Structure And Organization Of The Petroleum Industry Economics Essay

Structure And Organization Of The Petroleum Industry Economics Essay From driving industries globally to heating our homes and fuelling our cars, oil plays a major role in our lives as consumers but most people are yet to ask themselves how the industry that produces this oil has evolved to what it is now. The petroleum industry has evolved overtime and the use of its products has also grown to become an essential part of todays global economy (Business and Economic Research Advisor, 2006). The petroleum industry is involved in the global business of discovering oil, extracting it from the subsurface, refining it into a variety of useable products, distributing it through pipelines and oil tankers, and finally marketing it for public use (Wikipedia, 2010). While some companies in the industry (integrated companies) perform all these functions, others only perform one or some of them (independents) (Davies, 1999). The source of energy that currently provides most of the worlds energy demands as well as raw material that the petroleum and chemical industries refine into a variety of essential industrial and chemical products came with the development of the petroleum industry in the nineteenth and twentieth century. These products include amongst others fertilizers, pesticides, solvents, pharmaceuticals and plastics. Products derived from crude oil refining are grouped into gasoline (motor spirit/fuel), heating oil, middle distillates (jet fuel, diesel for vehicles and other motor engines), kerosene for cooking and fuel oil (boiler fuel for industry, power and shipping). According to the American Petroleum Institute, the industry is divided into sectors that cover all the procedures involved in finding, producing, processing, transporting and marketing oil and gas. These include: upstream- involved in exploration and production of oil and gas using advanced geology to high-tech offshore drilling platforms; downstream- involved in refining and marketing. It also includes the transportation of products using tankers from local terminals to service stations and ownership and operations in retail outlets; pipeline- involved in the movement of oil from ocean platforms and wells on land to refineries and finally to terminals where they are released to retail outlets; marine- comprises all aspects of petroleum and its products movement by water, including port operations, maritime fighting and oil spill response; service and supply- includes companies that provide supplies, services, design and engineering support for exploration, drilling, refining and oth er operations. Prior to oil being commercially discovered and drilled in 1859 in Titusville, Pennsylvania, which saw the birth of the modern petroleum industry, natural petroleum served the primary purpose of kerosene for lighting and heating. In the early twentieth century, the use of coal as the worlds primary energy source was eventually replaced by oil and as gasoline for the newly invented internal combustion engine (Jones, 2005). Oil and gas development has evolved overtime. Their use has also grown to become an essential part of todays global economy. As oil and gas powers todays economy, its availability and control was important in both world wars and it still remains the critical fuel source that powers industry and transportation (BERA, 2006). With oil being commercially available in the US, the first major oil company, the Standard Oil Company was formed by J.D Rockefeller in 1870 and United States became the worlds giant in oil production until the end of World War two when the Middle East countries took the lead. The post world war era witnessed the union of Anglo-Saxon companies called the Seven Sisters as coined by Enrico Mattei, an Italian entrepreneur. They included four companies and three others ( Standard Oil Companies of New Jersey- Esso, New York- SOCONY, and California- SOCAL) formed by the break-up of Standard Oil Company in 1911 by the U.S government when the Companys operations were declared monopolistic and infringing the Countrys unique antitrust law as of then (Jones, 2005). The Seven sisters were vertically integrated international companies according to Jones (2005) that arose because of the need to ensure efficient operations of the refineries to assure and manage oil flows, secure outlets for crude oil and adjust to short-run changes in the demand for different products in different areas. They were involved at all stages in the industry from exploration and production of crude oil to marketing the products to its final consumers. They also diversified into fertilizers, pe trochemicals and other industries that utilized petroleum derivatives as raw materials. Except in North America and the communist countries, the seven sisters were responsible for 85% of gross crude oil production and 72% of refinery globally in the 1950s and they all made the list in the 1956 ranking of the worlds largest industrial firms by revenue (Jones, 2005). Intra-firm trades and the vertically integrated status of the multinationals had began to decline at the beginning of the 1950s as host governments policies to increase ownership and control over resources did not favour them. This was the period of nationalization with the majors, who had been strong players in the Middle East and other OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) countries, being dealt massive blows by the nationalization of assets in the Middle East and other countries (Davies, 1999). From the late 1960s, this trend led to the expropriation of foreign assets (nationalization without compensation) and the formation of national cartels intended to enhance the bargaining power of host countries against the seven sisters. A typical case was the formation of OPEC in 1960 by Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. They were involved in product pricing and quota sharing but overtime their influence was no more successful than the seven sisters in price re gulation in the long-run (Jones, 2005). The state owned national oil companies sprung up as a result of the nationalization during this period and foreign ownership of resources declined. Significant