posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:04 PM
And then this again today: ATS Post re: Peak Oil
Reading this latest, I understand the anti Peak oil argument, but from what I've heard the majority of the new oil will be 'difficult' and
'costly' to extract and process? Of course, that's not what the owners of such reserves say...of course.
What also seems to be related in this new article, that the figures are being quite energetically massaged, debated and if there is a TREND it is that
the estimates are being downgraded (by the IEA apparently)as time goes by.
I know extraction techniques are evolving apace, but that alone may not necessarily prevent the short-term crisis element that I think the Peak Oil
voices are inferring...because we have so many other unhelpful issues and trends surrounding this (the economic crisis, geopolitical power changes,
changes in the world order, changes in world demand, changes and stresses in agricultural production and demand i.e. climate change: water
depletion/lack of rains/warming/cooling, changes in diet needs (China's move towards more meat biased diet) etc...
Thinking of the climate change issue too, TPTB could have decided they wish to play up Peak Oil to assist movement away from carbon dioxide pollution
to avert a climate change disaster - but then why all these simultaneous/coincidental military activities and initiatives focusing - or perhaps so
often overlapping oil/gas supply activities?
Indeed, my personal feeling is that they are more likely to be using the climate change* issue (*I'm not saying that a climate change issue does not
exist, but that for various reasons it became an important part of 'spin' required to get other things done) to speed up and motivate public
acceptance, expectations (of standards and patterns of living) and behaviours, to cope with anticipated reductions in oil/gas availability - which
infers that they may actually/secretly see Peak Oil/Gas as a greater immediate threat than climate change?
Well you got me thinking anyway...