The head of the Royal Society of Chemistry in an interview has explained that there is far more oil in reserves than usually quoted in official figures. So there is no great urgency to find alternative technology - other than to comply with the phoney CO2 climate theory.
That's a rather specious conclusion. Have you taken into account the amount of time required to invent and implement such an alternative, and considered that there may be other limitations that apply to potential solutions, such as the amount of recoverable Lithium? Also, if you accept that oil is a useful substance, does it not make sense to avoid simply burning it or converting it to landfill, and conserve some for the many people who will inhabit the Earth far into the future?
ReplyDeleteI do not find this reserves argument very convincing. First and foremost, peak oil is about production rates, not reserves. Record high oil prices have not managed to break the plateau in global production that has existed since 2005. There is also the issue of declining quality (increased sulphur content), the increasingly sparse distribution of fields, manpower and equipment limits of the industry, nationalisation and ageing infrastructure. The IEA has just revealed that the current depletion rate of the largest 400 oilfields is 9.1%. This is the equivalent to bringing on a new Saudi Arabia every 18 months.