Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

The Northwest PassageFollow

QuoteReply
#27 Apr 14 2010 at 6:50 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Quote:
Uh, that the urgency of getting more oil at that point will make the annexation of Canada to directly procure more acceptable enough as a political position for it to be actualised?

That's a pretty stupid answer. You should be a little ashamed about that one Moe.





Edit: Don't post so fast Smiley: motz

Edited, Apr 14th 2010 9:43am by Uglysasquatch

I was. I didn't expect him to share PMs so wantonly. That's why I had to chime in with the better phrasing.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#28 Apr 14 2010 at 6:52 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1630282721753
View User Forum
Sage
*****
14,174 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Quote:
Uh, that the urgency of getting more oil at that point will make the annexation of Canada to directly procure more acceptable enough as a political position for it to be actualised?

That's a pretty stupid answer. You should be a little ashamed about that one Moe.

Edit: Don't post so fast Smiley: motz

Edited, Apr 14th 2010 9:43am by Uglysasquatch

I was. I didn't expect him to share PMs so wantonly. That's why I had to chime in with the better phrasing.


Wait, what? Who's sharing PMs?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#29 Apr 14 2010 at 6:57 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Quote:
Uh, that the urgency of getting more oil at that point will make the annexation of Canada to directly procure more acceptable enough as a political position for it to be actualised?

That's a pretty stupid answer. You should be a little ashamed about that one Moe.

Edit: Don't post so fast Smiley: motz

Edited, Apr 14th 2010 9:43am by Uglysasquatch

I was. I didn't expect him to share PMs so wantonly. That's why I had to chime in with the better phrasing.


Wait, what? Who's sharing PMs?

Sometimes I wish there was an adequate emoticon for a blank stare of incredulity.

Smiley: facepalm will have to do.

Edited, Apr 14th 2010 7:58am by MoebiusLord
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#30 Apr 14 2010 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1630282721753
View User Forum
Sage
*****
14,174 posts
One of us isn't making any sense, and I'm pretty sure it's not Ugly.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#31 Apr 14 2010 at 7:04 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
One of us isn't making any sense, and I'm pretty sure it's not Ugly.

Don't try and confuse me with the facts, good sir.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#32 Apr 14 2010 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
Timelordwho
View User Forum
Unplanned
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
I'm not trolling. I think that the real advent of peak oil will dramatically change the world. The climate will be such that decisions unpalatable in the past will become relatively easy to make in the face of the new realities. In times free of real conflict decisions like that are only fun to think about in the abstract, but thinking about them does allow for planning should certain eventualities materialize.


Peak oil is bad. But it's not that bad.

Given tech projections, we'll either cruise right by the energy production demands via solar-electric or algal based pseudo synthetic bio-fuels.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#33 Apr 14 2010 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
Uglysasquatch
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Given tech projections, we'll either cruise right by the energy production demands via solar-electric or algal based pseudo synthetic bio-fuels.
Great, guess we can go look forward to goiing back to being insignificnt.

In before "what do you mean going back to?"
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#34 Apr 14 2010 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Peak oil is bad. But it's not that bad.

Given tech projections, we'll either cruise right by the energy production demands via solar-electric or algal based pseudo synthetic bio-fuels.

Given tech projections, I'm supposed to be posting via thought from my flying car, too, you ****. Reality sets in and we still need an imperial sh;t-tonne of oil to power the tanks & stealth bomber that are keeping the Xin horde off of our lawn. They really need to get working on new episodes of bad television so you can stop having ADD moments of posting on the internet.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#35 Apr 14 2010 at 11:20 AM Rating: Good
Timelordwho
View User Forum
Unplanned
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Peak oil is bad. But it's not that bad.

Given tech projections, we'll either cruise right by the energy production demands via solar-electric or algal based pseudo synthetic bio-fuels.

Given tech projections, I'm supposed to be posting via thought from my flying car, too, you ****. Reality sets in and we still need an imperial sh;t-tonne of oil to power the tanks & stealth bomber that are keeping the Xin horde off of our lawn. They really need to get working on new episodes of bad television so you can stop having ADD moments of posting on the internet.


Quote:
Flying car

Gotta wait till next year. :(

Besides, I meant tech projections based on tech in late development, early implementation & scaling up stages, not wild conjecture from Scifi authors.

What would really bring these technologies to market is $4/gal gas, which is approximately what the real price should be, after removing subsidization.




____________________________
Just as Planned.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#36 Apr 14 2010 at 11:25 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Besides, I meant tech projections based on tech in late development, early implementation & scaling up stages, not wild conjecture from Scifi authors.

What would really bring these technologies to market is $4/gal gas, which is approximately what the real price should be, after removing subsidization.

What happens to that figure if you remove the "green" subsidization as well?

Don't bother looking it up, they'd be more cost prohibitive than $4.00 gas, which would only be $4.00 if you left in place the asinine prohibitions & restrictions on refinery building, drilling & exploration (all designed to placate tree-huggers and "green" energy developers). The approximate cost with no government subsidy/penalty on either side would be buck a gallon gas.
▲ Page top
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 144 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (144)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC