Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (404282)	8/4/2008 6:07:15 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574679

CJ, > However, it does mean that you need to take that into account and start looking elsewhere. I don't really care what happened in 1972. I care about increasing supply today and developing alternatives for tomorrow. The fear is that increasing oil production will disincentivize alternative fuel R&D. But that's a fear Democrats can never admit to, for they'd be admitting that the dwindling supply of oil was partly due to their obstructionism. Tenchusatsu

To: combjelly who wrote (404282)	8/4/2008 8:18:58 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574679

"The key fallacy behind the "peak oil" argument is that there's nothing we can do to exceed the peak production of 1972, so why bother?" No, it doesn't. However, it does mean that you need to take that into account and start looking elsewhere. That is, assuming you want to be reality based. If you dream of new super-continents of unexplored and untapped resources, then ignoring the peak(s) and saying we just need to drill more might be your cup of tea... I just heard there are seas of ethane on Titan. Who knows......where's there's ethane might there not be oil? Titan could be the gas station to the solar system. Maybe the GOPers are more visionary than we give them credit. I think we should send them on a ship to explore the possibility.