in the industrys development in the 70s and 80s was a change in the corporate structure of the industry and the policies of the host governments. New entrants emerged as the industry became more global in nature. Other world markets in Europe, Asia and Russia and began to play a much greater role and the seven sisters now had competitors. Amongst these were the U.S European State-owned oil companies like ENI, Italys AGIP and Frances CFP. Others who joined the competition for concession and market were independents like the U.S Occidental, Getty Oil, Continental and Amerada. Their involvement, increased the bargaining power of producer governments, weakened the control of multinationals over world oil prices and made the industry highly competitive forcing the incumbent multinationals to diversify into other industries but this was hardly successful (Jones, 2005). Despite the extensive global changes in the technology, markets and geopolitics, the structure of the industry had remained fairly intact some few years ago but in 1998/99 a period of corporate consolidation was introduced bring an abrupt end to this era of fair constancy (Davies,1999). From a series of mergers and acquisition between 1998 and 2002 in response to a severe deflation in oil prices was the emergence of the super majors in the industry. They included non-state owned companies like British Petroleum (BP), Total, ConocoPhilips, Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron. In an attempt to hedge against oil price volatility, improve economies of scale and reduce large cash reserves through reinvestment, they began merging in the nineties. BP acquired Amoco in 1998. From a merger of Esso and Mobil, ExxonMobil arose in 1999. Total Fina Elf arose from the merger between Total, Petrofina and Elf Aquitaine in 2000. A merger of Chevron and Texaco in 2001 created Chevron Texaco and finally in 2002 Conoco Inc. and Philips Petroleum Company became ConocoPhilips (Wikipedia, 2010). In some cases, these mergers at the micro-level increased profit but they were insufficient at having a major impact upon corporate level returns and profitability (Davie, 1999). Presently, the only survivors of the seven sisters are BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron contributing only 10% of the worlds oil and gas production and they hold only 3% of reserves with the states from developing countries owning the remainder. This notwithstanding, their integrated nature pushes their revenue higher than those of the new entrants (Jones, 2005). An interesting development as reported by the financial times of March 11, 2007 is the existence of the new seven sisters. They have become the most influential state-owned companies controlling nearly a third of the worlds oil and gas production. They include Gazprom (Russia), National Iranian Oil Company (Iran), Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabia), Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Malaysia), China National Petroleum Company (CNPC), Petroleos de Venezuela, (Venezuela) and Petroleo Brasileiro, Brazil (Wikipedia, 2010). From current trend of events, the industry is still evolving and further change is anticipated by some factors discussed herein. Firstly, oil reserves will decline because of the increased demand for petroleum resources globally. This will prove the Peak oil theory propounded by M. Hubbert in 1965. Regrettably, this has been unsubstantiated because of the continuous oil finds being made in other parts of the world and technological advancement which has allowed old oilfields once thought as depleted to be produced. Secondly, exploring in some parts of the world where finds has been made will require complex and cutting-edge technology making exploration difficult, expensive and highly risky. This may only favour the large companies as they will be equipped financially and technologically. Thirdly, the future petroleum industry will be increasingly competitive for oil prospect which may favour the super majors as they possess more technical know-how, finance and popularity. Nevertheless, the nationally-owned companies (NOCs) may be a strong match for them as they are supported by their state governments and also have the wherewithal to seek for concession. Fourthly, the wish of some countries to create their own oil companies and the concern about energy security is likely to increase resource nationalism in the near future. Unfortunately, this will be a minus for the super majors but a plus for the NOCs. As aftermaths of these possible future changes, there are likely to be more mergers and acquisitions, drop in the quota contributed by the individually-owned multinationals, shift of investment from petroleum to alternative energy forms and complete diversification of the majors from production to become companies servicing the NOCs. In conclusion, the petroleum industry plays a vital role in driving worldwide economy because its resources are considered amongst the worlds most important. This importance attached to petroleum would be reduced if the world diversified to alternative energy forms, some of which are renewable. This will not only reduce the influence of the industrys giant but it will also prolong the life of petroleum reserves, encourage the use of alternative energy such as natural gas, wind and nuclear power, and make our environments safe by reducing air pollution, global warming, acid rain and other environmental issues. Despite participation by the NOCs in international oil markets, the industrys boundaries have widened. There are potentials for the majors to improve their profitability but they will not have the unique advantages that could allow them dominate the industry (Davies, 1999). From the popular saying, change is the only constant thing in nature, the petroleum industry has had its fair share of structural and organizational changes over the past years, which has resulted in the industry having the state-owned companies, five supermajors, over a dozen large independents (e.g Amerada Hess, Marathon etc) and small independents (e.g Anadarko, Talisman, Lasco, British Borneo etc) and the specialist firms (e.g Schlumberger, Weatherford, Halliburton etc) as its current structure.

