Discussion:
World oil supplies are set to run out faster than expected, warn scientists
(too old to reply)
Bob Brock
2007-06-14 15:04:12 UTC
Permalink
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece

Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007

Scientists have criticised a major review of the world's remaining oil
reserves, warning that the end of oil is coming sooner than governments and
oil companies are prepared to admit.

BP's Statistical Review of World Energy, published yesterday, appears to
show that the world still has enough "proven" reserves to provide 40 years
of consumption at current rates. The assessment, based on officially
reported figures, has once again pushed back the estimate of when the world
will run dry.

However, scientists led by the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre,
say that global production of oil is set to peak in the next four years
before entering a steepening decline which will have massive consequences
for the world economy and the way that we live our lives.

According to "peak oil" theory our consumption of oil will catch, then
outstrip our discovery of new reserves and we will begin to deplete known
reserves.

Colin Campbell, the head of the depletion centre, said: "It's quite a simple
theory and one that any beer drinker understands. The glass starts full and
ends empty and the faster you drink it the quicker it's gone."

Dr Campbell, is a former chief geologist and vice-president at a string of
oil majors including BP, Shell, Fina, Exxon and ChevronTexaco. He explains
that the peak of regular oil - the cheap and easy to extract stuff - has
already come and gone in 2005. Even when you factor in the more difficult to
extract heavy oil, deep sea reserves, polar regions and liquid taken from
gas, the peak will come as soon as 2011, he says.

This scenario is flatly denied by BP, whose chief economist Peter Davies has
dismissed the arguments of "peak oil" theorists.

"We don't believe there is an absolute resource constraint. When peak oil
comes, it is just as likely to come from consumption peaking, perhaps
because of climate change policies as from production peaking."

In recent years the once-considerable gap between demand and supply has
narrowed. Last year that gap all but disappeared. The consequences of a
shortfall would be immense. If consumption begins to exceed production by
even the smallest amount, the price of oil could soar above $100 a barrel. A
global recession would follow.

Jeremy Legget, like Dr Campbell, is a geologist-turned conservationist whose
book Half Gone: Oil, Gas, Hot Air and the Global Energy Crisis brought "
peak oil" theory to a wider audience. He compares industry and government
reluctance to face up to the impending end of oil, to climate change denial.

"It reminds me of the way no one would listen for years to scientists
warning about global warming," he says. "We were predicting things pretty
much exactly as they have played out. Then as now we were wondering what it
would take to get people to listen."

In 1999, Britain's oil reserves in the North Sea peaked, but for two years
after this became apparent, Mr Leggert claims, it was heresy for anyone in
official circles to say so. "Not meeting demand is not an option. In fact,
it is an act of treason," he says.

One thing most oil analysts agree on is that depletion of oil fields follows
a predictable bell curve. This has not changed since the Shell geologist M
King Hubbert made a mathematical model in 1956 to predict what would happen
to US petroleum production. The Hubbert Curveshows that at the beginning
production from any oil field rises sharply, then reaches a plateau before
falling into a terminal decline. His prediction that US production would
peak in 1969 was ridiculed by those who claimed it could increase
indefinitely. In the event it peaked in 1970 and has been in decline ever
since.

In the 1970s Chris Skrebowski was a long-term planner for BP. Today he edits
the Petroleum Review and is one of a growing number of industry insiders
converting to peak theory. "I was extremely sceptical to start with," he now
admits. "We have enough capacity coming online for the next two-and-a-half
years. After that the situation deteriorates."

What no one, not even BP, disagrees with is that demand is surging. The
rapid growth of China and India matched with the developed world's
dependence on oil, mean that a lot more oil will have to come from
somewhere. BP's review shows that world demand for oil has grown faster in
the past five years than in the second half of the 1990s. Today we consume
an average of 85 million barrels daily. According to the most conservative
estimates from the International Energy Agency that figure will rise to 113
million barrels by 2030.

Two-thirds of the world's oil reserves lie in the Middle East and increasing
demand will have to be met with massive increases in supply from this
region.

BP's Statistical Review is the most widely used estimate of world oil
reserves but as Dr Campbell points out it is only a summary of highly
political estimates supplied by governments and oil companies.

As Dr Campbell explains: "When I was the boss of an oil company I would
never tell the truth. It's not part of the game."

A survey of the four countries with the biggest reported reserves - Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait - reveals major concerns. In Kuwait last year,
a journalist found documents suggesting the country's real reserves were
half of what was reported. Iran this year became the first major oil
producer to introduce oil rationing - an indication of the administration's
view on which way oil reserves are going.

Sadad al-Huseini knows more about Saudi Arabia's oil reserves than perhaps
anyone else. He retired as chief executive of the kingdom's oil corporation
two years ago, and his view on how much Saudi production can be increased is
sobering. "The problem is that you go from 79 million barrels a day in 2002
to 84.5 million in 2004. You're leaping by two to three million [barrels a
day]" each year, he told The New York Times. "That's like a whole new Saudi
Arabia every couple of years. It can't be done indefinitely."

The importance of black gold

* A reduction of as little as 10 to 15 per cent could cripple oil-dependent
industrial economies. In the 1970s, a reduction of just 5 per cent caused a
price increase of more than 400 per cent.

* Most farming equipment is either built in oil-powered plants or uses
diesel as fuel. Nearly all pesticides and many fertilisers are made from
oil.

* Most plastics, used in everything from computers and mobile phones to
pipelines, clothing and carpets, are made from oil-based substances.

* Manufacturing requires huge amounts of fossil fuels. The construction of a
single car in the US requires, on average, at least 20 barrels of oil.

* Most renewable energy equipment requires large amounts of oil to produce.

* Metal production - particularly aluminium - cosmetics, hair dye, ink and
many common painkillers all rely on oil.

Alternative sources of power

Coal

There are still an estimated 909 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves
worldwide, enough to last at least 155 years. But coal is a fossil fuel and
a dirty energy source that will only add to global warming.

Natural gas

The natural gas fields in Siberia, Alaska and the Middle East should last 20
years longer than the world's oil reserves but, although cleaner than oil,
natural gas is still a fossil fuel that emits pollutants. It is also
expensive to extract and transport as it has to be liquefied.

Hydrogen fuel cells

Hydrogen fuel cells would provide us with a permanent, renewable, clean
energy source as they combine hydrogen and oxygen chemically to produce
electricity, water and heat. The difficulty, however, is that there isn't
enough hydrogen to go round and the few clean ways of producing it are
expensive.

Biofuels

Ethanol from corn and maize has become a popular alternative to oil.
However, studies suggest ethanol production has a negative effect on energy
investment and the environment because of the space required to grow what we
need.

Renewable energy

Oil-dependent nations are turning to renewable energy sources such as
hydroelectric, solar and wind power to provide an alternative to oil but the
likelihood of renewable sources providing enough energy is slim.

Nuclear

Fears of the world's uranium supply running out have been allayed by
improved reactors and the possibility of using thorium as a nuclear fuel.
But an increase in the number of reactors across the globe would increase
the chance of a disaster and the risk of dangerous substances getting into
the hands of terrorists.
Terryc
2007-06-15 02:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
This scenario is flatly denied by BP, whose chief economist Peter Davies has
dismissed the arguments of "peak oil" theorists.
"We don't believe there is an absolute resource constraint.
Oooh, a flat earther.
Post by Bob Brock
When peak oil comes, it is just as likely to come from consumption peaking, perhaps
because of climate change policies as from production peaking."
Lol, a clear failure to understand the concept

Maybe we should be really Fearing what he says. Australia is set to get
a CARBON TAX, which will basically affect coal mining. The reason this
is being pushed ahead by conservatives is that it will benefit the
nuclear power industry and help it appear to be the more economic power
generator. You know who ends up paying any tax they apply an what
happens once any "tax is applied.
Winston_Smith
2007-06-15 03:25:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:18:50 +1000, Terryc
Post by Terryc
Post by Bob Brock
This scenario is flatly denied by BP, whose chief economist Peter Davies has
dismissed the arguments of "peak oil" theorists.
"We don't believe there is an absolute resource constraint.
Oooh, a flat earther.
Post by Bob Brock
When peak oil comes, it is just as likely to come from consumption peaking, perhaps
because of climate change policies as from production peaking."
Lol, a clear failure to understand the concept
Maybe we should be really Fearing what he says. Australia is set to get
a CARBON TAX, which will basically affect coal mining. The reason this
is being pushed ahead by conservatives is that it will benefit the
nuclear power industry and help it appear to be the more economic power
generator.
Especially if you don't bother to figure in the cost of disposing of
the spent fuel. That's already a large bill and we haven't yet
seriously addressed how to do it. Some how, putting 5,000 year half
life material in barrels with no more than 100 years life and throwing
them in the ocean doesn't strike me as a practical answer.

Perhaps Osama will take some of the material off our hands.

Then there is the financial and human cost of producing the fuel in
the first place and the fact that our oldest reactors are wearing out
and we don't know how to dismantle and dispose of them.

And building new ones at today's prices is not a pretty concept.
Post by Terryc
You know who ends up paying any tax they apply an what
happens once any "tax is applied.
Jim
2007-06-15 15:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Malthus. I tend to agree. Scientists are notoriously bad at
predicting the future. In the 1920s a reporter asked Einstein how
long it would be before scientists figured a way of turning matter
into energy and he responded that it would not be accomplished for at
least another 1,000 years. Then of course there was the British
scientific assessment of the German V2 rocket program. What will
happen with petroleum is it will become progressively more expensive
until new technologies reduce the demand.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-16 14:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:18:50 +1000, Terryc
Post by Terryc
Post by Bob Brock
This scenario is flatly denied by BP, whose chief economist Peter Davies has
dismissed the arguments of "peak oil" theorists.
"We don't believe there is an absolute resource constraint.
Oooh, a flat earther.
Post by Bob Brock
When peak oil comes, it is just as likely to come from consumption peaking, perhaps
because of climate change policies as from production peaking."
Lol, a clear failure to understand the concept
Maybe we should be really Fearing what he says. Australia is set to get
a CARBON TAX, which will basically affect coal mining. The reason this
is being pushed ahead by conservatives is that it will benefit the
nuclear power industry and help it appear to be the more economic power
generator.
Especially if you don't bother to figure in the cost of disposing of
the spent fuel. That's already a large bill and we haven't yet
seriously addressed how to do it.
The French don't have any desert, so to speak, so what are they doing
with it? Handing it over to their rioters?
Post by Winston_Smith
Some how, putting 5,000 year half
life material in barrels with no more than 100 years life and throwing
them in the ocean doesn't strike me as a practical answer.
so don't do it.
Post by Winston_Smith
Perhaps Osama will take some of the material off our hands.
Perhaps he already has taken it off someones hands. Do you still
support open borders?
Post by Winston_Smith
Then there is the financial and human cost of producing the fuel in
the first place
Yep. Could be an economic boom. Jobs producing fuel, jobs producing
energy, jobs transporting and storing spent fuel.
Post by Winston_Smith
and the fact that our oldest reactors are wearing out
and we don't know how to dismantle and dispose of them.
Sure we do. The left just doesn't want to allow it.
Post by Winston_Smith
And building new ones at today's prices is not a pretty concept.
Here's a better idea... we could build them at tomorrow's prices!
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Terryc
You know who ends up paying any tax they apply an what
happens once any "tax is applied.
What happens? Is this like the phone tax?
Stuart Grey
2007-06-16 15:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
The French don't have any desert, so to speak, so what are they doing
with it? Handing it over to their rioters?
Back in the late 70s, when there were various oil shortages, I advocated
nuclear power. What did I know? I just had degrees in physics and
engineering. But it wasn't just my opinion, a guy named Hans Bethe*
came to our campus and gave lecture on the relative risks of nuclear
power. It became clear to me that more people will die if we didn't go
nuclear than if we did.

This idea was shouted down by a bunch of filthy pot hippies with guitars
and fornicating on the student union steps - these apes assured me that
their studies showed that we'd all be dead from nuclear accidents by 2007
if we went nuclear.

France went nuclear. Anyone recall how many people died in nuclear
accidents in France? I can't find any, seems to be zero. To be blunt, if
the frogs can do this, we can, if we don't kill ourselves with Affirmative
action and other stupid pc politics that get in the way of putting the
best people in the job.

