Aratzio wrote:
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:22:44 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
Brian Mailman got double secret probation for
writing:

Since the oil would have run out YEARS ago the way we use up 25% of
the worlds production.

Search on "Huppert Peak" (sometimes spelled Hubbard and Hubbert). In
short, half the possible supply available was drilled by 1978. After
that, it's more and more expensive to obtain less and less.

The Oil companies have to be laughing their asses off at McCain. They
get PAID not to drill for oil. Why in the **** would they actually
drill. They have leases for an estimated 30billion barrels of oil in
the gulf. Leases for which they already have drilling rights. Leases
that are in relative shallow water. Leases that have already been
proven. Yet they do not drill more wells there. It is called *banking
the resource*. If you punp all the oil the price drops and you make
less money over the long term because you run out of oil.

Well, the price would rise not drop. But your point would seem to be
that the price rises due to "running out of oil elsewhere" would make
those oil "banks" more profitable in the long run.

But I love these idiots that blame *ecoterrorists* for economic
decisions made by oil companies to protect their own long term
profits.

Yeah. You'd think it was a given that businesses make decisions based
on business.

B/