Sophocles :: essays research papers

	In 495 B.C. there was a child born about a mile outside of Athens. This child was to be named Sophocles. He was a boy whose father was a wealthy merchant. He now had the opportunity to enjoy all of life's greatest expectations in the Greek empire. Being that he was from a wealthy family, he had the chance to study all of the arts. By the time Sophocles reached his late teens, he was already known for his charm and elegance and was honored by being chosen to lead a challenging group of young men at a celebration of the victory of Salamis. When Sophocles reached the late twenties, he was ready to compete in the City Dionysia, which is a celebration held every year at the theater of Dionysus in which new plays are presented all of the time. This was to show how successful Sophocles was in his acting career. During his first competition, Sophocles had the honor of competing against the great Aeschylus himself and defeated him taking first place. There would be many more plays to follow this accomplishment and Sophocles would walk home with nothing less than a second place. 	Sophocles, noted as being a talented actor, performed in many of his own plays. In one of his plays called, "The Woman Washing Clothes," he performed a juggling act that was talked about all over town for many years because the audience was so fascinated. But before you knew it Sophocles was to take another route and end his acting career to venture elsewhere. For many years Sophocles served as a dictated priest in the service of two heroes named Alcon and Asclepius, who was the god of medicine. Not only did he do this but he also served on the Board of Generals which was a committee that administered civil and military affairs in Athens. For some time after that, Sophocles was the director of the Treasury. This was where Sophocles controlled the funds of the association of states which were to be known as the Delian Confederacy. Being one of the great innovators of the theatre, Sophocles was the first playwright to add a third actor to his plot. In doing this, he a nnulled the trilogic form. For example, Aeschylus used three tragedies to explain a single story. Sophocles preferred to make each tragedy a complete entry in itself.

One Laptop Per Child

Technology in Classrooms: One Laptop per Child-A Failed Idea? Is the use of technology benefiting the students in classrooms today or is It taking away from their education? Should students be allowed to have easy access to a computer during a lecture to find relevant information or is it a distraction that puts their attention onto something completely off subject? It has certainly been argued both ways. As technology becomes more prominent In everyday life, the global world changes at the same time. Third world, developing countries have begun to see this hang, and are starting to accept It.One proposed start-up for Introducing technology Into the classrooms of these countries was the One Laptop per Child, a nonprofit organization that alms to provide laptops for the children of developing countries (â€Å"One Laptop per Child†). Technology has certainly changed education, Thither Garments, a faculty member of a Montreal school, asserts the use of laptops and technology In s chool classrooms allows for academic success. He claims that by using computers concentration and motivation has increased as well as a way of successful teaching students important ND valuable computer skills (in â€Å"Laptops in school classes improve scores†).Robert Imaginer speaks on the behalf of students saying that they are more eager to integrate the use of computers into school because they are motivated to learn from it, they typically already know how to use one before starting school, and they are more likely to learn and understand the importance of technology which will help them with any future academic and employment opportunities. Imaginer claims that students have shown great excitement and are very curious in the classrooms with the introduction of computers.He said that teachers are seeing less and less absenteeism and behavioral issues through this technological learning style (Imaginer). The use of technology is becoming more, and more valuable, as we ge t older and get busier, the use of computers help manage our everyday, somewhat complicated lives no matter if we are in the classroom or not. While some strongly agree that computers are a good thing and should be used in every school classroom, there are also those who disagree by providing reasons why computers will not help in educating students.Paul Lam reported that both teachers ND students worry that computers in the classroom will be very distracting. Students agreed, saying that computers would take their attention away from what their teacher was saying. Teachers noticed that when computers were allowed during class time, students weren't looking up, and they would smile at the computer screen, or be typing during Inappropriate times (Lam). Yes, computers are useful, but they take attention away from Important lectures and class time. It's Important for these third world countries such as India, Peru, Kenya, and Afghanistan to continue to grow with this global change.Tech nology Is being used more. And more, and it can be very helpful improving education especially in these countries. Even though they are at different stages of developing, as the world moves forward in development, countries to be ready to incorporate those changes. Technology is a new and very big change, it is one