Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gottfried who wrote (13170)	3/1/1998 4:24:00 AM
From: Czechsinthemail	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

More on reserves: sepwww.stanford.edu Baird

To: Gottfried who wrote (13170)	3/1/1998 11:09:00 AM
From: Lee Fredrickson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Gottfried, A couple of Sunday AM reflections. <It seems in the early part of the century the US government predicted oil reserves would last just a few more years.> Now I'm not trying to pick sides here, but I'll bet the latest exploration efforts, world-wide, have involved a lot more sophisticated efforts than a handful of bearded, trail-weary geologists, looking and sniffing for traces of crude on the surface of the earth, ala the early part of this century. There could very well be more 'elephants' down there, but their number is finite and not increasing at a rate that will help us much. <Malthus argued with impeccable logic but ...> I haven't studied Malthus to any great degree, but I think the jury (of One, i.e. Mom Nature) is still out on over-population. It seems to me that any world-class problem that we as a species face can be found to have at least some roots in 'Too Many People.' The traditional reply...that "Someone will provide" hasn't yet come up with a proven Provider...starvation is still happening. Just a bone to gnaw on, of a Sunday in Seattle. Lee

To: Gottfried who wrote (13170)	3/1/1998 4:21:00 PM
From: William Nelson	Respond to of 95453

I read that Economist article too & am likewise skeptical. These people have historically always been wrong...but magazines love to publish doom and gloom predictions. Yet, oil is clearly finite so the day will come when discovery peaks. The crux of the SciAm article is how to account for revisions in the size of an oilfield. If a field of 500,000 barrels was discovered in 1965, and revised in 1990 to a total of 3M, the authors count that as 3M barrels discovered in 1965. Counting this way they say pumping is outpacing discovery. Apparently the oil industry doesn't count this way. I have to admit I think this is somewhat plausible...if most gain is coming from revisions of existing fields, and no big new fields are being found, that is a worrying sign. I have no idea if this is really the case but the authors say it is.