<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_10_1845245</id>
	<title>Whistleblower Claims IEA Is Downplaying Peak Oil</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257841500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Yesterday the Guardian ran a story based on two anonymous sources inside the International Energy Agency who claimed that the agency had <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency">distorted key figures on oil reserves</a>. <i>"The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the [IEA] who claims it has been deliberately
underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying. The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves."</i> Today the IEA released its annual energy outlook and <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/11/10/france.iea.oil.supplies/">rejected the whistleblowers'
charges</a>. The Guardian has an editorial claiming that the economic establishment is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/10/peak-oil-fear-economic-establishment">too fearful to come clean on the reality of oil suppplies</a>, and makes an analogy with the (marginalized, demonized) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yesterday the Guardian ran a story based on two anonymous sources inside the International Energy Agency who claimed that the agency had distorted key figures on oil reserves .
" The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit , according to a whistleblower at the [ IEA ] who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying .
The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves .
" Today the IEA released its annual energy outlook and rejected the whistleblowers ' charges .
The Guardian has an editorial claiming that the economic establishment is too fearful to come clean on the reality of oil suppplies , and makes an analogy with the ( marginalized , demonized ) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yesterday the Guardian ran a story based on two anonymous sources inside the International Energy Agency who claimed that the agency had distorted key figures on oil reserves.
"The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the [IEA] who claims it has been deliberately
underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.
The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.
" Today the IEA released its annual energy outlook and rejected the whistleblowers'
charges.
The Guardian has an editorial claiming that the economic establishment is too fearful to come clean on the reality of oil suppplies, and makes an analogy with the (marginalized, demonized) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051168</id>
	<title>Peak oil is not important, peak energy is</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1257846660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More specifically, speak cheap and easy energy is important.</p><p>Right now we have easy access to oil, coal, natural gas, and in some places, hydro- and other power sources.</p><p>On the horizon are not-so-cheap but getting-cheaper-and-easier-every-decade sources such as new drilling technologies to recover fossil fuels that were previously infeasible to recover, solar power, wind power, wave power, and other sources.</p><p>As long as energy prices rise slowly enough so there isn't a panic, yet fast enough to spur investment in higher-than-current-oil-price-per-gigajoule fuel sources, we should be fine.</p><p>Yes, there is a finite supply of non-renewable energy.  However, if you are willing to pay the equivalent of $150/barrel for that energy, it's a lot less finite than if you are only willing to pay $75.  When it comes to most forms of renewable energy including wind, wave, and solar, there may be a limit on the wattage and transport of that energy, but there is virtually no limit on the number of years we can use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More specifically , speak cheap and easy energy is important.Right now we have easy access to oil , coal , natural gas , and in some places , hydro- and other power sources.On the horizon are not-so-cheap but getting-cheaper-and-easier-every-decade sources such as new drilling technologies to recover fossil fuels that were previously infeasible to recover , solar power , wind power , wave power , and other sources.As long as energy prices rise slowly enough so there is n't a panic , yet fast enough to spur investment in higher-than-current-oil-price-per-gigajoule fuel sources , we should be fine.Yes , there is a finite supply of non-renewable energy .
However , if you are willing to pay the equivalent of $ 150/barrel for that energy , it 's a lot less finite than if you are only willing to pay $ 75 .
When it comes to most forms of renewable energy including wind , wave , and solar , there may be a limit on the wattage and transport of that energy , but there is virtually no limit on the number of years we can use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More specifically, speak cheap and easy energy is important.Right now we have easy access to oil, coal, natural gas, and in some places, hydro- and other power sources.On the horizon are not-so-cheap but getting-cheaper-and-easier-every-decade sources such as new drilling technologies to recover fossil fuels that were previously infeasible to recover, solar power, wind power, wave power, and other sources.As long as energy prices rise slowly enough so there isn't a panic, yet fast enough to spur investment in higher-than-current-oil-price-per-gigajoule fuel sources, we should be fine.Yes, there is a finite supply of non-renewable energy.