change, but a very important one not only have access to it, but to also know how to effectively and efficiently use it. Everyone, everywhere can benefit it; sometimes it Just takes time to figure out the best way. Integrating technology is an issue all on it's own.Countries may want to eave the ability to access technology, and Western cultures may want to push the use of technology, but it's not always that easy. Technology has quickly taken over the world that we live in, we use it everyday, everywhere. The program, One Laptop per Child was designed to send low-cost, specially designed laptops to children in developing third world countries. According to the OLAP websi te, their â€Å"mission is to empower the world's poorest children through education† (â€Å"One Laptop per Child†) by providing them with this laptop.Kenneth Kramer says that OLAP put in a lot of effort to design a computer that loud withstand both the different and difficult conditions in a developing world country environment. Kramer stated that the designers had a great understanding of what developing countries needed when it comes to introducing technology. The computers are sealed, made to keep dirt out. The screen can read in bright sunlight, runs on very low power, and has a built in wireless system (Kramer). What's the best part? These computers were set to be only $100, completely affordable, right?The governments of these countries can purchase the computers and they can afford to give them to all the children. They have an important goal that no one is left out. All children should be able to experience the use of technology. One MIT professor, and adviser to the OLAP, Seymour Appear, talked about the benefits of the program saying that through the use of computers children can do anything, they â€Å"will take charge of knowledge† (Appear). With this program they will have access to computers, and they will have their own computer all the time.This will allow students everywhere, especially in developing countries to learn (Appear). Of course there are many cons and negative feedback based upon this program. There are always going to be two sides and it's important to look and understand both of them. From the New York Times, flogger David Vogue says it perfectly by saying, â€Å"think again. This laptop is not intended for the sneaky floggers. This laptop is intended for poor kids in other countries. And for that, I say it's amazing' (Vogue, 03:43).Nicholas Negotiate, founder of OLAP, says that these computers have now been distributed to 2,000 students across the globe, in 40 different countries, and available in 25 differ ent languages. Negotiate goes on to say that 25% of teachers in developing countries re illiterate and have very poor education. The other 25% teaching didn't finish school themselves, someone teacher fifth grade may only have a sixth grade education. These computers will not Just teach students, it will allow non-student adults to learn too.Negotiate said that we he first started this project people told him that you can't Just build a laptop that is connected, give it a kid and walk away. He responded with, â€Å"you know what, you can, you actually can, and we have found that kids in the remotest part of the world, when given that connected not only teach homeless how to read and write, but most importantly, thy teach their parents how to read and write† (Negotiate 2010, 03:52). In a separate interview, Nicholas Negotiate says that the most important part of this project isn't that children will have their own laptop, it's that this will become a part of society.This proje ct has education (Negotiate 2009). One Laptop per Child, has been widely criticized by many for not actually helping children. Jeffery James, quoted in a Journal article by Jeanine Renders, argues that the OLAP program leads to too much time spent focusing on computers and rumoring the use of the Western technology and way of life that not enough effort will be put into other forms of education that are of equal or greater importance (Renders). Lisa Marie Allen argues that Western cultures have a long history of trying to put their values, beliefs and way of life into non-western cultures.They are constantly exploring different ways to â€Å"help† these developing counties, when in reality they have little knowledge or understand of these third world countries, which are at a completely different stage of development. What Westerners believe to be a rarity, these non-western countries don't see as a priority. She states that in many countries such as Ghana, education is not a priority. Many children need to stay home, do chores and work for their families. They are not concerned with being computer literate (Allen).Eileen and Michael Benson continued this argument, by saying that OLAP believes that, â€Å"one educational model is suitable for all educational environments and that the latest educational approach should displace, historic, locally developed teaching approaches† (Person, 243). Pelham agrees saying that Hess countries don't need laptops, building schools and libraries is a bigger priority and will be more beneficial for students in developing countries. These students will go without pencils and paper while the computers end up being sold on the black market. Bringing laptops to the world's poorest children could be the educational equivalent of delivering cans of food to people who have no can-openers† (Pelham, 76). Paula Cook Mackinac talks about why teachers in developing countries have a hard time bringing the use of laptop