Hi Jim. Since I don't have time to read it at the moment, does he get into the issue of net energy? Because one argument is that while oil has may not peak soon, cheap oil has peaked or will peak soon. If it cost $40 per barrel to extract oil, excluding energy costs, but it takes a half of barrel of oil to extract that oil then the total cost of extraction is $80 per barrel. (And this applies to much less increase decreases in net energy.) Another question is whether capital costs are higher for unconventional means. Again, not a critique of the article. I'm just hoping you can help me here since it may be a while before I have time to read the article.
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > I just finished reading an article in the October 2009 [!!] issue of > _Scientific American_ by an oil expert, concerning peak oil. He was > pretty convincing about the possibility of recovering much more oil > than they used to get out of the ground, along with finding new > supplies and substitutes for petroleum. > > The trouble is, of course, that "peak oil" would be a good thing, so > that if he's right, it's bad news. We have to stop using oil and other > hydrocarbons as much as possible, ASAP. > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
