🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:49:01 -0700, "P. Maffia"
<pmaffia@centurytel.net> wrote:

>"Bob Brock" <bbrock@i-americia.net> wrote in message 
>news:ijhk74t0sncto85jtd325cp2vntit67ktv@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:37:10 -0700, "P. Maffia"
>> <pmaffia@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Well Gunner, the problem is that facts have no relevance to true 
>>>believers.
>>
>> Yeah, I'm wearing my hard hat so that I don't get hit by those falling
>> prices produced by oversupply.
>
>Over or under supply and peak oil are different concepts which have no 
>necessary relationship to each other.
>
>In Colorado's Oil shale alomne there is saufficientoil to take care of our 
>needs for over 100 years. That alone makes the peak oil argument worthless.

the component you are missing is that the cost of extracting that oil
is enormous.  Wouldn't expect you rightards to actually be able to
grasp reality.  Oh, sure, the stuff is there.  Wouldn't expect you to
be able to actually grasp the concept of getting the shit out of the
ground.

Hal

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives."       John Stuart Mill



>
>However, the existance of that oil does not affect either supply or price 
>since 1) Our laws prohibit its exploitation. There is enough oil off our 
>coasts to also render the peak oil argument the nonsense it is.
>
>Unfortunately, our laws also prohibit its expoitation so that vast 
>storehouse of oil isn't affecting our or the world's supply or price
>
>Of course, our laws are not stopping from Mexico drilling and finding oil in 
>the Gulf, nor China from finding and expoiting oil close enough to Florida 
>to illustrate the stupidity of our restrictive laws.
>
>In short "peak oil" is as moronic as the Club of Rome's predicting the world 
>was going to run out of every resource by the 1990's.
>