s into their education plans. Mackinac says hey have very little knowledge about how to use computers themselves, let alone having to teach young students how to use them. Teachers said they need technological support if they want to incorporate technology in school classrooms of these developing countries, and they don't have it (Mackinac).Did One Laptop Per Child fail or succeed with their mission? It's up to individual interpretation and what is or should be important, as well as what has happened versus what was supposed to happen. Yes, computers were distributed to over 2,000 children throughout the world, and they have definitely learned from it. Many resources say it failed and they critique every aspect, but why did it fail? Computers were distributed and studies have showed that children learned from them. Sure, developing countries could use buildings, food and water more, but education is important.These laptops are Just one part of helping developing countries more forwa rd with the rest of the world. In reality, there isn't enough information to say for certain if this project truly failed or succeed. It would definitely be beneficial to research and find out exactly what happened with OLAP. Did students benefit from the program and the use of computers? Or did they slowly fade out? Do computers in class actually help students? What do advocates and critics think about OLAP and technology in classrooms?The more interest an issue gets, the more information, research, and solutions will be made or educational problems of the world's poor† (Weyerhaeuser, 46). Weyerhaeuser continues by saying the process of improving education with technology is at a very early stage. To make such a change will take time and the use of several different professionals (Weyerhaeuser). One Laptop per Child is definitely an area of study that should be continued. This is a program that needs to succeed, education is key for children and everyone has the right to one.

What Is the Anthropic Principle

The anthropic principle is the belief that, if we take human life as a given condition of the universe, scientists may use this as the starting point to derive expected properties of the universe as being consistent with creating human life. It is a principle which has an important role in cosmology, specifically in trying to deal with the apparent fine-tuning of the universe. Origin of the Anthropic Principle The phrase anthropic principle was first proposed in 1973 by Australian physicist Brandon Carter. He proposed this on the 500th anniversary of the birth of Nicolaus Copernicus, as a contrast to the Copernican principle that is viewed as having demoted humanity from any sort of privileged position within the universe. Now, its not that Carter thought humans had a central position in the universe. The Copernican principle was still basically intact. (In this way, the term anthropic, which means relating to mankind or the period of mans existence, is somewhat unfortunate, as one of the quotes below indicates.) Instead, what Carter had in mind was merely that the fact of human life is one piece of evidence which cannot, in and of itself, be completely discounted. As he said, Although our situation is not necessarily central, it is inevitably privileged to some extent. By doing this, Carter really called into question an unfounded consequence of the Copernican principle. Prior to Copernicus, the standard viewpoint was that the Earth was a special place, obeying fundamentally different physical laws than all the rest of the universe - the heavens, the stars, the other planets, etc. With the decision that the Earth was not fundamentally different, it was very natural to assume the opposite: All regions of the universe are identical. We could, of course, imagine a lot of universes that have physical properties that dont allow for human existence. For example, perhaps the universe could have formed so that the electromagnetic repulsion was stronger than the attraction of the strong nuclear interaction? In this case, protons would push each other apart instead of bonding together into an atomic nucleus. Atoms, as we know them, would never form ... and thus no life! (At least as we know it.) How can science explain that our universe isnt like this? Well, according to Carter, the very fact that we can ask the question means that we obviously cannot be in this universe ... or any other universe that makes it impossible for us to exist. Those other universes could have formed, but we wouldnt be there to ask the question. Variants of the Anthropic Principle Carter presented two variants of the anthropic principle, which have been refined and modified much over the years. The wording of the two principles below is my own, but I think captures the key elements of the main formulations: Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): Observed scientific values must be able to allow there to exist at least one region of the universe that has physical properties allowing humans to exist, and we exist within that region.Strong Anthropic Principle (WAP): The universe must have properties that allow life to exist within it at some point. The Strong Anthropic Principle is highly controversial. In some ways, since we do exist, this becomes nothing more than a truism. However, in their controversial 1986 book The Cosmological Anthropic Principle, physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler claim that the must isnt just a fact based on observation in our universe, but rather a fundamental requirement