From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon May 12 2003 - 10:35:35 MDT
On Sun, 11 May 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> What do you mean it isn't "sustainable"? So far as I know, Iraq can
> pump 900,000 - 3.5 million barrels or more a day at that cost level for
> many years into the future.
Mike, we may be using very different definitions of "sustainable".
When I speak of "sustainable" I am generally using a definition
of what is useful over my "anticipated" lifespan. I.e. 2000-7000
years if robust MNT arrives in the next 30 years or roughly
the same time scale if robust MNT does not arrive in the next 30
years, but cryonic reanimation technology arrives within the next
~100 years. [For simple philisophical reasons I've set aside
the question of when and whether uploading technology becomes
available -- since it makes this entire discussion silly.]
I have no arguments with your characterization of the Iraqi or
other oil production organizations. I think the Time article:
Iraq's Crude Awakening
D. L. Barlett, J. B. Steele, May 10, 2003
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,450939,00.html
discusses the tradeoffs quite well.
> OPEC can cut its production by 2 million barrels a day and the market
> production will still be 2-4 milllion barrels a day over demand.
So? It still isn't *sustainable* over the long term (e.g. thousands
of years). And unless one can make a concrete argument that global
warming will *not* result from oxidizing hydrocarbons currently
underground and releasing them into the atmosphere then one is,
IMO, playing with fire. Go find me a figure as to precisely what
temperature the oceans must warm up to before the methane clathrates
on the ocean floors are released into the atmosphere triggering
a catastrophic global warming event!
One can scale it back significantly -- are the tornadoes currently
ravaging the midwest "natural" or are they the result of our gradual
disruption of the planetary ecosystem. Stack up ones libertarian
rights to drive an SUV (driving the U.S. fleet milage down to its
lowest levels in two decades) with the deaths of people who actually
may be dealing with the "real" effects of global warming.
> Even then, we will still have ANWR
> available to drill, which contrary to critics claims, has plenty of oil
> in it. Enough to seriously dent world oil prices for a decent period of
> time if we need to.
Mike, I have seen numerous articles detailing that the ANWR isn't going
to make a *dent* in U.S. oil consumption and/or world oil production.
If you want to assert this claim you are going to have to make *much*
stronger claims.
For the record, the ANWR covers ~20 million acres:
http://www.ems.org/arctic_nat_wildlife_refuge/facts.html
while Iraq covers 437,072 sq km (~108 million acres):
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
(with some arithmetic thrown in).
The entire ANWR covers about the size of the state of South Carolina
while Iraq covers ~twice the size of the state of Idaho. Scaling down
for the regions with oil underneath (~1.5 million acres of the coastal
plain in the case of the ANWR vs. the Rumaila/Kirkuk/Majnoun/West Qurna
oil fields in Iraq) and it is *highly* questionable whether anything
the ANWR has to contribute would offset the situation in Iraq (or
even Russia and/or FSR if they ever got their act together).
> I'm not concerned about oil prices for the next several years at least.
I was not commenting on *prices* declines so much as whether we would
be intelligent enough to invest in technologies that would be based on
sustainability rather than depletion (and potential destruction of
our environment).
If we waste the savings in fuel costs we may have over the next 10-20 years
(due to cheap Iraqi oil) on CDs and DVDs then what has that bought us
on an extropic agenda? (A side note to this is may be that a completely
libertarian agenda based on the pre-programmed "instincts" one "naturally"
finds in humans is inherently unextropic -- i.e. live for today for tomorrow
you may be dead.)
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 12 2003 - 10:48:48 MDT