We went with oil. Humm. How many oil wars have we suffered now?

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Betha
Winston_Smith
2007-06-16 19:40:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:13:51 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Back in the late 70s, when there were various oil shortages, I advocated
nuclear power. What did I know? I just had degrees in physics and
engineering. But it wasn't just my opinion, a guy named Hans Bethe*
came to our campus and gave lecture on the relative risks of nuclear
power. It became clear to me that more people will die if we didn't go
nuclear than if we did.
You are probably close to right on that. ALL forms of energy
production have human and environmental costs. Nuclear is perhaps the
least dangerous but it's still far from a free ride. It just looks so
good because a lot of the real cost is deferred to the unspecified
future.

The flip side of increasing energy production is conservation to limit
how much our energy needs increase. We have been sadly negligent on
that. To make things worse, most of the so called conservation and
alternate energy attempts have been between technically unsound and
out-and-out fraud.

We could go a long way toward independence with nuclear, solar and
wind where it makes sense, and aggressive conservation.

snip, mindless gibber.
Post by Stuart Grey
France went nuclear. Anyone recall how many people died in nuclear
accidents in France? I can't find any, seems to be zero.
That's a straw man argument. The question is not so much accidents.
They can happen. Good design and oversight can help but we all know
how profit drives out safety.

The real question is what to do with the spent fuel. That is already
a huge problem.

A parallel consideration is that we get much of our nuclear material
from foreign sources so it's similar to where we are now with oil.

Disposal and supply problems will only get worse as we shift a bigger
percentage of our production to nuclear and increase the total
production at the same time. There is no magic bullet; we need a
sensible mix IMHO.

snip, more mindless gibber.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-16 20:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:13:51 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Back in the late 70s, when there were various oil shortages, I advocated
nuclear power. What did I know? I just had degrees in physics and
engineering. But it wasn't just my opinion, a guy named Hans Bethe*
came to our campus and gave lecture on the relative risks of nuclear
power. It became clear to me that more people will die if we didn't go
nuclear than if we did.
You are probably close to right on that. ALL forms of energy
production have human and environmental costs. Nuclear is perhaps the
least dangerous but it's still far from a free ride.
Your people tell us that global warming is the most immediate threat
to our world, yet the most desireable, practical alternative to oil is
shunned...
Post by Winston_Smith
It just looks so
good because a lot of the real cost is deferred to the unspecified
future.
France doesn't seem to have a problem and everyone loves France
because????
Post by Winston_Smith
The flip side of increasing energy production is conservation to limit
how much our energy needs increase.
Huh??? It was your people that let the required Fleet MPG averages go
down the toilet. It was called "Conservation" back then. What is it
called now?
Post by Winston_Smith
We have been sadly negligent on
that.
We, Kimosabi???
Post by Winston_Smith
To make things worse, most of the so called conservation and
alternate energy attempts have been between technically unsound and
out-and-out fraud.
Calling Clinton/Gore the "Environmental Presidency" the out and out
fraud.
Post by Winston_Smith
We could go a long way toward independence with nuclear, solar and
wind where it makes sense, and aggressive conservation.
snip, mindless gibber.
Post by Stuart Grey
France went nuclear. Anyone recall how many people died in nuclear
accidents in France? I can't find any, seems to be zero.
That's a straw man argument. The question is not so much accidents.
They can happen. Good design and oversight can help but we all know
how profit drives out safety.
We all know how socialism drives out safety and truth (Chernobyl).
Post by Winston_Smith
The real question is what to do with the spent fuel. That is already
a huge problem.
Why?
Post by Winston_Smith
A parallel consideration is that we get much of our nuclear material
from foreign sources so it's similar to where we are now with oil.
How 'bout we buy it? How 'bout we stockpile some of it?
Post by Winston_Smith
Disposal and supply problems will only get worse as we shift a bigger
percentage of our production to nuclear and increase the total
production at the same time.
As we do what??? Your people won't let shift happen.
Post by Winston_Smith
There is no magic bullet; we need a
sensible mix IMHO.
Your people won't allow a sensible mix.
Post by Winston_Smith
snip, more mindless gibber.
Indeed.
Winston_Smith
2007-06-16 20:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Your people tell us that global warming is the most immediate threat
to our world, yet the most desireable, practical alternative to oil is
shunned...
You are suffering under the mistaken opinion that I am a liberal, a
democrat or (horrors) both.

It's easy to see why, of course. I'm critical of Bush.

Anyone critical of Bush is the enemy. NeoCons don't like that so they
ascribe everything they consider evil to the Bush critic. Then they
proceed to heap names on them and lie to tie them to any cause they
don't like. That has been the Rove/NeoCon playbook for decades. It
has the advantage of not needing any facts or logic to do it.

Earth to H&C, recognizing Bush as an idiot is not limited to
environmentalists. Republicans and Democrats, conservatives,
libertarians, progressives, and real liberals, social scientists and
hard scientists, labor and management, intelligentsia and Joe Sixpack
all recognize that Bush is what Little Stewie would call a gibbering
fool. His one success is to unite diverse groups in one common
opinion.

The only ones that ever bought into Bush's silliness were the chest
pounding fools that were born with less than normal intelligence.
They seem to make up about 19% of the population. You seem to want to
stand with that crowd.

Have fun. Your rantings are meaningless and not taken as anything but
the "look at me" outbursts of a small child. Just they typical NeoCon
attempt to shift the topic and the blame.
Stuart Grey
2007-06-16 20:39:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Your people tell us that global warming is the most immediate threat
to our world, yet the most desireable, practical alternative to oil is
shunned...
You are suffering under the mistaken opinion that I am a liberal, a
democrat or (horrors) both.
Oh brother. You keep doing this "paleoconservative Republican" bullshit,
and then spout the Marxist line on just about every issue. I don't need
you, I can just read what the CPUSA website's opinion on the issue is, and
viola! I can predict what your position will be. :D
Winston_Smith
2007-06-16 21:35:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:39:16 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Your people tell us that global warming is the most immediate threat
to our world, yet the most desireable, practical alternative to oil is
shunned...
You are suffering under the mistaken opinion that I am a liberal, a
democrat or (horrors) both.
Oh brother. You keep doing this "paleoconservative Republican" bullshit,
and then spout the Marxist line on just about every issue.
I know you prefer it if you victims don't bother defending themselves.
That's the NeoCon way.
Post by Stuart Grey
I don't need you,
Twice now you have loudly announced you have kill filed me. Once you
even made some bogus claim that I had done some mysterious and
undetectable thing to my net name to get around your filters. But
still, here you are answering my every post.

Any shred of credibility you may claim is lost. It appears you either
can't work a simple kill filter or you don't really want to; you just
want to hurl what you are hoping is an insult.

Sad to see schizophrenia. Trust me, I have no desire to be read by
the lower life forms on Earth. Just kill file me and get it over with
- as you said you were doing.
Bob Brock
2007-06-16 22:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:39:16 -0500, Stuart Grey
Twice now you have loudly announced you have kill filed me. Once you
even made some bogus claim that I had done some mysterious and
undetectable thing to my net name to get around your filters. But
still, here you are answering my every post.
You too huh? You would think that, as educated as he claims to be, he could
at least get that right.
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-06-17 12:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Winston_Smith
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:39:16 -0500, Stuart Grey
Twice now you have loudly announced you have kill filed me.
You too huh?
Me three :)
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-18 01:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Your people tell us that global warming is the most immediate threat
to our world, yet the most desireable, practical alternative to oil is
shunned...
You are suffering under the mistaken opinion that I am a liberal, a
democrat or (horrors) both.
It's easy to see why, of course. I'm critical of Bush.
You are critical of nuclear energy.
Post by Winston_Smith
Anyone critical of Bush is the enemy.
You are critical of our oil use, and you are critical of nuclear
energy.

Do you have any answers?
Post by Winston_Smith
NeoCons don't like that so they
ascribe everything they consider evil to the Bush critic. Then they
proceed to heap names on them and lie to tie them to any cause they
don't like. That has been the Rove/NeoCon playbook for decades. It
has the advantage of not needing any facts or logic to do it.
Fact - you are critical of our oil use.

Fact - you are critical of nuclear energy.

Fact - you claim that buy using alternatives, the bad oil mens in the
middle east will have to go searching for customers to make a sale.

Fact - you have no answers, only pipe dreams.
Post by Winston_Smith
Earth to H&C, recognizing Bush as an idiot is not limited to
environmentalists. Republicans and Democrats, conservatives,
libertarians, progressives, and real liberals, social scientists and
hard scientists, labor and management, intelligentsia and Joe Sixpack
all recognize that Bush is what Little Stewie would call a gibbering
fool. His one success is to unite diverse groups in one common
opinion.
Congratulations. You've diverted the topic.
Post by Winston_Smith
The only ones that ever bought into Bush's silliness were the chest
pounding fools that were born with less than normal intelligence.
They seem to make up about 19% of the population. You seem to want to
stand with that crowd.
Fact - they seem to make up 51% of registered voters.
Post by Winston_Smith
Have fun. Your rantings are meaningless and not taken as anything but
the "look at me" outbursts of a small child. Just they typical NeoCon
attempt to shift the topic and the blame.
Fact - you continually fall back on "Bush is an idiot" when you can't
offer solutions.

Now do you want to talk about solutions?
Winston_Smith
2007-06-20 02:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Your people tell us that global warming is the most immediate threat
to our world, yet the most desireable, practical alternative to oil is
shunned...
You are suffering under the mistaken opinion that I am a liberal, a
democrat or (horrors) both.
It's easy to see why, of course. I'm critical of Bush.
You are critical of nuclear energy.
Post by Winston_Smith
Anyone critical of Bush is the enemy.
You are critical of our oil use, and you are critical of nuclear
energy.
Do you have any answers?
I assume you can't read since I posted what I think on this matter a
couple days ago. As usual your latest nonsense is completely wrong.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
NeoCons don't like that so they
ascribe everything they consider evil to the Bush critic. Then they
proceed to heap names on them and lie to tie them to any cause they
don't like. That has been the Rove/NeoCon playbook for decades. It
has the advantage of not needing any facts or logic to do it.
Fact - you are critical of our oil use.
Fact - you are critical of nuclear energy.
Fact - you claim that buy using alternatives, the bad oil mens in the
middle east will have to go searching for customers to make a sale.
Fact - you have no answers, only pipe dreams.
I assume you can't read since I posted what I think on this matter a
couple days ago. As usual your latest nonsense is completely wrong.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Earth to H&C, recognizing Bush as an idiot is not limited to
environmentalists. Republicans and Democrats, conservatives,
libertarians, progressives, and real liberals, social scientists and
hard scientists, labor and management, intelligentsia and Joe Sixpack
all recognize that Bush is what Little Stewie would call a gibbering
fool. His one success is to unite diverse groups in one common
opinion.
Congratulations. You've diverted the topic.
Post by Winston_Smith
The only ones that ever bought into Bush's silliness were the chest
pounding fools that were born with less than normal intelligence.
They seem to make up about 19% of the population. You seem to want to
stand with that crowd.
Fact - they seem to make up 51% of registered voters.
Not now, Charlie!

And more like 48% and some creative counting in '04.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Have fun. Your rantings are meaningless and not taken as anything but
the "look at me" outbursts of a small child. Just they typical NeoCon
attempt to shift the topic and the blame.
Fact - you continually fall back on "Bush is an idiot" when you can't
offer solutions.
Sadly, I don't think there is any cure for his idiocy except death
from natural causes at an old age.
Stuart Grey
2007-06-16 20:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:13:51 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Back in the late 70s, when there were various oil shortages, I advocated
nuclear power. What did I know? I just had degrees in physics and
engineering. But it wasn't just my opinion, a guy named Hans Bethe*
came to our campus and gave lecture on the relative risks of nuclear
power. It became clear to me that more people will die if we didn't go
nuclear than if we did.
You are probably close to right on that. ALL forms of energy
production have human and environmental costs. Nuclear is perhaps the
least dangerous but it's still far from a free ride. It just looks so
good because a lot of the real cost is deferred to the unspecified
future.
The flip side of increasing energy production is conservation to limit
how much our energy needs increase. We have been sadly negligent on
that.
I don't think we've been negligent on limiting usage, as we only use 3x
the power that Americans in 1850 used.
Post by Winston_Smith
To make things worse, most of the so called conservation and
alternate energy attempts have been between technically unsound and
out-and-out fraud.
We could go a long way toward independence with nuclear, solar and
wind where it makes sense, and aggressive conservation.
Solar and wind are not practical sources for a national level.
Post by Winston_Smith
snip, mindless gibber.
Post by Stuart Grey
France went nuclear. Anyone recall how many people died in nuclear
accidents in France? I can't find any, seems to be zero.
That's a straw man argument. The question is not so much accidents.
They can happen. Good design and oversight can help but we all know
how profit drives out safety.
A straw man argument is where I misstate the argument of the opposition,
attack the much more irrational fabrication, and claim that I've debunked
the opposition's true argument.