for any universe to exist. They base this controversial argument largely on quantum physics and the Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP) proposed by physicist John Archibald Wheeler. A Controversial Interlude - Final Anthropic Principle If you think that they couldnt get more controversial than this, Barrow and Tipler go much further than Carter (or even Wheeler), making a claim which holds very little credibility in the scientific community as a fundamental condition of the universe: Final Anthropic Principle (FAP): Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out. There is really no scientific justification for believing that the Final Anthropic Principle holds any scientific significance. Most believe it is little more of a theological claim dressed up in vaguely scientific clothing. Still, as an intelligent information-processing species, I suppose it might not hurt to keep our fingers crossed on this one ... at least until we develop intelligent machines, and then I suppose even the FAP might allow for a robot apocalypse. Justifying the Anthropic Principle As stated above, the weak and strong versions of the anthropic principle are, in some sense, really truisms about our position in the universe. Since we know that we exist, we can make certain specific claims about the universe (or at least our region of the universe) based upon that knowledge. I think the following quote well sums up the justification for this stance: Obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: Our very existence imposes rules determining from where and at what time it is possible for us to observe the universe. That is, the fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle.... A better term than anthropic principle would have been selection principle, because the principle refers to how our own knowledge of our existence imposes rules that select, out of all the possible environment, only those environments with the characteristics that allow life. -- Stephen Hawking Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design The Anthropic Principle in Action The key role of the anthropic principle in cosmology is in helping to provide an explanation for why our universe has the properties it does. It used to be that cosmologists really believed they would discover some sort of fundamental property that set the unique values we observe in our universe ... but this has not happened. Instead, it turns out that there are a variety of values in the universe that seem to require a very narrow, specific range for our universe to function the way it does. This has become known as the fine-tuning problem, in that it is a problem to explain how these values are so finely-tuned for human life. Carters anthropic principle allows for a wide range of theoretically possible universes, each containing different physical properties, and ours belongs to the (relatively) small set of them that would allow for human life. This is the fundamental reason that physicists believe there are probably multiple universes. (See our article: Why Are There Multiple Universes?) This reasoning has become very popular among not only cosmologists, but also the physicists involved in string theory. Physicists have found that there are so many possible variants of string theory (perhaps as many as 10500, which really boggles the mind ... even the minds of string theorists!) that some, notably Leonard Susskind, have begun to adopt the viewpoint that there is a vast string theory landscape, which leads to multiple universes and anthropic reasoning should be applied in evaluating scientific theories related to our place in this landscape. One of the best examples of anthropic reasoning came when Stephen Weinberg used it to predict the expected value of the cosmological constant and got a result that predicted a small but positive value, which didnt fit with the expectations of the day. Nearly a decade later, when physicists discovered the expansion of the universe was accelerating, Weinberg realized that his earlier anthropic reasoning had been spot on: ... Shortly after the discovery of our accelerating universe, physicist Stephen Weinberg proposed, based on an argument he had developed more than a decade earlier–before the discovery of dark energy–that ... perhaps the value of the cosmological constant that we measure today were somehow anthropically selected. That is, if somehow there were many universes, and in each universe the value of the energy of empty space took a randomly chosen value based on some probability distribution among all possible energies, then only in those universes in which the value is not that different from what we measure would life as we know it be able to evolve.... Put another way, it is not too surprising to find that we live in a universe in which we can live! -- Lawrence M. Krauss, Criticisms of the Anthropic Principle Theres really no shortage of critics of the anthropic principle. In two very popular critiques of string theory, Lee Smolins The Trouble With Physics and Peter Woits Not Even Wrong, the anthropic principle is cited as one of the major points of contention. The critics do make a valid point that the anthropic principle is something of a dodge, because it reframes the question that science normally asks. Instead of looking for specific values and the reason why those values are what they are, it instead allows for an entire range of values as long as theyre consistent with an already-known end result. There is something fundamentally unsettling about this approach.