Re: The Party's Over

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Tue Apr 13 2004 - 11:21:17 EDT

John W Burgeson wrote:
>
> >>"We have to take these statements [about running out of Saudi oil]
> seriously because of the damage they can do to [sic] influencing
> desision-makers. And I think it would be tragic for the world to believe
> that we're running out of oil in the next 10 years. We may be running
> out of oil in the next 50-80 years; that's something else.">>
>
> I guess that if Glenn said that, I'd have to give it credence. For a
> politician to say it, and not give grounds, is like a lot of things
> politicians say. They say what their advisors tell them, and their
> advisors are constrained by the political system to downplay the
> negatives and focus on the positives.
>
> That happens in business as well. I saw it over and over at IBM. A flip
> chart (old technology, I know) which had two charts of "exposures" (IBM
> speak for things that would scuttle the project) would be presented to
> middle management. By the time it reached the decision maker, those two
> pages were either gone or relegated to a footnote.
>
> I suspect that goes on at the big oil companies as well. The bigger the
> company, the more likely. Nobody wants to be the bearer of bad news.
>
> That happens in government too, of course. Bush, for instance, only
> "knows" what he is told. Unlike some liberal Democrats, I do not hold him
> accountable for 9-11.
>
> Back to the issue of whether it is "this decade" or "50-80 years." If it
> IS the latter, and being a Pollyanna by nature, I hope so, that is way
> different than "this decade." That it is "sometime in the future" is
> probably without question. But 50-80 years is a long time in technology
> history. So many possible scenarios.
>
> BTW, if the YECs are right, then there is the possibility of new
> discoveries of oil fields at very deep depths, as I understand. Gold's
> theories have not, as I understand, been refuted.

        I know very little about geophysical evidence for or against Gold's theory but
from the astrophysical standpoint there are some things to be said for it. One of the
reasons for its original proposal was that hydrocarbons present in the solar nebula
might have provided a sticking agent to hold planetestimals after collisions in early
stages when their gravitation would have been too weak to do it.

        But of course that's a very un-YEC scenario.

        In fact, isn't the phrase "if the YECs are right" a little like "if fish ride
bicycles"?

                                                Shalom,
                                                George

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Tue Apr 13 11:23:49 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 13 2004 - 11:23:49 EDT