I pointed out, quite rationally, that the french have been operating
nuclear power plants similar to the American designs since the late 1970s
when nuclear was ruled out as too dangerous, and they french have had no
loss of life accidents. It is QUITE a valid argument, thank you very much.

Yes, the arguments back in the 1970s were about accidents.
Post by Winston_Smith
The real question is what to do with the spent fuel. That is already
a huge problem.
Iraq is a huge problem. We wouldn't be in Iraq if it we had gone to
nuclear power. The Saudi's would still be sitting in the damned camel
tents in the sand, killing each other, and not have the money to finance
their terrorist acts.

Now the terrorist are gathering up nuclear weapons. Ironically, had we
gone to nuclear power like france, we wouldn't be in such danger of nuclear
death.

< snip more gibber >
Winston_Smith
2007-06-16 21:50:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:36:59 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Winston_Smith
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:13:51 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Back in the late 70s, when there were various oil shortages, I advocated
nuclear power. What did I know? I just had degrees in physics and
engineering. But it wasn't just my opinion, a guy named Hans Bethe*
came to our campus and gave lecture on the relative risks of nuclear
power. It became clear to me that more people will die if we didn't go
nuclear than if we did.
You are probably close to right on that. ALL forms of energy
production have human and environmental costs. Nuclear is perhaps the
least dangerous but it's still far from a free ride. It just looks so
good because a lot of the real cost is deferred to the unspecified
future.
The flip side of increasing energy production is conservation to limit
how much our energy needs increase. We have been sadly negligent on
that.
I don't think we've been negligent on limiting usage, as we only use 3x
the power that Americans in 1850 used.
It's not about how much. It's about how free can we get from foreign
sources. Make more, use less, squeeze out the off shore stuff.

We don't have to actually eliminate them. All we have to do is reduce
the share of our needs that we get from them. That takes them out of
the drivers seat and reduces them to just a vendor anxious to make a
sale, any sale. It also takes funds out of terrorist hands and puts
it in the American economy. It also keeps know-how at home.
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Winston_Smith
To make things worse, most of the so called conservation and
alternate energy attempts have been between technically unsound and
out-and-out fraud.
We could go a long way toward independence with nuclear, solar and
wind where it makes sense, and aggressive conservation.
Solar and wind are not practical sources for a national level.
Gibber, gibber. I wrote "where it makes sense" You answer "national
level".
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Stuart Grey
France went nuclear. Anyone recall how many people died in nuclear
accidents in France? I can't find any, seems to be zero.
That's a straw man argument. The question is not so much accidents.
They can happen. Good design and oversight can help but we all know
how profit drives out safety.
A straw man argument is where I misstate the argument of the opposition,
attack the much more irrational fabrication, and claim that I've debunked
the opposition's true argument.
No. It's where you bring up an irrelevant issue (the strawman) and
then demolish it (because it was picked to be weak). Then you claim
you have disposed of the real issues (the knight in armor/dragon)
without ever mentioning them.
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Winston_Smith
The real question is what to do with the spent fuel. That is already
a huge problem.
Iraq is a huge problem. We wouldn't be in Iraq if it we had gone to
nuclear power. The Saudi's would still be sitting in the damned camel
tents in the sand, killing each other, and not have the money to finance
their terrorist acts.
Duck and dodge. The issue is domestic energy policy. Get that right,
reduce our foreign needs enough, and they are back sleeping with their
camels.
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-06-16 22:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:36:59 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
A straw man argument is where I misstate the argument of the opposition,
attack the much more irrational fabrication, and claim that I've debunked
the opposition's true argument.
No. It's where you bring up an irrelevant issue (the strawman) and
then demolish it (because it was picked to be weak). Then you claim
you have disposed of the real issues (the knight in armor/dragon)
without ever mentioning them.
You're both close, but no cigar. Each of you has cited particular
examples of a straw man argument, but the general case is where you
respond to something other than your opponent's strongest argument. Both
of your definitions are just special cases of the more general technique.

And Winston - could you be accidently admixing the concept of a "Red
Herring" into your definition of a strawman?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Winston_Smith
2007-06-16 22:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Winston_Smith
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:36:59 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
A straw man argument is where I misstate the argument of the opposition,
attack the much more irrational fabrication, and claim that I've debunked
the opposition's true argument.
No. It's where you bring up an irrelevant issue (the strawman) and
then demolish it (because it was picked to be weak). Then you claim
you have disposed of the real issues (the knight in armor/dragon)
without ever mentioning them.
You're both close, but no cigar. Each of you has cited particular
examples of a straw man argument, but the general case is where you
respond to something other than your opponent's strongest argument. Both
of your definitions are just special cases of the more general technique.
I'll buy that.
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
And Winston - could you be accidently admixing the concept of a "Red
Herring" into your definition of a strawman?
Could be. Perhaps I should have written "That's a red herring. The
question is not so much accidents. They can happen. Good design and
oversight can help but we all know how profit drives out safety."

Careful with that RED herring. Stu will call you a communist. ;>}
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-17 14:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:36:59 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Winston_Smith
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:13:51 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Back in the late 70s, when there were various oil shortages, I advocated
nuclear power. What did I know? I just had degrees in physics and
engineering. But it wasn't just my opinion, a guy named Hans Bethe*
came to our campus and gave lecture on the relative risks of nuclear
power. It became clear to me that more people will die if we didn't go
nuclear than if we did.
You are probably close to right on that. ALL forms of energy
production have human and environmental costs. Nuclear is perhaps the
least dangerous but it's still far from a free ride. It just looks so
good because a lot of the real cost is deferred to the unspecified
future.
The flip side of increasing energy production is conservation to limit
how much our energy needs increase. We have been sadly negligent on
that.
I don't think we've been negligent on limiting usage, as we only use 3x
the power that Americans in 1850 used.
It's not about how much. It's about how free can we get from foreign
sources. Make more, use less, squeeze out the off shore stuff.
We don't have to actually eliminate them. All we have to do is reduce
the share of our needs that we get from them. That takes them out of
the drivers seat and reduces them to just a vendor anxious to make a
sale, any sale. It also takes funds out of terrorist hands and puts
it in the American economy. It also keeps know-how at home.
Sheesh!!!

Complete friggin pipe dream.

Developing nations will slurp up any "excess" production, keeping
demand high and sending money to terrorist hands.
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Winston_Smith
To make things worse, most of the so called conservation and
alternate energy attempts have been between technically unsound and
out-and-out fraud.
We could go a long way toward independence with nuclear, solar and
wind where it makes sense, and aggressive conservation.
Solar and wind are not practical sources for a national level.
Gibber, gibber. I wrote "where it makes sense" You answer "national
level".
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Stuart Grey
France went nuclear. Anyone recall how many people died in nuclear
accidents in France? I can't find any, seems to be zero.
That's a straw man argument. The question is not so much accidents.
They can happen. Good design and oversight can help but we all know
how profit drives out safety.
A straw man argument is where I misstate the argument of the opposition,
attack the much more irrational fabrication, and claim that I've debunked
the opposition's true argument.
No. It's where you bring up an irrelevant issue (the strawman) and
then demolish it (because it was picked to be weak). Then you claim
you have disposed of the real issues (the knight in armor/dragon)
without ever mentioning them.
It's like when you say if we develop alternatives then the creeps
selling oil will go begging for customers, "All we have to do is
reduce
the share of our needs that we get from them. That takes them out of
the drivers seat and reduces them to just a vendor anxious to make a
sale, any sale". Do you remember that strawaman?
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Winston_Smith
The real question is what to do with the spent fuel. That is already
a huge problem.
Iraq is a huge problem. We wouldn't be in Iraq if it we had gone to
nuclear power. The Saudi's would still be sitting in the damned camel
tents in the sand, killing each other, and not have the money to finance
their terrorist acts.
Duck and dodge. The issue is domestic energy policy. Get that right,
reduce our foreign needs enough, and they are back sleeping with their
camels.-
Pipe dream. What are smoking in that pipe?
Winston_Smith
2007-06-17 15:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Sheesh!!!
Complete friggin pipe dream.
Do you remember that strawaman?
Pipe dream. What are smoking in that pipe?
OK. I'll just put you down as believing there is absolutely nothing
America can do to even reduce our utter dependance on foreign oil?

Would you recommend we all learn to speak Arabic and study the Koran,
or do you think it's to soon to start that?

Why do you hate America so much?
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-17 20:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Sheesh!!!
Complete friggin pipe dream.
Do you remember that strawaman?
Pipe dream. What are smoking in that pipe?
OK. I'll just put you down as believing there is absolutely nothing
America can do to even reduce our utter dependance on foreign oil?
Since you've already ruled out nuclear energy, and you'll probably
find something wrong with coal...
Post by Winston_Smith
Would you recommend we all learn to speak Arabic and study the Koran,
or do you think it's to soon to start that?
It's never too late to become familiar with your enemies.
Post by Winston_Smith
Why do you hate America so much?
Because we'll never see the cheap oil that you dream of?
Winston_Smith
2007-06-20 02:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Sheesh!!!
Complete friggin pipe dream.
Do you remember that strawaman?
Pipe dream. What are smoking in that pipe?
OK. I'll just put you down as believing there is absolutely nothing
America can do to even reduce our utter dependance on foreign oil?
Since you've already ruled out nuclear energy,
Nope. Read my posts from a couple days ago. As usual, you are
completely wrong.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
and you'll probably
find something wrong with coal...
There you go again. Trying to read minds so you can slime people
before they said anything. That's classic NeoCon - don't debate
issues, just do some character assassinations using made up "facts".
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Would you recommend we all learn to speak Arabic and study the Koran,
or do you think it's to soon to start that?
It's never too late to become familiar with your enemies.
Post by Winston_Smith
Why do you hate America so much?
Because we'll never see the cheap oil that you dream of?
Ah, so you DO hate America. Noted.

And, no I expected high priced energy. You are back to mind reading
and character assassination again. Fundamentally dishonest. But we
know that because you are a NeoCon. Dismissed.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-20 11:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Sheesh!!!
Complete friggin pipe dream.
Do you remember that strawaman?
Pipe dream. What are smoking in that pipe?
OK. I'll just put you down as believing there is absolutely nothing
America can do to even reduce our utter dependance on foreign oil?
Since you've already ruled out nuclear energy,
Nope. Read my posts from a couple days ago. As usual, you are
completely wrong.
You find there are insurmountable problems with the storage of
waste.

What about that position would make me think you haven't ruled it out?
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
and you'll probably
find something wrong with coal...
There you go again. Trying to read minds so you can slime people
before they said anything. That's classic NeoCon - don't debate
issues, just do some character assassinations using made up "facts".
You have every opportunity to restate your position on coal, yet you
choose to slime me instead.
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Would you recommend we all learn to speak Arabic and study the Koran,
or do you think it's to soon to start that?
It's never too late to become familiar with your enemies.
Post by Winston_Smith
Why do you hate America so much?
Because we'll never see the cheap oil that you dream of?
Ah, so you DO hate America. Noted.
Whatever "slack" in the demand for oil that we create by developing
alternatives (which you have yet to get behind) will be slurped up by
no-carbon tax developing nations...