However, if you are willing to pay the equivalent of $150/barrel for that energy, it's a lot less finite than if you are only willing to pay $75.
When it comes to most forms of renewable energy including wind, wave, and solar, there may be a limit on the wattage and transport of that energy, but there is virtually no limit on the number of years we can use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30057344</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1257108720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the solution is
<ul>
<li>Ban futures trading on crude world-wide</li><li>Provide free public transportation</li><li>Regulate OPEC</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the solution is Ban futures trading on crude world-wideProvide free public transportationRegulate OPEC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the solution is

Ban futures trading on crude world-wideProvide free public transportationRegulate OPEC</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30058418</id>
	<title>Re:Gas prices a factor in economic collapse?</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1257078600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do (and oil prices were undoubtedly a factor, as overstretched families no longer could afford the mortgages they shouldn't have had). Furthermore, when the economy starts to recover, $150/bbl prices will be back, and we'll probably fit and start between crash and recovery until sufficient alternatives to oil have been developed, as each subsequent return to high oil prices puts us back into negative growth.</p><p>But the the financial crisis itself was inevitable even without the high price of oil, it was unsustainable - it's just high oil prices hurried it along a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do ( and oil prices were undoubtedly a factor , as overstretched families no longer could afford the mortgages they should n't have had ) .
Furthermore , when the economy starts to recover , $ 150/bbl prices will be back , and we 'll probably fit and start between crash and recovery until sufficient alternatives to oil have been developed , as each subsequent return to high oil prices puts us back into negative growth.But the the financial crisis itself was inevitable even without the high price of oil , it was unsustainable - it 's just high oil prices hurried it along a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do (and oil prices were undoubtedly a factor, as overstretched families no longer could afford the mortgages they shouldn't have had).
Furthermore, when the economy starts to recover, $150/bbl prices will be back, and we'll probably fit and start between crash and recovery until sufficient alternatives to oil have been developed, as each subsequent return to high oil prices puts us back into negative growth.But the the financial crisis itself was inevitable even without the high price of oil, it was unsustainable - it's just high oil prices hurried it along a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051626</id>
	<title>The Perfect Conspiracy Theory</title>
	<author>Ferretman</author>
	<datestamp>1257848460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's great about something like this is that it's the perfect conspiracy theory.

If you *believe* in Peak Oil, absolutely nothing the industry shows you--charts, graphs, sonic measurements, etc.--will convince you that "they" aren't lying and trying to conceal the truth.

If you *don't* believe in Peak Oil, the folks who do are still whack-jobs no matter what their latest line is.  Bonus points if you credit a *reverse* conspiracy on the part of greenies/socialists/oneworlders/etc. to use a fake crisis to sway public opinion.

Sigh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's great about something like this is that it 's the perfect conspiracy theory .
If you * believe * in Peak Oil , absolutely nothing the industry shows you--charts , graphs , sonic measurements , etc.--will convince you that " they " are n't lying and trying to conceal the truth .
If you * do n't * believe in Peak Oil , the folks who do are still whack-jobs no matter what their latest line is .
Bonus points if you credit a * reverse * conspiracy on the part of greenies/socialists/oneworlders/etc .
to use a fake crisis to sway public opinion .
Sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's great about something like this is that it's the perfect conspiracy theory.
If you *believe* in Peak Oil, absolutely nothing the industry shows you--charts, graphs, sonic measurements, etc.--will convince you that "they" aren't lying and trying to conceal the truth.
If you *don't* believe in Peak Oil, the folks who do are still whack-jobs no matter what their latest line is.
Bonus points if you credit a *reverse* conspiracy on the part of greenies/socialists/oneworlders/etc.
to use a fake crisis to sway public opinion.
