com/cds/ |
| | |
| Grad Student, Pol. Sci. | Your site belongs here. |
| University of Mississippi | [Commercialize your sig today!] |
=============================================================================
Chris Lawrence
>A libertarian is just a republican in sheeps wool, so why wouldn't a libby
>endorse the Heritage Foundation??
>
>In fact since I'm quite familiar with Heritage I would say they're very
>"libertarian",
Libertarians don't want to turn America into a Christian theocracy (or
any other type of theocracy, for that matter), nor do we want a
welfare state for the rich. That kind of rules us out of being
Republicans...
Chris
--
=============================================================================
| Chris Lawrence | It's 2/3 of a beltway... |
| <qua...@watervalley.net> | http://www.lordsutch.com/tn385/ |
| | |
| Grad Student, Pol. Sci. | Join the party that opposed the CDA |
| University of Mississippi | http://www.lp.org/ |
=============================================================================
Robert Coté
<j...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> "Robert Coté" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:techscan-99552F...@news.gte.net...
>
> > } (None of the Club of Rome's predictions have failed. Apparently,
> > } [Nobel Laureate] Friedman didn't bother to do his own research...
> >
> > Excuse me BUT the Club of Rome in 1972 stated flat out that there
> > were between 20 and 31 years of oil left. That prediction has failed.
>
> Not true! In fact, the COR assumed known reserves would quintuple: 50
> years. 1972 + 50 years = 2022. See http://dieoff.com/page169.htm
Oh, great just like the 42 countries. Both take current trends and
instead of projecting them into the future they mirror reverse them.
Most honest graph projections use dotted lines BTW.
> Where did you get your infiormation Robert?
The original "report" doesn't really qualify as information but...
In 1972 the Club of Rome published "Limits to Growth".
"Limits to Growth" said total global oil reserves amounted to 550
billion barrels. Between 1970 and 1990 the world used 600 billion
barrels of oil. So, according to the Club of Rome, reserves should have
been overdrawn by 50 billion barrels by 1990. In fact, by 1990
unexploited reserves amounted to 900 billion barrels. Today
proven extractable oil reserves are even larger. Curiously it may
be that static reserves are because there is a strong disincentive
among oil producers to dispel the myth of limited resources.
Think about Jay, you are helping keep the price of oil artifically
high and in fact delaying the day when you are finally correct.
Oil companies love you. Maybe they could be a source of future
funding to carry on the torch?
About that bet... Thought about it yet?
Don Homuth
On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Mark Gibson wrote:
> Talk about libertarians is always in order.
Especially when the libertarians aren't.
news.ilhawaii.net
> In 1972 the Club of Rome published "Limits to Growth".
> "Limits to Growth" said total global oil reserves amounted to 550
> billion barrels. Between 1970 and 1990 the world used 600 billion
> barrels of oil. So, according to the Club of Rome, reserves should have
> been overdrawn by 50 billion barrels by 1990. In fact, by 1990
> unexploited reserves amounted to 900 billion barrels. Today
> proven extractable oil reserves are even larger. Curiously it may
> be that static reserves are because there is a strong disincentive
> among oil producers to dispel the myth of limited resources.
But where did you get the above quote from?
Jay
Cuideigian
>
> More recently, The Limits to Growth--a report produced in 1972 by an
> organization called The Club of Rome--said the world had only between 20
> and 31 years' worth of known petroleum reserves left. But 22 years later,
> the world had discovered enough oil to have more known reserves than at
> any time since 1948! Additionally, new reserves are being found
> throughout
> the world every year.
Let's see - in 1972 they thought cheap oil would end between 1992 and 2003
(10-31yrs), and 25 years later (about) they say 2004 and 2014 (5-15yrs).
Sounds to me more like a situation where you can see a landmark off the the
distance but can't accurately tell how far. As you get closer, it becomes
easier to judge the difference.
And, of course, "reserves" as used by the oil industry is NOT the same thing
as physical supply.
http://dieoff.org/page90.htm
Remember, that a lot of 'reserves' a few years ago just appeared out of thin
air, without any significant oilfield discoveries.
Jeff Holloway
news:Pine.SUN.3.96.991202...@compass.OregonVOS.net...
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Mark Gibson wrote:
>
>
> > Talk about libertarians is always in order.
>
> Especially when the libertarians aren't.
>
Jeff
Bob Tiernan
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > I doubt that the Heritage Foundation is the favorite think tank
> > of libertarians. That nod would go to the Cato Institute.
> Oh well, I stand corrected then. To those of the libertarian
> persuation, the distinctions are, no doubt, important. To the rest
> of us, it's kinda like the differences between the Bolsheviks and the
> Mensheviks or the Stalinists and the Trotskyites. Important in the
> internal struggle, no doubt, but kinda same-o, same-o to those of us
> on the outside looking in.
In other words, you're acknowledging that your perception
trumps the facts that you won't bother to find out.
Bill Shatzer
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > > I doubt that the Heritage Foundation is the favorite think tank
> > > of libertarians. That nod would go to the Cato Institute.
> > Oh well, I stand corrected then. To those of the libertarian
> > persuation, the distinctions are, no doubt, important. To the rest
> > of us, it's kinda like the differences between the Bolsheviks and the
> > Mensheviks or the Stalinists and the Trotskyites. Important in the
> > internal struggle, no doubt, but kinda same-o, same-o to those of us
> > on the outside looking in.