Nothing in that statement indicates that I hate America, I merely hate
your idea that we have to develop alternatives, then find
insurmountable problems with the alternatives.
Post by Winston_Smith
And, no I expected high priced energy. You are back to mind reading
and character assassination again. Fundamentally dishonest. But we
know that because you are a NeoCon. Dismissed.
Megalomaniac, you have no power to dismiss me.
Winston_Smith
2007-06-21 00:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Whatever "slack" in the demand for oil that we create by developing
alternatives (which you have yet to get behind)
Yet another in a long line of proud NeoCon lies. You are consistent,
I'll give you that.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
will be slurped up by no-carbon tax developing nations...
Nothing in that statement indicates that I hate America, I merely hate
your idea that we have to develop alternatives, then find
insurmountable problems with the alternatives.
Lie. I wrote

|>> Why do you hate America so much?

Your answer/admission was

|>Because we'll never see the cheap oil that you dream of?

You gave us the reason you hate America. Noted.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
And, no I expected high priced energy. You are back to mind reading
and character assassination again. Fundamentally dishonest. But we
know that because you are a NeoCon. Dismissed.
Megalomaniac, you have no power to dismiss me.
What the H is megalomaniac about me seeing the near future with
millions and millions of other people? You need a new dictionary,
boy. As a working definition of "megalomaniac" see "Bush".
Stuart Grey
2007-06-17 18:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:36:59 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
I don't think we've been negligent on limiting usage, as we only use 3x
the power that Americans in 1850 used.
It's not about how much. It's about how free can we get from foreign
sources. Make more, use less, squeeze out the off shore stuff.
The United States has a millennium's worth of coal and nuclear energy
resources at our current energy consumption rates. The only reason why the
United States uses foreign energy resources is because the leftist want it
that way, and won't let us use our domestic resources.
Post by Winston_Smith
We don't have to actually eliminate them. All we have to do is reduce
the share of our needs that we get from them. That takes them out of
the drivers seat and reduces them to just a vendor anxious to make a
sale, any sale. It also takes funds out of terrorist hands and puts it
in the American economy. It also keeps know-how at home.
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Winston_Smith
To make things worse, most of the so called conservation and
alternate energy attempts have been between technically unsound and
out-and-out fraud.
We could go a long way toward independence with nuclear, solar and
wind where it makes sense, and aggressive conservation.
Solar and wind are not practical sources for a national level.
Gibber, gibber. I wrote "where it makes sense" You answer "national
level".
My reply was more complex than you said. At a national level solar
and wind do not make sense. It may make sense for some isolated cases way
off the grid.

It is pathetic that you cannot make sense of that statement, and mistook
it for gibber.
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Stuart Grey
France went nuclear. Anyone recall how many people died in nuclear
accidents in France? I can't find any, seems to be zero.
That's a straw man argument. The question is not so much accidents.
They can happen. Good design and oversight can help but we all know
how profit drives out safety.
A straw man argument is where I misstate the argument of the opposition,
attack the much more irrational fabrication, and claim that I've
debunked the opposition's true argument.
No. It's where you bring up an irrelevant issue (the strawman)
You clearly don't know the difference between a straw man argument and an
irrelevant argument, even when it is explained to you.

< snip gibber >
Winston_Smith
2007-06-18 01:32:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:11:49 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Winston_Smith
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:36:59 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Winston_Smith
We could go a long way toward independence with nuclear, solar and
wind where it makes sense, and aggressive conservation.
Solar and wind are not practical sources for a national level.
Gibber, gibber. I wrote "where it makes sense" You answer "national
level".
My reply was more complex than you said.
I'm so sorry I minimized the extreme complexity of your quote.

Here is my original quote, intact and complete.

||> We could go a long way toward independence with nuclear, solar and
||> wind where it makes sense, and aggressive conservation.

Here is your entire utterance, intact and complete.

||> Solar and wind are not practical sources for a national level.

Oh, yes. I see now. You reply was MUCH, MUCH more complex. It
filled in all the nice structural words that make for a grammatically
complete and correct sentence -- and contain not one whit more info.
Post by Stuart Grey
It is pathetic that you cannot make sense of that statement, and mistook
it for gibber.
It is gibber. End of story. You pulled the old debaters trick of
changing the restrictive words to ones you picked and, based on that
switch, you find fault with what I said. I called you on it. Spare
us the "more complex" nonsense. We understand, NeoCons are never
wrong and they are usually victims.

You are wrong, you are dishonest, you are an idiot. Nearly everything
you write is gibber. You clearly belong in the lower 19% of American
intelligence that still support Bush. You have become irrelevant to
the world.
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-06-16 22:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Grey
I don't think we've been negligent on limiting usage, as we only use 3x
the power that Americans in 1850 used.
You'll have to provide a cite for that. I'd be very surprised if it were
true.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-06-17 12:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Stuart Grey
I don't think we've been negligent on limiting usage, as we only use 3x
the power that Americans in 1850 used.
You'll have to provide a cite for that. I'd be very surprised if it were
true.
Still waiting for your cite, liar.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Stuart Grey
2007-06-17 15:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Stuart Grey
I don't think we've been negligent on limiting usage, as we only use 3x
the power that Americans in 1850 used.
You'll have to provide a cite for that. I'd be very surprised if it were
true.
Still waiting for your cite, liar.
Once again, you prove yourself an idiot with the fallacy fallacy.

Now you must apologize and admit it was stupid of you to call me a liar if
I give the cite as well. You're raising the stakes.
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-06-17 17:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Stuart Grey
I don't think we've been negligent on limiting usage, as we only use 3x
the power that Americans in 1850 used.
You'll have to provide a cite for that. I'd be very surprised if it were
true.
Still waiting for your cite, liar.
Once again, you prove yourself an idiot with the fallacy fallacy.
Still waiting for anything, hand-waving, general "everybody know that",
whatever. But you lied about the staistic, and can show nothing.

Liar.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Stuart Grey
2007-06-17 15:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Stuart Grey
I don't think we've been negligent on limiting usage, as we only use 3x
the power that Americans in 1850 used.
You'll have to provide a cite for that. I'd be very surprised if it were
true.
Why would I bother to provide a cite to YOU?! You have a history of
ignoring and blowing off every cite I provide. It would be a waste of my
time to tell you where I got that information; you'd just lie, ignore, or
ridicule the source.

Considering that I have the book right here in my big, old, powerful
hands, and can find the page in a few seconds, it wouldn't even be much
time wasted.

That's how pointless it is to give a cite to you.

Provide an incentive for me to state my source: a promise to admit you
were wrong and that you'll change your mind on excessive American energy
consumption if I really do have a cite, for example.
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-06-17 17:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Stuart Grey
I don't think we've been negligent on limiting usage, as we only use 3x
the power that Americans in 1850 used.
You'll have to provide a cite for that. I'd be very surprised if it were
true.
Why would I bother to provide a cite to YOU?!
Because otherwise, everyone will further suspect that their conclusions
are true: You are a liar.
I just did, liar.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Stuart Grey
2007-06-17 19:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Stuart Grey
I don't think we've been negligent on limiting usage, as we only use 3x
the power that Americans in 1850 used.
You'll have to provide a cite for that. I'd be very surprised if it were
true.
Why would I bother to provide a cite to YOU?!
Because otherwise, everyone will further suspect that their conclusions
are true: You are a liar.
I just did, liar.
It's simple.

Promise to me that you'll apologize and admit you were wrong IF I provide
a cite, and I'll provide it. If you are not lying, then you have nothing
to fear from such a promise and when I don't give it, you'll have even
more to gloat over; you can say you called my bluff.

On the other hand, if your a asshole and liar, you won't make that
promise. You'll just continue to lie and slander.
strabo
2007-06-16 20:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
The French don't have any desert, so to speak, so what are they doing
with it? Handing it over to their rioters?
Back in the late 70s, when there were various oil shortages, I advocated
nuclear power. What did I know? I just had degrees in physics and
engineering. But it wasn't just my opinion, a guy named Hans Bethe*
came to our campus and gave lecture on the relative risks of nuclear
power. It became clear to me that more people will die if we didn't go
nuclear than if we did.
This idea was shouted down by a bunch of filthy pot hippies with guitars
and fornicating on the student union steps - these apes assured me that
their studies showed that we'd all be dead from nuclear accidents by 2007
if we went nuclear.
France went nuclear. Anyone recall how many people died in nuclear
accidents in France? I can't find any, seems to be zero. To be blunt, if
the frogs can do this, we can, if we don't kill ourselves with Affirmative
action and other stupid pc politics that get in the way of putting the
best people in the job.
We went with oil. Humm. How many oil wars have we suffered now?
If not oil then water, or food, or space or air, anything to
create fear mass fear.

You are trapped within the military/industrial matrix.
Post by Stuart Grey
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Betha
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Winston_Smith
2007-06-16 19:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Especially if you don't bother to figure in the cost of disposing of
the spent fuel. That's already a large bill and we haven't yet
seriously addressed how to do it.
The French don't have any desert, so to speak, so what are they doing
with it? Handing it over to their rioters?
Most nations are either dumping in the sea, storing the spent fuel on
the plant site where it was exhausted, or designating one central
nation depository area.

Are you proposing dumping spend nuclear material in the deserts?
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Some how, putting 5,000 year half
life material in barrels with no more than 100 years life and throwing
them in the ocean doesn't strike me as a practical answer.
so don't do it.
My, you are full of simple ideas. They are doing it. What's your
alternative? Do you even have one?
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Perhaps Osama will take some of the material off our hands.
Perhaps he already has taken it off someones hands. Do you still
support open borders?
Never did. That's Bush's bag.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Then there is the financial and human cost of producing the fuel in
the first place
Yep. Could be an economic boom. Jobs producing fuel, jobs producing
energy, jobs transporting and storing spent fuel.
My, you are full of simple ideas.

Medical jobs giving high cost treatment as the nuclear workers die
early and painfully at taxpayer expense.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
and the fact that our oldest reactors are wearing out
and we don't know how to dismantle and dispose of them.
Sure we do. The left just doesn't want to allow it.
Oh? Please explain what plans you suggest for handling decommissioned
reactors? Please point out the ones you like but the left won't
support.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
And building new ones at today's prices is not a pretty concept.
Here's a better idea... we could build them at tomorrow's prices!
You are a true NeoCon. Have you ever had a serious idea?
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
You know who ends up paying any tax they apply and what
happens once any "tax is applied.
What happens? Is this like the phone tax?
Your ignorance seems to know no limits.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-16 20:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Especially if you don't bother to figure in the cost of disposing of
the spent fuel. That's already a large bill and we haven't yet
seriously addressed how to do it.
The French don't have any desert, so to speak, so what are they doing
with it? Handing it over to their rioters?
Most nations are either dumping in the sea, storing the spent fuel on
the plant site where it was exhausted, or designating one central
nation depository area.
Are you proposing dumping spend nuclear material in the deserts?
Absolutely. Call it a "central nation depository" if you like.
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Some how, putting 5,000 year half
life material in barrels with no more than 100 years life and throwing
them in the ocean doesn't strike me as a practical answer.
so don't do it.
My, you are full of simple ideas. They are doing it. What's your
alternative? Do you even have one?
Stack it up in the desert.
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Perhaps Osama will take some of the material off our hands.
Perhaps he already has taken it off someones hands. Do you still
support open borders?
Never did. That's Bush's bag.
And Clinton's before him.
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Then there is the financial and human cost of producing the fuel in
the first place
Yep. Could be an economic boom. Jobs producing fuel, jobs producing
energy, jobs transporting and storing spent fuel.
My, you are full of simple ideas.
The thought of people working and earning instead of people sitting in
projects and sweating and sucking the life blood out of this nation?

Perhaps it's a simple idea who'se time has come.
Post by Winston_Smith
Medical jobs giving high cost treatment as the nuclear workers die
early and painfully at taxpayer expense.
Yep, everyone whose ever had a mouthful of x-rays is dying as we
speak...

Japan is no more... the nuclear radiation killed everything.
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
and the fact that our oldest reactors are wearing out
and we don't know how to dismantle and dispose of them.
Sure we do. The left just doesn't want to allow it.
Oh? Please explain what plans you suggest for handling decommissioned
reactors? Please point out the ones you like but the left won't
support.
Keep the fences up and abandon it.
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
And building new ones at today's prices is not a pretty concept.
Here's a better idea... we could build them at tomorrow's prices!
You are a true NeoCon. Have you ever had a serious idea?
You're a pessimist liberal. Nothing will ever work. Everything is
beyond our capabilities.
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
You know who ends up paying any tax they apply and what
happens once any "tax is applied.
What happens? Is this like the phone tax?
Your ignorance seems to know no limits.
Success through surrounding oneself by pessimists is an unlikely
endevour.
Offbreed
2007-06-15 14:41:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred years. They
have to be right eventually.
D***@GasHog.org
2007-06-15 16:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Offbreed
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred years. They
have to be right eventually.
The scientist has the liberal agenda. The scientist is the liar.

