that's a clearer statement than the one I borrowed from ravi. But it's possible that we could see "three barrels of oil to extract two barrels of oil" due to inefficiency, not the inability to recover oil.
BTW, as I've said before, the "peak oil" hypothesis makes more sense to me if we use true prices (including external costs) rather than money costs (even when the latter are corrected for inflation as you do): peak oil would be seen if the (inflation-corrected) market price plus the environmental impact of a barrel of oil keeps rising in the long run. On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Sandwichman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I've always been afraid that they were confusing the results of >> short-term supply bottlenecks and steeply increasing demand with those >> of a fundamental and final running-out of oil supplies. Of course, we >> can't know for sure. > > Jim, you are confusing peak oil with "a fundamental and final running > out of oil supplies." Peak oil is NOT about running out of oil. It is > about reaching a point where the volume of oil extracted and consumed > doesn't (and presumably can't) continue to INCREASE each year. Part of > this has to do with economically recoverable reserves, which is > different from total reserves. If it takes three barrels of oil to > extract two barrels of oil, those two barrels are not recoverable even > though they are still "there." > > -- > Sandwichman > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
