pstarr wrote:You have made an assumption that few here at peakoil consider valid.
Just as conventional petroleum is in decline world-wide and there remains no evidence that unconventional reserves can replace it (reduced and slower extraction rates, less net energy, greater environmental consequences, higher price, etc.) so to, the natural gas replacements you tout (tight shale gas, hydrates etc.) have similar shortcoming that will render them incapable of making up for global natural gas declines, much less be a mitigation for the much more serious petroleum peak.
>>> CLICK HERE <<<
pstarr wrote:That fact that you even would consider such higher-hanging fruit (to use Campbells metaphor for inferior petroleum replacements) as more abundant less expensive energy source is a willful misrepresentation of simple fossil-fuel geology and economics.
Shame Oily.
Hundreds of trillions -- nay, quadrillions -- of cubic feet of "high-hanging fruit," economical at the Btu equivalent of $40-$50 oil. Oh the horrors!