Greg:
I refuse to accept your repeated assertion, in the form of an inference, that nobody who is not a "scientist", or a scion of the oil industry, can contribute anything valuable to what you are pleased to call a debate. This is also the implicit position of several others, Razor and qdog, for examples. It is like saying that a non-lawyer can have no opinion worthy of consideration about legal matters. It is the standard cant of self-appointed elitists.
On the contrary, we ignorant peasant serfs sometimes posess basic powers of understanding propositions and reasoning therefrom. For instance, when it is asserted that the presence of prodicible oil in AIPN's concession is a pipedream and a fairytale advanced by boiler room hypsters until we get it in the tanks of our automobiles, I, a country lawyer, am entitled to observe that the concession is literally surrounded by proven elephant oilfields, for the development of which naive parties like Chevron are expending billions as we speak; that minor players such as China are bidding against the majors; that suckers like Japan and South Korea are pledging enormous sums for the general economic welfare of Kazakhstan, just to get their noses under the tent; that the MSUP et al Kazaks have the Soviet data, can read, write and count, have their own oil scientists, and have gone to the elaborate lengths we know about to keep this concession to themselves; and, most importantly, that every rational investment is, by definition, a decision to take a RISK based on hearsay and inference. So, BTW, is all progress in science. I could go on---and on. Please stop talking down to the stinking, non-scientific lot of us. In my experience, scientists, and indeed technicians, when it comes to "debating" in the areas of their own disciplines, are about as open-minded as the Spanish Inquisition. They are as bad as lawyers, and we all know that covers a lot of territory. BTW sarcasm can be fun. Geneat |
