🚀 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.

Yeah, I had someone tell me last year that oil would never go over
$60/bbl. because that was what it cost to extract it.  Have you looked
at oil prices lately?
>
>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

The oil experts disagree with you and say that it would be 15 years
before we saw any impact.

>
>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.

You really don't know that those reports about China drilling in the
gulf were false?

>
>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.
>

So, they missed it by a couple of decades.  So did Orwell.