We can all drive all we want and nothing bad will happen.
Offbreed
2007-06-16 01:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@GasHog.org
Post by Offbreed
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred years. They
have to be right eventually.
The scientist has the liberal agenda. The scientist is the liar.
We can all drive all we want and nothing bad will happen.
.
Eventually the wolf will be there. Will anyone take the warning
seriously when it does?
Winston_Smith
2007-06-16 02:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@GasHog.org
The scientist has the liberal agenda.
AGREED.

Truth is a Liberal agenda lately.

If we are lucky maybe we can get rid of the NeoCons and get
Republicans back.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-16 14:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by D***@GasHog.org
The scientist has the liberal agenda.
AGREED.
Truth is a Liberal agenda lately.
If we are lucky maybe we can get rid of the NeoCons and get
Republicans back.
Now Winnie is praying for the Republicans to return. Hi!
Winston_Smith
2007-06-16 19:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by D***@GasHog.org
The scientist has the liberal agenda.
AGREED.
Truth is a Liberal agenda lately.
If we are lucky maybe we can get rid of the NeoCons and get
Republicans back.
Now Winnie is praying for the Republicans to return. Hi!
I always have been a paleo-concervative Republican.

Bush is a NeoCon and they are extremely liberal. Witness the
McCain-Kennedy bill and other NeoCon-radical Liberal collaborations.
Witness ultra-liberal Lieberman's support for Bush's war.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-16 20:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by D***@GasHog.org
The scientist has the liberal agenda.
AGREED.
Truth is a Liberal agenda lately.
If we are lucky maybe we can get rid of the NeoCons and get
Republicans back.
Now Winnie is praying for the Republicans to return. Hi!
I always have been a paleo-concervative Republican.
A what?
Post by Winston_Smith
Bush is a NeoCon and they are extremely liberal. Witness the
McCain-Kennedy bill and other NeoCon-radical Liberal collaborations.
Witness ultra-liberal Lieberman's support for Bush's war.
Odd. I thought Leiberman was outed from the liberal camp for being
too conservative. Had to test the waters as an independant before
switching sides.
Winston_Smith
2007-06-16 20:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by D***@GasHog.org
The scientist has the liberal agenda.
AGREED.
Truth is a Liberal agenda lately.
If we are lucky maybe we can get rid of the NeoCons and get
Republicans back.
Now Winnie is praying for the Republicans to return. Hi!
I always have been a paleo-concervative Republican.
A what?
That's someone that actually believes in conservative principles,
actually believes in a nation of laws, actually believes in the
Constitution, actually believes in limited government, actually
believes in a free market, actually believes in individual
independence.

We had to coin the word to distinguish ourselves from all the
charlatans that started using the word "conservative" but don't have a
clue what it's supposed to stand for.

You wouldn't know what I'm referring to. It's beyond your knowledge
or experience.

Thank you for asking.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-16 21:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by D***@GasHog.org
The scientist has the liberal agenda.
AGREED.
Truth is a Liberal agenda lately.
If we are lucky maybe we can get rid of the NeoCons and get
Republicans back.
Now Winnie is praying for the Republicans to return. Hi!
I always have been a paleo-concervative Republican.
A what?
That's someone that actually believes in conservative principles,
actually believes in a nation of laws, actually believes in the
Constitution, actually believes in limited government, actually
believes in a free market, actually believes in individual
independence.
We had to coin the word to distinguish ourselves from all the
charlatans that started using the word "conservative" but don't have a
clue what it's supposed to stand for.
You wouldn't know what I'm referring to. It's beyond your knowledge
or experience.
Thank you for asking.-
I didn't coin the phrase "appeasing pacifist" to apply to you. It was
already in the vocabulary. I guess I'm just lucky.
Winston_Smith
2007-06-16 22:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
I didn't coin the phrase "appeasing pacifist" to apply to you. It was
already in the vocabulary. I guess I'm just lucky.
Are you telling us there is no possible choices between total,
perpetual war and absolute pacifism ? Childish.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-17 00:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
I didn't coin the phrase "appeasing pacifist" to apply to you. It was
already in the vocabulary. I guess I'm just lucky.
Are you telling us there is no possible choices between total,
perpetual war and absolute pacifism ? Childish.
I'm telling you that I didn't have to coin a new word for you. It
existed previous to my use.
Winston_Smith
2007-06-17 15:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
I didn't coin the phrase "appeasing pacifist" to apply to you. It was
already in the vocabulary. I guess I'm just lucky.
Are you telling us there is no possible choices between total,
perpetual war and absolute pacifism ? Childish.
I'm telling you that I didn't have to coin a new word for you. It
existed previous to my use.
Nice foot work there Champ ! Now then. Answer the question. Are you
telling us there is no possible choices between perpetual war and
absolute pacifism ?
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-17 20:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
I didn't coin the phrase "appeasing pacifist" to apply to you. It was
already in the vocabulary. I guess I'm just lucky.
Are you telling us there is no possible choices between total,
perpetual war and absolute pacifism ? Childish.
I'm telling you that I didn't have to coin a new word for you. It
existed previous to my use.
Nice foot work there Champ !
Thank you.
Post by Winston_Smith
Now then. Answer the question.
I did answer the question.
Post by Winston_Smith
Are you
telling us there is no possible choices between perpetual war and
absolute pacifism ?
You're an appeasing pacifist.
Winston_Smith
2007-06-20 03:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
I didn't coin the phrase "appeasing pacifist" to apply to you. It was
already in the vocabulary. I guess I'm just lucky.
Are you telling us there is no possible choices between total,
perpetual war and absolute pacifism ? Childish.
I'm telling you that I didn't have to coin a new word for you. It
existed previous to my use.
Nice foot work there Champ !
Thank you.
Post by Winston_Smith
Now then. Answer the question.
I did answer the question.
Post by Winston_Smith
Are you
telling us there is no possible choices between perpetual war and
absolute pacifism ?
You're an appeasing pacifist.
Nice foot work there Champ !

Is there anything between perpetual war and appeasing pacifist?
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-21 01:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
I didn't coin the phrase "appeasing pacifist" to apply to you. It was
already in the vocabulary. I guess I'm just lucky.
Are you telling us there is no possible choices between total,
perpetual war and absolute pacifism ? Childish.
I'm telling you that I didn't have to coin a new word for you. It
existed previous to my use.
Nice foot work there Champ !
Thank you.
Post by Winston_Smith
Now then. Answer the question.
I did answer the question.
Post by Winston_Smith
Are you
telling us there is no possible choices between perpetual war and
absolute pacifism ?
You're an appeasing pacifist.
Nice foot work there Champ !
Is there anything between perpetual war and appeasing pacifist?
I'm not telling you there is, as you assert, or there isn't. Why do
you ask?

Has there ever been a war that you could get behind?
Winston_Smith
2007-06-21 03:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
I didn't coin the phrase "appeasing pacifist" to apply to you. It was
already in the vocabulary. I guess I'm just lucky.
Are you telling us there is no possible choices between total,
perpetual war and absolute pacifism ? Childish.
I'm telling you that I didn't have to coin a new word for you. It
existed previous to my use.
Nice foot work there Champ !
Thank you.
Post by Winston_Smith
Now then. Answer the question.
I did answer the question.
Post by Winston_Smith
Are you
telling us there is no possible choices between perpetual war and
absolute pacifism ?
You're an appeasing pacifist.
Nice foot work there Champ !
Is there anything between perpetual war and appeasing pacifist?
I'm not telling you there is, as you assert, or there isn't. Why do
you ask?
Because you say I'm an "appeasing pacifist". I sure don't support
wars for nationalist conquest like Bush brought us. Is there any
other choice I can make since neither extreme is acceptable to any
thinking person?

Bob Brock
2007-06-15 23:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Offbreed
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that
supplies will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred years. They
have to be right eventually.
Actually, if you look at the predictions, they seem to have been pretty
close for quite a while now. Oil is indeed a finite resource and will
deplete eventually. The party can't go on forever. There are a number of
ways to look at it. One is that technology will advance enought to find a
replacement. Another is that we will simply run out after the oil wars are
finished. Oddly enough, the neocons subscribe to the latter and want to be
sure that we win the oil wars early on.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-16 15:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Offbreed
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that
supplies will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred years. They
have to be right eventually.
Actually, if you look at the predictions, they seem to have been pretty
close for quite a while now. Oil is indeed a finite resource and will
deplete eventually. The party can't go on forever. There are a number of
ways to look at it. One is that technology will advance enought to find a
replacement. Another is that we will simply run out after the oil wars are
finished. Oddly enough, the neocons subscribe to the latter and want to be
sure that we win the oil wars early on.
Yep. Then when other countries develop technological alternatives,
we'll just steal them as they've been doing to us for that past 70
years. No R&D costs for America.
Bob Brock
2007-06-16 23:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Offbreed
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that
supplies will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred years. They
have to be right eventually.
Actually, if you look at the predictions, they seem to have been pretty
close for quite a while now. Oil is indeed a finite resource and will
deplete eventually. The party can't go on forever. There are a number of
ways to look at it. One is that technology will advance enought to find a
replacement. Another is that we will simply run out after the oil wars are
finished. Oddly enough, the neocons subscribe to the latter and want to be
sure that we win the oil wars early on.
Yep. Then when other countries develop technological alternatives,
we'll just steal them as they've been doing to us for that past 70
years. No R&D costs for America.
I'm sure that you thought that made sense.
strabo
2007-06-16 20:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Offbreed
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that
supplies will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred years. They
have to be right eventually.
Actually, if you look at the predictions, they seem to have been pretty
close for quite a while now. Oil is indeed a finite resource and will
deplete eventually. The party can't go on forever. There are a number of
ways to look at it. One is that technology will advance enought to find a
replacement. Another is that we will simply run out after the oil wars are
finished. Oddly enough, the neocons subscribe to the latter and want to be
sure that we win the oil wars early on.
Some predictions:

1. There are untapped oil reservoirs but the decision seems to have
been made not to promote the use of oil any longer. The socio-political
clime is such that oil demand will continue anyway and prices will be
raised to maximize profit. In this way governments will benefit through
usage taxes and the price per unit can be used to control usage.


2. The oil companies will assume the stance of providing 'a necessary
evil' and become 'green' while they and other monopolies next seek to
control other essential commodities, nuclear power and water.


3. Nuclear power will soon become the desired means for generating
mass electrical power.


4. Automobiles and trucks will be motivated by electricity. No, not
by batteries but by electrical wave generators buried in or mounted
along side roadways. The frequency will resonate with
converter/generators built into conveyances. The converted power
will be metered and this and the vehicle ID passed along to central
collection. The process will be licensed by the manufacturers to the
states and the individual vehicle. This will cover 80% of roadways and
satisfy the demands of urban planners and control freaks.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-16 14:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Offbreed
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred years. They
have to be right eventually.
Oil ran out by 2000. Didn't you get the memo?
Bob Brock
2007-06-16 23:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Offbreed
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred years. They
have to be right eventually.
Oil ran out by 2000. Didn't you get the memo?
You may want to look up bell curves and what a peak is. You may also want
to go to the local gas station and compare prices to what they were in 2000.
Then get back with us on the results and what you derive from studing supply
and demand curves.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-17 00:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Offbreed
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred years. They
have to be right eventually.
Oil ran out by 2000. Didn't you get the memo?
You may want to look up bell curves and what a peak is. You may also want
to go to the local gas station and compare prices to what they were in 2000.
Then get back with us on the results and what you derive from studing supply
and demand curves.
Sorry bud, but this wasn't under any bell curve.