Sigh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052810</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1257853380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As each one of these applications turns away from oil, the price of oil will temporarily drop or stabilize. Eventually we'll either be 100\% off oil, or at a level where it's sustainable for 1000's of years.</p></div> </blockquote><p>In order for an application to turn away from oil into other solutions, those other solutions must both exist and be economical - no, it's not sufficient to be cheaper than oil, the alternative must be cheap enough that the user can afford to pay. In order for such solutions to exist, they must be researched. That, in turn, takes time (insert a quote about nuclear fusion being 40 years away here). They won't magically appear out of nowhere simply because there is a market for them.</p><p>Besides, if we can solve our energy problems by, for example, getting nuclear fusion working, we can simply synthesize oil from carbon dioxide and water. It's not like it's particularly complex material, a basic oil being just a chain of carbon atoms with hydrogen atoms stuck along it.</p><blockquote><div><p>Oh wait, that's free market economics, and I forgot that our president has announced that "that doesn't work any more."</p></div> </blockquote><p>It never has. Human mind is simply too ingenious when it comes to thinking up "get rich quick" -schemes, and too stupid to notice them when someone else thinks them up. Add the tendency of markets to concentrate to a few large players, which take the entire economy down with them if they fall, and it would take a true ideological fanatic to not put some restraints in.</p><p>But, to get back to the subject: alternative solutions take time to develop, and there's no guarantee that the market will start developing them in time, especially since all the speculators will come crawling out of the woodwork as soon as oil price starts rising and drive the price higher still, causing problems for everyone else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As each one of these applications turns away from oil , the price of oil will temporarily drop or stabilize .
Eventually we 'll either be 100 \ % off oil , or at a level where it 's sustainable for 1000 's of years .
In order for an application to turn away from oil into other solutions , those other solutions must both exist and be economical - no , it 's not sufficient to be cheaper than oil , the alternative must be cheap enough that the user can afford to pay .
In order for such solutions to exist , they must be researched .
That , in turn , takes time ( insert a quote about nuclear fusion being 40 years away here ) .
They wo n't magically appear out of nowhere simply because there is a market for them.Besides , if we can solve our energy problems by , for example , getting nuclear fusion working , we can simply synthesize oil from carbon dioxide and water .
It 's not like it 's particularly complex material , a basic oil being just a chain of carbon atoms with hydrogen atoms stuck along it.Oh wait , that 's free market economics , and I forgot that our president has announced that " that does n't work any more .
" It never has .
Human mind is simply too ingenious when it comes to thinking up " get rich quick " -schemes , and too stupid to notice them when someone else thinks them up .
Add the tendency of markets to concentrate to a few large players , which take the entire economy down with them if they fall , and it would take a true ideological fanatic to not put some restraints in.But , to get back to the subject : alternative solutions take time to develop , and there 's no guarantee that the market will start developing them in time , especially since all the speculators will come crawling out of the woodwork as soon as oil price starts rising and drive the price higher still , causing problems for everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As each one of these applications turns away from oil, the price of oil will temporarily drop or stabilize.
Eventually we'll either be 100\% off oil, or at a level where it's sustainable for 1000's of years.
In order for an application to turn away from oil into other solutions, those other solutions must both exist and be economical - no, it's not sufficient to be cheaper than oil, the alternative must be cheap enough that the user can afford to pay.
In order for such solutions to exist, they must be researched.
That, in turn, takes time (insert a quote about nuclear fusion being 40 years away here).
They won't magically appear out of nowhere simply because there is a market for them.Besides, if we can solve our energy problems by, for example, getting nuclear fusion working, we can simply synthesize oil from carbon dioxide and water.
It's not like it's particularly complex material, a basic oil being just a chain of carbon atoms with hydrogen atoms stuck along it.Oh wait, that's free market economics, and I forgot that our president has announced that "that doesn't work any more.
" It never has.
Human mind is simply too ingenious when it comes to thinking up "get rich quick" -schemes, and too stupid to notice them when someone else thinks them up.