> In other words, you're acknowledging that your perception
> trumps the facts that you won't bother to find out.
Not at all. I jest ain't much interested in the internecine squabblings
amoung the outre about the finer points of right wing doctrine and
theology. I don't much care how many angels can dance on pinheads, I'm
completely unconcerned about the doctrinal differences which may separate
the Pentecostals from the Southern Baptists, and I really couldn't care
less who stands next to who on the reviewing stand for the May Day parade.
Likewise, while I'm sure the issues which divide the Cate Institute from
the Heritage Foundation run swift and deep to those involved, they are
matters of almost complete disinterest to me.
And, while I'm sure Mr. Burke and yerself have reasons for being at each
other's throats which are sufficient to the each of you, I ain't much
interested in devoting the time required to understand the theological
basis of the dispute and your mutual excommunications. I find the
existence of the dispute interesting - but then I found the dispute
between the Bigendians and the Smallendians in Gulliver's Travels
interesting as well. But not sufficiently so as to want to spend much
time studying the theology of which end of an egg should be cracked first.
Peace and justice,
Paddy O'Connolly
the Heritage Foundation run swift and deep to those involved, they are
***
You don't have to look that far under rocks, we have our own
CascadePolicyInstitute to breed libertarians right here in Orygun,
George Conklin
socialists or urban militants. But no group can ignore real
patterns of human behavior and declare what the real people
of the world do is wrong because they (left, right or
middle) know better and thus must use coercion to improve
upon what the public wants.
--
# If HMOs ran the post office, 44.3 million Americans would get no mail. #
# Phono FAQ: http://www.pagesz.net/~henryj/phono.htm. #
# Support Medicare for All Ages. Urban Myth FAQ under development. #
# Support Cygnet Horns for Edison Firesides-george conklin, KB4NCI #
Bill Shatzer
hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
> Libertarians are free to look at census data, as are
> socialists or urban militants. But no group can ignore real
> patterns of human behavior and declare what the real people
> of the world do is wrong because they (left, right or
> middle) know better and thus must use coercion to improve
> upon what the public wants.
"Real people of the world" rather routinely kill, steal, rape, beat
their spouses and spit on the sidewalk. They are also often wont to
drive drunk, sell swampland to widows, pollute the rivers, and operate
stock "bucket shops". I have no problem declaring that "wrong" and, if
necessary, using coercion to prevent 'em from doing what they "want".
Peace and justice,
--
- Bill Shatzer - bsha...@orednet.org-
"Being weak minded is not necessarily a detriment"
-Jesse Ventura
George Conklin
Bill Shatzer <bsha...@orednet.org> wrote:
>In article <82os04$t6e$1...@nina.pagesz.net>,
> hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
>
>> Libertarians are free to look at census data, as are
>> socialists or urban militants. But no group can ignore real
>> patterns of human behavior and declare what the real people
>> of the world do is wrong because they (left, right or
>> middle) know better and thus must use coercion to improve
>> upon what the public wants.
>
>"Real people of the world" rather routinely kill, steal, rape, beat
>their spouses and spit on the sidewalk.
You compare building a house to this? How low have you
sunk?
Cuideigian
"George Conklin" <hen...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote in message
news:82rj6v$n97$1...@nina.pagesz.net...
> In article <82re2a$7he$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Bill Shatzer <bsha...@orednet.org> wrote:
> >In article <82os04$t6e$1...@nina.pagesz.net>,
> > hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
> >
> >> Libertarians are free to look at census data, as are
> >> socialists or urban militants. But no group can ignore real
> >> patterns of human behavior and declare what the real people
> >> of the world do is wrong because they (left, right or
> >> middle) know better and thus must use coercion to improve
> >> upon what the public wants.
> >
> >"Real people of the world" rather routinely kill, steal, rape, beat
> >their spouses and spit on the sidewalk.
>
> You compare building a house to this? How low have you
> sunk?
>
talking about housing, it would behoove you to express yourself more
clearly.
Bill Shatzer
On 10 Dec 1999, George Conklin wrote:
> In article <82re2a$7he$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Bill Shatzer <bsha...@orednet.org> wrote:
> >In article <82os04$t6e$1...@nina.pagesz.net>,
> > hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
> >> Libertarians are free to look at census data, as are
> >> socialists or urban militants. But no group can ignore real
> >> patterns of human behavior and declare what the real people
> >> of the world do is wrong because they (left, right or
> >> middle) know better and thus must use coercion to improve
> >> upon what the public wants.
> >"Real people of the world" rather routinely kill, steal, rape, beat
> >their spouses and spit on the sidewalk.
> You compare building a house to this? How low have you
> sunk?
Then you need to be a bit less sweeping in yer generalizations. If yer
universal generalizations are less than universal, you need to delimit
their scope a bit more carefully.
It is, incidently, considered good ettiquette to indicate that you have
snipped another's post when you have done so. Not that I would expect
that from yerself, of course.
Peace and justice,
Douglas CLIFFORD
<j...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
>But where did you get the above quote from?
>
>Jay
>
>
May I refer you to "The Decline of the Age of Oil", by Brian J Fleay;
ISBN 1 86403 021 6. Refers to Australia's petrol politics, but the
figures are global.
Doug
Douglas CLIFFORD +61 8 9390 7006 h
PO Box 119 +61 8 9324 6444 w
Kelmscott +61 8 9324 6400 fx
Western Australia <cli...@opera.iinet.net.au>
6991