When I was in High School, between the Vietnam news and the Watergate
news, we were being told that the oil would RUN OUT by 2000.
Bob Brock
2007-06-17 23:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Offbreed
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred years. They
have to be right eventually.
Oil ran out by 2000. Didn't you get the memo?
You may want to look up bell curves and what a peak is. You may also want
to go to the local gas station and compare prices to what they were in 2000.
Then get back with us on the results and what you derive from studing supply
and demand curves.
Sorry bud, but this wasn't under any bell curve.
When I was in High School, between the Vietnam news and the Watergate
news, we were being told that the oil would RUN OUT by 2000.
Good, given the nature of the Internet, I'm sure you will be able to find
something non-partisan to support your claim. I admit, I was a little to
busy to be reading the last few years of Vietnam, so I may have missed it.
Enlighten me.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-18 01:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Offbreed
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred years. They
have to be right eventually.
Oil ran out by 2000. Didn't you get the memo?
You may want to look up bell curves and what a peak is. You may also want
to go to the local gas station and compare prices to what they were in 2000.
Then get back with us on the results and what you derive from studing supply
and demand curves.
Sorry bud, but this wasn't under any bell curve.
When I was in High School, between the Vietnam news and the Watergate
news, we were being told that the oil would RUN OUT by 2000.
Good, given the nature of the Internet, I'm sure you will be able to find
something non-partisan to support your claim. I admit, I was a little to
busy to be reading the last few years of Vietnam, so I may have missed it.
Enlighten me.-
Sorry, bud, but given the nature of the internet, it didn't exist in
the 1970s.
Bob Brock
2007-06-18 13:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Offbreed
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn
that
supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred years. They
have to be right eventually.
Oil ran out by 2000. Didn't you get the memo?
You may want to look up bell curves and what a peak is. You may also want
to go to the local gas station and compare prices to what they were in 2000.
Then get back with us on the results and what you derive from studing supply
and demand curves.
Sorry bud, but this wasn't under any bell curve.
When I was in High School, between the Vietnam news and the Watergate
news, we were being told that the oil would RUN OUT by 2000.
Good, given the nature of the Internet, I'm sure you will be able to find
something non-partisan to support your claim. I admit, I was a little to
busy to be reading the last few years of Vietnam, so I may have missed it.
Enlighten me.-
Sorry, bud, but given the nature of the internet, it didn't exist in
the 1970s.
Too bad. I can find articles and books written in the 17-1800's. I must
have a truly old Internet then.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-19 00:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Offbreed
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn
that
supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred years. They
have to be right eventually.
Oil ran out by 2000. Didn't you get the memo?
You may want to look up bell curves and what a peak is. You may also want
to go to the local gas station and compare prices to what they were in 2000.
Then get back with us on the results and what you derive from studing supply
and demand curves.
Sorry bud, but this wasn't under any bell curve.
When I was in High School, between the Vietnam news and the Watergate
news, we were being told that the oil would RUN OUT by 2000.
Good, given the nature of the Internet, I'm sure you will be able to find
something non-partisan to support your claim. I admit, I was a little to
busy to be reading the last few years of Vietnam, so I may have missed it.
Enlighten me.-
Sorry, bud, but given the nature of the internet, it didn't exist in
the 1970s.
Too bad. I can find articles and books written in the 17-1800's. I must
have a truly old Internet then.
You must. And I dearly hope I'm not denigrating you by referring to
you as "Bob."
Bob Brock
2007-06-19 00:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Offbreed
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn
that
supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred
years.
They
have to be right eventually.
Oil ran out by 2000. Didn't you get the memo?
You may want to look up bell curves and what a peak is. You may
also
want
to go to the local gas station and compare prices to what they were
in
2000.
Then get back with us on the results and what you derive from
studing
supply
and demand curves.
Sorry bud, but this wasn't under any bell curve.
When I was in High School, between the Vietnam news and the Watergate
news, we were being told that the oil would RUN OUT by 2000.
Good, given the nature of the Internet, I'm sure you will be able to find
something non-partisan to support your claim. I admit, I was a little to
busy to be reading the last few years of Vietnam, so I may have missed it.
Enlighten me.-
Sorry, bud, but given the nature of the internet, it didn't exist in
the 1970s.
Too bad. I can find articles and books written in the 17-1800's. I must
have a truly old Internet then.
You must. And I dearly hope I'm not denigrating you by referring to
you as "Bob."
Not at all. Do you need tutoring in doing research on the net?
h***@hotmail.com
2007-06-19 00:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Offbreed
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn
that
supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
.
They've been saying something similar for the last hundred
years.
They
have to be right eventually.
Oil ran out by 2000. Didn't you get the memo?
You may want to look up bell curves and what a peak is. You may
also
want
to go to the local gas station and compare prices to what they were
in
2000.
Then get back with us on the results and what you derive from
studing
supply
and demand curves.
Sorry bud, but this wasn't under any bell curve.
When I was in High School, between the Vietnam news and the Watergate
news, we were being told that the oil would RUN OUT by 2000.
Good, given the nature of the Internet, I'm sure you will be able to find
something non-partisan to support your claim. I admit, I was a little to
busy to be reading the last few years of Vietnam, so I may have missed it.
Enlighten me.-
Sorry, bud, but given the nature of the internet, it didn't exist in
the 1970s.
Too bad. I can find articles and books written in the 17-1800's. I must
have a truly old Internet then.
You must. And I dearly hope I'm not denigrating you by referring to
you as "Bob."
Not at all. Do you need tutoring in doing research on the net?-
Bob, I know what I was told. Best of luck.
Robert Sturgeon
2007-06-16 23:01:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:04:12 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
So long as oil is a market commodity, there is no reason for
it ever to "run out." If the supply gets smaller and the
demand gets higher, the price will increase, convincing more
consumers to look elsewhere for their fuel and lubricant
needs. Hardly any surprise in any of that. "Run out"?
Why?

(rest snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Bob Brock
2007-06-16 23:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:04:12 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
So long as oil is a market commodity, there is no reason for
it ever to "run out." If the supply gets smaller and the
demand gets higher, the price will increase, convincing more
consumers to look elsewhere for their fuel and lubricant
needs. Hardly any surprise in any of that. "Run out"?
Why?
Run out is a relative term. When it gets so expensive that I can't afford
it, I have for all intents and purposes "ran out."
Nick Hull
2007-06-17 14:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:04:12 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
So long as oil is a market commodity, there is no reason for
it ever to "run out." If the supply gets smaller and the
demand gets higher, the price will increase, convincing more
consumers to look elsewhere for their fuel and lubricant
needs. Hardly any surprise in any of that. "Run out"?
Why?
Run out is a relative term. When it gets so expensive that I can't afford
it, I have for all intents and purposes "ran out."
As long as _I_ can afford it, it doesn't matter that you can't ;)
Winston_Smith
2007-06-17 15:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Hull
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:04:12 -0400, "Bob Brock"
So long as oil is a market commodity, there is no reason for
it ever to "run out." If the supply gets smaller and the
demand gets higher, the price will increase, convincing more
consumers to look elsewhere for their fuel and lubricant
needs. Hardly any surprise in any of that. "Run out"?
Why?
Run out is a relative term. When it gets so expensive that I can't afford
it, I have for all intents and purposes "ran out."
As long as _I_ can afford it, it doesn't matter that you can't ;)
When enough people can't afford it, the economy dumps and that effects
you too.
Bob Brock
2007-06-17 23:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Hull
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:04:12 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
So long as oil is a market commodity, there is no reason for
it ever to "run out." If the supply gets smaller and the
demand gets higher, the price will increase, convincing more
consumers to look elsewhere for their fuel and lubricant
needs. Hardly any surprise in any of that. "Run out"?
Why?
Run out is a relative term. When it gets so expensive that I can't afford
it, I have for all intents and purposes "ran out."
As long as _I_ can afford it, it doesn't matter that you can't ;)
As long as you can afford it, you my friend have not "run out." However,
that doesn't do me any good because I have indeed "run out." Needless to
say, some people at poverty level and poor in third world countries ran out
quite a while ago. Some people in the US have frozen to death in the United
States because they ran out during cold weather.
Nick Hull
2007-06-18 21:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Nick Hull
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:04:12 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
So long as oil is a market commodity, there is no reason for
it ever to "run out." If the supply gets smaller and the
demand gets higher, the price will increase, convincing more
consumers to look elsewhere for their fuel and lubricant
needs. Hardly any surprise in any of that. "Run out"?
Why?
Run out is a relative term. When it gets so expensive that I can't afford
it, I have for all intents and purposes "ran out."
As long as _I_ can afford it, it doesn't matter that you can't ;)
As long as you can afford it, you my friend have not "run out." However,
that doesn't do me any good because I have indeed "run out." Needless to
say, some people at poverty level and poor in third world countries ran out
quite a while ago. Some people in the US have frozen to death in the United
States because they ran out during cold weather.
It is possible to go south for the winter, there are even some
animals smart enough to do that ;)
Bob Brock
2007-06-20 01:18:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Hull
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Nick Hull
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:04:12 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
So long as oil is a market commodity, there is no reason for
it ever to "run out." If the supply gets smaller and the
demand gets higher, the price will increase, convincing more
consumers to look elsewhere for their fuel and lubricant
needs. Hardly any surprise in any of that. "Run out"?
Why?
Run out is a relative term. When it gets so expensive that I can't afford
it, I have for all intents and purposes "ran out."
As long as _I_ can afford it, it doesn't matter that you can't ;)
As long as you can afford it, you my friend have not "run out." However,
that doesn't do me any good because I have indeed "run out." Needless to
say, some people at poverty level and poor in third world countries ran out
quite a while ago. Some people in the US have frozen to death in the United
States because they ran out during cold weather.
It is possible to go south for the winter, there are even some
animals smart enough to do that ;)
They don't have jobs, family, and houses though. Plus, if someone can't
afford to heat their home, do you think they can afford to move south for
the winter?
Winston_Smith
2007-06-20 03:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Hull
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Nick Hull
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:04:12 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
So long as oil is a market commodity, there is no reason for
it ever to "run out." If the supply gets smaller and the
demand gets higher, the price will increase, convincing more
consumers to look elsewhere for their fuel and lubricant
needs. Hardly any surprise in any of that. "Run out"?
Why?
Run out is a relative term. When it gets so expensive that I can't afford
it, I have for all intents and purposes "ran out."
As long as _I_ can afford it, it doesn't matter that you can't ;)
As long as you can afford it, you my friend have not "run out." However,
that doesn't do me any good because I have indeed "run out." Needless to
say, some people at poverty level and poor in third world countries ran out
quite a while ago. Some people in the US have frozen to death in the United
States because they ran out during cold weather.
It is possible to go south for the winter, there are even some
animals smart enough to do that ;)
I think you should call the White House and tell them you have a
solution to the energy problem. They will be so pleased.
Bob Brock
2007-06-20 22:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Nick Hull
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Nick Hull
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:04:12 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
So long as oil is a market commodity, there is no reason for
it ever to "run out." If the supply gets smaller and the
demand gets higher, the price will increase, convincing more
consumers to look elsewhere for their fuel and lubricant
needs. Hardly any surprise in any of that. "Run out"?
Why?
Run out is a relative term. When it gets so expensive that I can't afford
it, I have for all intents and purposes "ran out."
As long as _I_ can afford it, it doesn't matter that you can't ;)
As long as you can afford it, you my friend have not "run out."
However,
that doesn't do me any good because I have indeed "run out." Needless to
say, some people at poverty level and poor in third world countries ran out
quite a while ago. Some people in the US have frozen to death in the United
States because they ran out during cold weather.
It is possible to go south for the winter, there are even some
animals smart enough to do that ;)
I think you should call the White House and tell them you have a
solution to the energy problem. They will be so pleased.
It won't work. Have you read the immigration laws south of the border?
They aren't as appeasing as we are.
Robert Sturgeon
2007-06-17 14:27:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:10:30 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:04:12 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
So long as oil is a market commodity, there is no reason for
it ever to "run out." If the supply gets smaller and the
demand gets higher, the price will increase, convincing more
consumers to look elsewhere for their fuel and lubricant
needs. Hardly any surprise in any of that. "Run out"?
Why?
Run out is a relative term. When it gets so expensive that I can't afford
it, I have for all intents and purposes "ran out."
So long as you want your words to mean something, "getting
very expensive" is not the same as "running out." Lately
grains have gotten very expensive, due to the ethanol craze.
They aren't about to run out. Diamonds have been very
expensive for a long time. They aren't about to run out. I
would suppose there are a lot of things so expensive that
you can't afford them -- which nonetheless aren't about to
run out. Oil isn't going to run out. If it gets scarcer,
and we still want it as much as we do now (or even more so),
it will get more expensive. As it is now, adjusted for
inflation, it's about as expensive as it was 30 or 60 years
ago -- about 1/10,000 the price of an upper middle tier car.
I don't understand why we bitch about $3.50 gasoline, but
not $35,000 cars. Well, some of us bitch about
everything...

