by Micki » Mon 16 Jun 2008, 19:56:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')aybe I'm not sure what you mean by "open-minded" in this context. You already seem to have made up your mind that we won't be "saved by technology," so what exactly are you open-minded about compared to someone else who has made up his mind that we won't be "saved by technology"? Or do you just like to fancy yourself open-minded when you've actually already made up your mind?
Improvements in extraction technology can probably be rolled out reasonably quickly unless they are very complex to build. Improvements in vehicles or new vehicle technology is however quite a different matter. And especially if the new vehicle technology comes at a premium, the uptake is pretty slow.
Secondly, if the new technology is dependent on electricity it requires the grid to be upgraded as well.
To me this suggests that with oil trending the way it is, new vehicle technologies and grid are way behind in development and that will set us up for pain.
Furthermore, I think it is very risky to assume that certain improvements will be made before there is credible case showing it is feasible. For example I heard some rep. for Exxon state that if we can make technical improvement extracting just another 10% out of each well, we'll be OK.
This is putting hope in something we have not yet seen.
And with that kind of mindset, if successful, we would probably not fix anything just defer the problem a little bit. And as we know, improvement technologies usually results in faster depletion rate once limits are reached, so instead of a gentle depletion rate allowing for adjustment period, we would have a catastrophic sudden drop in production.