THE OIL RESERVE FALLACY

Proven reserves are not a measure of future supply ...

“We are looking at more than four and a half trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil. That number translates into 140 years of oil at current rates of consumption, or to put it anther way, the world has only consumed about 18 percent of its conventional oil potential.

"That fact alone should discredit the argument that peak oil is imminent and put our minds at ease concerning future petrol supplies.�

"The Impact of Upstream Technological Advances on Future Oil Supply" - Mr. Abdallah S. Jum'ah, President & Chief Executive Officer, Saudi Aramco, address to OPEC, Vienna, Austria, Sept. 13, 2006.

(Source: http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/)

The problem is that the continental USA oil production peak was predicted very accurately. North Sea oil production has already peaked. Have you been drinking the koolaid, Hey Hey?

What's that got to do with the statement by Abdallah S. Jum'ah, that is to do with other world future sources/reserves? You don't think that President & Chief Executive Officer of Saudi Aramco (the largest oil corporation in the world and the world's largest in terms of proven crude oil reserves and production) knows what he's talking about? Just in case you had trouble reading the statements from his talk, here is a video version: http://www.opec.org/home/multimedia/videos...ullahsjumah.htm

Personally, I think that Hillary Clinton's ideas on massive support for biofuel research and development is a way out of the ties of intimidation by the various oil rich nations (present and future). It looks like she and Bill will make a fine team that will provide a lasting legacy in many areas. Meanwhile, in the UK we'll go nucular (a famous US term) and it will be interesting to see how long it will last before we are beholden again. But then again, we will probably need all of the help we can get with our soaring population ( http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.more.ukpoptable.html ). This forum seems to have become inhabited by people who don't like to look at and discuss the alternatives. And here's me thinking you were a Kool-Aid fan, or was it sunstroke?

I do believe he knows what his business is. I also believe that corporate executives do not hesitate to lie when it serves their interests.* The Kool-Aid remark had to do with possible uncritical belief in "authorities" such as industry spokesmen.

Nuclear power, done properly, can be a long term contributer to energy abundance in the future. "Properly done" is hard, however. The technology does not yet exist in production form. It requires "fast breeders" that consume existing uranium waste from slow neutron power reactors. Long term investments in R&D will be enormous.

For the near term, photovoltaic solar and wind power seem to the the best investments.

And please quit reminding me of our illiterate head of state. It's embarassing. To think that half of the American voters actually reelected him is astounding and is a source of everlasting shame for my country.

* For those unversed in this issue, their interest is that if we really get a hint of the oil peak coming in five years, we might start investing in alternative energy now, cutting nicely into petroleum company future profits.