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Bob Brock
2007-06-17 23:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:10:30 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:04:12 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
So long as oil is a market commodity, there is no reason for
it ever to "run out." If the supply gets smaller and the
demand gets higher, the price will increase, convincing more
consumers to look elsewhere for their fuel and lubricant
needs. Hardly any surprise in any of that. "Run out"?
Why?
Run out is a relative term. When it gets so expensive that I can't afford
it, I have for all intents and purposes "ran out."
So long as you want your words to mean something, "getting
very expensive" is not the same as "running out." Lately
grains have gotten very expensive, due to the ethanol craze.
They aren't about to run out. Diamonds have been very
expensive for a long time. They aren't about to run out. I
would suppose there are a lot of things so expensive that
you can't afford them -- which nonetheless aren't about to
run out. Oil isn't going to run out. If it gets scarcer,
and we still want it as much as we do now (or even more so),
it will get more expensive. As it is now, adjusted for
inflation, it's about as expensive as it was 30 or 60 years
ago -- about 1/10,000 the price of an upper middle tier car.
I don't understand why we bitch about $3.50 gasoline, but
not $35,000 cars. Well, some of us bitch about
everything...
Perhaps because I've had to buy some of the $3.50 a gallon gasoline, but
never bought a $35,000 car?
Robert Sturgeon
2007-06-17 23:39:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:08:52 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:10:30 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:04:12 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
So long as oil is a market commodity, there is no reason for
it ever to "run out." If the supply gets smaller and the
demand gets higher, the price will increase, convincing more
consumers to look elsewhere for their fuel and lubricant
needs. Hardly any surprise in any of that. "Run out"?
Why?
Run out is a relative term. When it gets so expensive that I can't afford
it, I have for all intents and purposes "ran out."
So long as you want your words to mean something, "getting
very expensive" is not the same as "running out." Lately
grains have gotten very expensive, due to the ethanol craze.
They aren't about to run out. Diamonds have been very
expensive for a long time. They aren't about to run out. I
would suppose there are a lot of things so expensive that
you can't afford them -- which nonetheless aren't about to
run out. Oil isn't going to run out. If it gets scarcer,
and we still want it as much as we do now (or even more so),
it will get more expensive. As it is now, adjusted for
inflation, it's about as expensive as it was 30 or 60 years
ago -- about 1/10,000 the price of an upper middle tier car.
I don't understand why we bitch about $3.50 gasoline, but
not $35,000 cars. Well, some of us bitch about
everything...
Perhaps because I've had to buy some of the $3.50 a gallon gasoline, but
never bought a $35,000 car?
Nevertheless, gasoline is not out of line with the general
increase in prices caused by the inflation of the currency.
Why target only gasoline?

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Bob Brock
2007-06-18 00:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:08:52 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:10:30 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:04:12 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
So long as oil is a market commodity, there is no reason for
it ever to "run out." If the supply gets smaller and the
demand gets higher, the price will increase, convincing more
consumers to look elsewhere for their fuel and lubricant
needs. Hardly any surprise in any of that. "Run out"?
Why?
Run out is a relative term. When it gets so expensive that I can't afford
it, I have for all intents and purposes "ran out."
So long as you want your words to mean something, "getting
very expensive" is not the same as "running out." Lately
grains have gotten very expensive, due to the ethanol craze.
They aren't about to run out. Diamonds have been very
expensive for a long time. They aren't about to run out. I
would suppose there are a lot of things so expensive that
you can't afford them -- which nonetheless aren't about to
run out. Oil isn't going to run out. If it gets scarcer,
and we still want it as much as we do now (or even more so),
it will get more expensive. As it is now, adjusted for
inflation, it's about as expensive as it was 30 or 60 years
ago -- about 1/10,000 the price of an upper middle tier car.
I don't understand why we bitch about $3.50 gasoline, but
not $35,000 cars. Well, some of us bitch about
everything...
Perhaps because I've had to buy some of the $3.50 a gallon gasoline, but
never bought a $35,000 car?
Nevertheless, gasoline is not out of line with the general
increase in prices caused by the inflation of the currency.
Why target only gasoline?
Perhaps because at the same time that gasoline was 35 cents a gallon, a loaf
of bread was also 35 cents a loaf. Now, bread is 1.89 and gas is 2.89.
Based on that the costs of other goods compared to gasoline, it would seem
that gasoline has indeed seen a significantly higher price increase compared
to other goods. I'm sure you don't want to look at the prices of diesel
compared to other goods since they will show a similar comparison.

Also, who shows record profits every quarter? The bread company or the gas
company? BTW, if the supply of oil is going to be so good for them over the
next few decades, why are they so reluctant to build refineries despite
record profits? Could it be because they also know that supply will shrink
to fit refinery capacity? Ya think?

I do....
Robert Sturgeon
2007-06-18 14:45:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:25:02 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:08:52 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:10:30 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:04:12 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies
will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
So long as oil is a market commodity, there is no reason for
it ever to "run out." If the supply gets smaller and the
demand gets higher, the price will increase, convincing more
consumers to look elsewhere for their fuel and lubricant
needs. Hardly any surprise in any of that. "Run out"?
Why?
Run out is a relative term. When it gets so expensive that I can't afford
it, I have for all intents and purposes "ran out."
So long as you want your words to mean something, "getting
very expensive" is not the same as "running out." Lately
grains have gotten very expensive, due to the ethanol craze.
They aren't about to run out. Diamonds have been very
expensive for a long time. They aren't about to run out. I
would suppose there are a lot of things so expensive that
you can't afford them -- which nonetheless aren't about to
run out. Oil isn't going to run out. If it gets scarcer,
and we still want it as much as we do now (or even more so),
it will get more expensive. As it is now, adjusted for
inflation, it's about as expensive as it was 30 or 60 years
ago -- about 1/10,000 the price of an upper middle tier car.
I don't understand why we bitch about $3.50 gasoline, but
not $35,000 cars. Well, some of us bitch about
everything...
Perhaps because I've had to buy some of the $3.50 a gallon gasoline, but
never bought a $35,000 car?
Nevertheless, gasoline is not out of line with the general
increase in prices caused by the inflation of the currency.
Why target only gasoline?
Perhaps because at the same time that gasoline was 35 cents a gallon, a loaf
of bread was also 35 cents a loaf. Now, bread is 1.89 and gas is 2.89.
So complain about the low price of bread. Wheat farmers do.
Post by Bob Brock
Based on that the costs of other goods compared to gasoline, it would seem
that gasoline has indeed seen a significantly higher price increase compared
to other goods.
No, it hasn't.
Post by Bob Brock
I'm sure you don't want to look at the prices of diesel
compared to other goods since they will show a similar comparison.
I'm happy to look at all prices: the price of a car; the
price of a house; the price of a gallon of milk; the price
of a bottle of water (water -- we buy WATER in bottles
now!); the price of a cup of coffee at Starbuck's... Go
ahead, look at ALL the various prices. Just don't cherry
pick the prices which have lagged the general increase in
prices, like the price of bread.
Post by Bob Brock
Also, who shows record profits every quarter? The bread company or the gas
company?
The oil companies are doing very well. I'm glad they are,
because they are providing extremely important goods to us,
and I certainly want them to continue doing so.
Post by Bob Brock
BTW, if the supply of oil is going to be so good for them over the
next few decades, why are they so reluctant to build refineries despite
record profits?
Because the regulatory environment is extremely difficult.
You just try to build a new refinery, and see what hoops you
have to jump through. It's practically impossible.
Post by Bob Brock
Could it be because they also know that supply will shrink
to fit refinery capacity? Ya think?
I don't know about that. I'm sure we could get a lot more
oil in the United States if the damned "environmentalists"
would let the oil companies go for it -- in Alaska, off the
California coast, off the Florida coast, etc. There is a
lot of oil out there, politically sealed off from the
market. And the amount of oil available in the Middle East,
while it must eventually decrease, is still immense.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
RadicalModerate
2007-06-18 21:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sturgeon
I don't know about that. I'm sure we could get a lot more
oil in the United States if the damned "environmentalists"
would let the oil companies go for it -- in Alaska, off the
California coast, off the Florida coast, etc. There is a
lot of oil out there, politically sealed off from the
market. And the amount of oil available in the Middle East,
while it must eventually decrease, is still immense.
Mr. Sturgeon, I'm sure you know *exactly* why offshore oil production off
the Florida and California coasts isn't happening.

Let's pretend for a bit you're a banker or REIT with a
portfolio of mortgages on super-premium California oceanfront properties.

Or you're a major decision-maker at one of Marriott, Accor, or Starwood
Hotels which have some of their most profitable hotels on the Florida
Coast.

Just think what a major well blow-out or tanker collision is going to do
to your profit picture and/or the value of your holdings.

Wouldn't you be on the horn to your "rainmakers" in Washington, DC,
Sacremento or Talahasee when the topic of ofshore drilling comes up?
--
The published From: address is a trap.
Take my first initial and last name
and look at the origin of this post.
if you really want to send me email.
Or request a private reply in the group.
Gunner
2007-06-19 00:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by RadicalModerate
Mr. Sturgeon, I'm sure you know *exactly* why offshore oil production off
the Florida and California coasts isn't happening.
Let's pretend for a bit you're a banker or REIT with a
portfolio of mortgages on super-premium California oceanfront properties.
Or you're a major decision-maker at one of Marriott, Accor, or Starwood
Hotels which have some of their most profitable hotels on the Florida
Coast.
Just think what a major well blow-out or tanker collision is going to do
to your profit picture and/or the value of your holdings.
Wouldn't you be on the horn to your "rainmakers" in Washington, DC,
Sacremento or Talahasee when the topic of ofshore drilling comes up?
So you are claiming real estate agents control the oil companies?

Fascinating.


Gunner

"Abortion is self defense"
Bob Kolker
RadicalModerate
2007-06-19 17:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
So you are claiming real estate agents control the oil companies?
Fascinating.
Of course not - it's the MONEY POWER which determines where the oil companies
can explore and drill for oil.

Take note of the flip-flops on that topic in Florida.
If there's a place where in the event of a big spill
(and you of all people know if you play with oil long enough you're
going to spill some) only poor and working-class people are going
to lose their habitat and livelihoods ...then sure there will
be offshore oil production. I'm sure there's some Florida and Gulf
coastal areas which meet that specification.
--
The published From: address is a trap.
Stuart Grey
2007-06-19 17:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by RadicalModerate
Post by Gunner
So you are claiming real estate agents control the oil companies?
Fascinating.
Of course not - it's the MONEY POWER which determines where the oil companies
can explore and drill for oil.
We have another 30 years worth of oil on the US of A's portion of the
continental shelf that cannot be developed because of left wing liberal
laws. I don't think you meant to include the environmentalist as "money
power", did you?
Post by RadicalModerate
Take note of the flip-flops on that topic in Florida.
If there's a place where in the event of a big spill
(and you of all people know if you play with oil long enough you're
going to spill some) only poor and working-class people are going
to lose their habitat and livelihoods ...then sure there will
be offshore oil production. I'm sure there's some Florida and Gulf
coastal areas which meet that specification.
You need to decide who's livelihood is most important to you.
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-06-19 18:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Grey
We have another 30 years worth of oil on the US of A's portion of the
continental shelf
Cite? Or will we again conclude tat you picked that statistic out of
your horse's ass?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Stuart Grey
2007-06-19 18:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Stuart Grey
We have another 30 years worth of oil on the US of A's portion of the
continental shelf
Cite? Or will we again conclude tat you picked that statistic out of
your horse's ass?
You lost the right to ask for cites. I look them up and you gibber some
stupidity about them and continue your idiot spews.

Now you have to:
1) Tell me how the proving the fact true will change your mind.
2) Apologize for assuming that because I don't waste my time giving a
jackass such as yourself cites that I'm lying and don't have a cite.
3) Fuck off and die.
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-06-19 18:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
We have another 30 years worth of oil on the US of A's portion of the
continental shelf
Cite? Or will we again conclude that you picked that statistic out of
your horse's ass?
You lost the right to ask for cites.
Lying again, Stu? No surprise, really...
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Bob Brock
2007-06-19 18:39:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Stuart Grey
We have another 30 years worth of oil on the US of A's portion of the
continental shelf
Cite? Or will we again conclude tat you picked that statistic out of
your horse's ass?
You lost the right to ask for cites. I look them up and you gibber some
stupidity about them and continue your idiot spews.
1) Tell me how the proving the fact true will change your mind.
2) Apologize for assuming that because I don't waste my time giving a
jackass such as yourself cites that I'm lying and don't have a cite.
3) Fuck off and die.
Or he could just assume you are full of shit, unable to support your claim,
and piss on you...
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2007-06-19 18:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Or he could just assume you are full of shit, unable to support your claim,
and piss on you...
Just like most folx do?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Bob Brock
2007-06-19 19:08:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Bob Brock
Or he could just assume you are full of shit, unable to support your claim,
and piss on you...
Just like most folx do?
Yeah, but I'm trying to figure out how he can not know it.
Stuart Grey
2007-06-19 18:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Stuart Grey
We have another 30 years worth of oil on the US of A's portion of the
continental shelf
Cite? Or will we again conclude tat you picked that statistic out of
your horse's ass?
You lost the right to ask for cites. I look them up and you gibber some
stupidity about them and continue your idiot spews.
1) Tell me how the proving the fact true will change your mind.
2) Apologize for assuming that because I don't waste my time giving a
jackass such as yourself cites that I'm lying and don't have a cite.
3) Fuck off and die.
Or he could just assume you are full of shit, unable to support your claim,
and piss on you...
You pair of ignorant gibbering assholes can and do ASSume anything and
everything you want.

That is, after all, what idiots do.
Bob Brock
2007-06-19 19:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Stuart Grey
We have another 30 years worth of oil on the US of A's portion of the
continental shelf
Cite? Or will we again conclude tat you picked that statistic out of
your horse's ass?
You lost the right to ask for cites. I look them up and you gibber some
stupidity about them and continue your idiot spews.
1) Tell me how the proving the fact true will change your mind.
2) Apologize for assuming that because I don't waste my time giving a
jackass such as yourself cites that I'm lying and don't have a cite.
3) Fuck off and die.
Or he could just assume you are full of shit, unable to support your claim,
and piss on you...
You pair of ignorant gibbering assholes can and do ASSume anything and
everything you want.
That is, after all, what idiots do.
One would have to be an idiot to continue reading your bullshit. I'm done
for awhile since you seem to have decided to quit stalking me. However, if
you start back, I'll be right here. I know that one cannot filter you as
that gives you the chance to post much more bullshit and think you are
right. Stewie, look around you, most people already know that your bullshit
factor in posts is very high. They may play with you, but as far as I can
tell, none of them believe you.

Now, glibber back IDIOT and have the last word.
Stuart Grey
2007-06-20 00:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Stuart Grey
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Stuart Grey
We have another 30 years worth of oil on the US of A's portion of the
continental shelf
Cite? Or will we again conclude tat you picked that statistic out of
your horse's ass?
You lost the right to ask for cites. I look them up and you gibber some
stupidity about them and continue your idiot spews.
1) Tell me how the proving the fact true will change your mind.
2) Apologize for assuming that because I don't waste my time giving a
jackass such as yourself cites that I'm lying and don't have a cite.
3) Fuck off and die.
Or he could just assume you are full of shit, unable to support your claim,
and piss on you...
You pair of ignorant gibbering assholes can and do ASSume anything and
everything you want.
That is, after all, what idiots do.
One would have to be an idiot to continue reading your bullshit. I'm done
for awhile since you seem to have decided to quit stalking me.
Stalking you? You flatter yourself in your paranoia.

I blew off a lot of your replies to me because they were childish crap;
any fool swayed by them was as lost a cause as you are.
Gunner
2007-06-20 17:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by RadicalModerate
Post by Gunner
So you are claiming real estate agents control the oil companies?
Fascinating.
Of course not - it's the MONEY POWER which determines where the oil companies
can explore and drill for oil.
Money power? Which group is that?
Post by RadicalModerate
Take note of the flip-flops on that topic in Florida.
If there's a place where in the event of a big spill
(and you of all people know if you play with oil long enough you're
going to spill some) only poor and working-class people are going
to lose their habitat and livelihoods ...then sure there will
be offshore oil production. I'm sure there's some Florida and Gulf
coastal areas which meet that specification.
So you are saying that there is plenty of oil..but rich Greens wont let
anyone have it?

Gunner

This Message is guaranteed environmentally friendly
Manufactured with 10% post consumer ASCII
Meets all EPA regulations for clean air
Using only naturally occuring fibers
Use the Message with confidance.
(Some settling may occure in transit.)
(Best if Used before May 13, 2009)
RadicalModerate
2007-06-21 00:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
So you are saying that there is plenty of oil..but rich Greens wont let
anyone have it?
Polemical oversimplication noted.

"Plenty of oil"? Depends on who you're listening to.
My gut feeling is there isn't "plenty" of oil; there is enough to perhaps
be profitably extracted at the current oil prices but "plenty" ... hmmm.
And we know Gunner's line of work benefits from offshore oil exploration,
drilling and production :).

Tell me, who picks up the tab for a big oil spill? Especially the
intangible costs? Like say 10 gigabucks of mortgages being underwater for
the next 10+ years?

I'd much rather see the Governor of Montana's desire for coal-to-liquid
be implemented.

Let's try those who are heavily exposed in the California and Florida
coastal real estate markets; I am pretty sure for Cali that includes
CALPERS, the California state-employee retirement fund.
As a Californian you probably know more than I exactly how much
clout CALPERS has in Sacremento and DC; I'm going to guess at "quite a
bit".

And another risk of offshore oil for Cali: Initiation of earthquake(s).
Like nuclear power, a small risk - but a real one.

And those Gulf Coast hurricanes; how well does the sea-bottom plumbing
stand up to the ocean being churned by 200 mph winds?
--
The published From: address is a trap.
Robert Sturgeon
2007-06-19 15:03:01 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:57:23 +0000 (UTC),
Post by RadicalModerate
Post by Robert Sturgeon
I don't know about that. I'm sure we could get a lot more
oil in the United States if the damned "environmentalists"
would let the oil companies go for it -- in Alaska, off the
California coast, off the Florida coast, etc. There is a
lot of oil out there, politically sealed off from the
market. And the amount of oil available in the Middle East,
while it must eventually decrease, is still immense.
Mr. Sturgeon, I'm sure you know *exactly* why offshore oil production off
the Florida and California coasts isn't happening.
Let's pretend for a bit you're a banker or REIT with a
portfolio of mortgages on super-premium California oceanfront properties.
Or you're a major decision-maker at one of Marriott, Accor, or Starwood
Hotels which have some of their most profitable hotels on the Florida
Coast.
Just think what a major well blow-out or tanker collision is going to do
to your profit picture and/or the value of your holdings.
Wouldn't you be on the horn to your "rainmakers" in Washington, DC,
Sacremento or Talahasee when the topic of ofshore drilling comes up?
Yes, I'm sure there is a certain amount of overlap
between/among rich property owners and "environmentalists."
But when the matter comes up, it's the "environmentalists"
who take to the streets.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Bob Brock
2007-06-19 15:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:57:23 +0000 (UTC),
Post by RadicalModerate
Post by Robert Sturgeon
I don't know about that. I'm sure we could get a lot more
oil in the United States if the damned "environmentalists"
would let the oil companies go for it -- in Alaska, off the
California coast, off the Florida coast, etc. There is a
lot of oil out there, politically sealed off from the
market. And the amount of oil available in the Middle East,
while it must eventually decrease, is still immense.
Mr. Sturgeon, I'm sure you know *exactly* why offshore oil production off
the Florida and California coasts isn't happening.
Let's pretend for a bit you're a banker or REIT with a
portfolio of mortgages on super-premium California oceanfront properties.
Or you're a major decision-maker at one of Marriott, Accor, or Starwood
Hotels which have some of their most profitable hotels on the Florida
Coast.
Just think what a major well blow-out or tanker collision is going to do
to your profit picture and/or the value of your holdings.
Wouldn't you be on the horn to your "rainmakers" in Washington, DC,
Sacremento or Talahasee when the topic of ofshore drilling comes up?
Yes, I'm sure there is a certain amount of overlap
between/among rich property owners and "environmentalists."
But when the matter comes up, it's the "environmentalists"
who take to the streets.
Those with enough money don't have to take to the streets. For an example,
look at all the mauverings to slide immigration reform down everyone's
throats.
Robert Sturgeon
2007-06-19 16:21:42 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:06:07 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:57:23 +0000 (UTC),
Post by RadicalModerate
Post by Robert Sturgeon
I don't know about that. I'm sure we could get a lot more
oil in the United States if the damned "environmentalists"
would let the oil companies go for it -- in Alaska, off the
California coast, off the Florida coast, etc. There is a
lot of oil out there, politically sealed off from the
market. And the amount of oil available in the Middle East,
while it must eventually decrease, is still immense.
Mr. Sturgeon, I'm sure you know *exactly* why offshore oil production off
the Florida and California coasts isn't happening.
Let's pretend for a bit you're a banker or REIT with a
portfolio of mortgages on super-premium California oceanfront properties.
Or you're a major decision-maker at one of Marriott, Accor, or Starwood
Hotels which have some of their most profitable hotels on the Florida
Coast.
Just think what a major well blow-out or tanker collision is going to do
to your profit picture and/or the value of your holdings.
Wouldn't you be on the horn to your "rainmakers" in Washington, DC,
Sacremento or Talahasee when the topic of ofshore drilling comes up?
Yes, I'm sure there is a certain amount of overlap
between/among rich property owners and "environmentalists."
But when the matter comes up, it's the "environmentalists"
who take to the streets.
Those with enough money don't have to take to the streets. For an example,
look at all the mauverings to slide immigration reform down everyone's
throats.
Well, yeah...

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Bob Brock
2007-06-19 16:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:06:07 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:57:23 +0000 (UTC),
Post by RadicalModerate
Post by Robert Sturgeon
I don't know about that. I'm sure we could get a lot more
oil in the United States if the damned "environmentalists"
would let the oil companies go for it -- in Alaska, off the
California coast, off the Florida coast, etc. There is a
lot of oil out there, politically sealed off from the
market. And the amount of oil available in the Middle East,
while it must eventually decrease, is still immense.
Mr. Sturgeon, I'm sure you know *exactly* why offshore oil production off
the Florida and California coasts isn't happening.
Let's pretend for a bit you're a banker or REIT with a
portfolio of mortgages on super-premium California oceanfront properties.
Or you're a major decision-maker at one of Marriott, Accor, or Starwood
Hotels which have some of their most profitable hotels on the Florida
Coast.
Just think what a major well blow-out or tanker collision is going to do
to your profit picture and/or the value of your holdings.
Wouldn't you be on the horn to your "rainmakers" in Washington, DC,
Sacremento or Talahasee when the topic of ofshore drilling comes up?
Yes, I'm sure there is a certain amount of overlap
between/among rich property owners and "environmentalists."
But when the matter comes up, it's the "environmentalists"
who take to the streets.
Those with enough money don't have to take to the streets. For an example,
look at all the mauverings to slide immigration reform down everyone's
throats.
Well, yeah...
Damn! We agree on something. I'm suprised but thankful. So....thanks.
RadicalModerate
2007-06-19 18:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Sturgeon
Yes, I'm sure there is a certain amount of overlap
between/among rich property owners and "environmentalists."
But when the matter comes up, it's the "environmentalists"
who take to the streets.
A bunch of mostly college-age people making a lot of noise
are no more than a nuisance.
Police these days seem much quicker to act and much more
forcefully than they did in the 60s and 70s.

Ask yourself this:
Where does the money to fund the enviros come from?
Where does the money to pay lawyers to intervene in opposition
against just about any major energy project the past 40 years
come from?
It sure ain't coming from street protestors!
--
The published From: address is a trap.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...