Add the tendency of markets to concentrate to a few large players, which take the entire economy down with them if they fall, and it would take a true ideological fanatic to not put some restraints in.But, to get back to the subject: alternative solutions take time to develop, and there's no guarantee that the market will start developing them in time, especially since all the speculators will come crawling out of the woodwork as soon as oil price starts rising and drive the price higher still, causing problems for everyone else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052856</id>
	<title>Re:Gas prices a factor in economic collapse?</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1257853560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes and no.  Whenever you have a bubble, it takes some impetus for it to burst.  The drag of oil prices caused the pop, but it didn't cause the bubble.  That's like saying a drunk driver wrecked because he was thirsty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no .
Whenever you have a bubble , it takes some impetus for it to burst .
The drag of oil prices caused the pop , but it did n't cause the bubble .
That 's like saying a drunk driver wrecked because he was thirsty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no.
Whenever you have a bubble, it takes some impetus for it to burst.
The drag of oil prices caused the pop, but it didn't cause the bubble.
That's like saying a drunk driver wrecked because he was thirsty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051724</id>
	<title>Re:Probably overblown</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1257848760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nuclear is nice to have but not sufficient. You need something for transportation as well and nuclear isn't it. Not until electric cars are cost-effective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear is nice to have but not sufficient .
You need something for transportation as well and nuclear is n't it .
Not until electric cars are cost-effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear is nice to have but not sufficient.
You need something for transportation as well and nuclear isn't it.
Not until electric cars are cost-effective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30071328</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>yahyamf</author>
	<datestamp>1258034220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In many cases it makes sense to spend more energy in extracting oil than the energy available in the oil itself. This is because oil is mobile energy. It can be easily transported and stored. Also, much of modern infrastructure depends on energy in liquid form, eg. cars, airplanes, farming equirpment etc. There may be plentiful nuclear, solar, coal, or natural gas energy, but it's useless in many cases because the current infrastructure can not use it. So it does make sense for example to use a certain amount of nuclear energy to get a lesser amount of energy in the form of oil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In many cases it makes sense to spend more energy in extracting oil than the energy available in the oil itself .
This is because oil is mobile energy .
It can be easily transported and stored .
Also , much of modern infrastructure depends on energy in liquid form , eg .
cars , airplanes , farming equirpment etc .
There may be plentiful nuclear , solar , coal , or natural gas energy , but it 's useless in many cases because the current infrastructure can not use it .
So it does make sense for example to use a certain amount of nuclear energy to get a lesser amount of energy in the form of oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many cases it makes sense to spend more energy in extracting oil than the energy available in the oil itself.
This is because oil is mobile energy.
It can be easily transported and stored.
Also, much of modern infrastructure depends on energy in liquid form, eg.
cars, airplanes, farming equirpment etc.
There may be plentiful nuclear, solar, coal, or natural gas energy, but it's useless in many cases because the current infrastructure can not use it.
So it does make sense for example to use a certain amount of nuclear energy to get a lesser amount of energy in the form of oil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053850</id>
	<title>Re:Considering the source</title>
	<author>alexborges</author>
	<datestamp>1257859080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You shouldnt if what they say makes no sense for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You shouldnt if what they say makes no sense for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You shouldnt if what they say makes no sense for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051860</id>
	<title>I'm as liberal as they come but</title>
	<author>pkbarbiedoll</author>
	<datestamp>1257849300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>come on...<blockquote><div><p>two anonymous sources</p></div></blockquote><p>

with an agenda might be willing to say anything to further a cause.  I'm not suggesting these anon sources are liberals... if anything, I'm suggesting just the opposite.   Nothing like peak oil scares to drive up the cost of oil.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>come on...two anonymous sources with an agenda might be willing to say anything to further a cause .
I 'm not suggesting these anon sources are liberals... if anything , I 'm suggesting just the opposite .
Nothing like peak oil scares to drive up the cost of oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>come on...two anonymous sources

with an agenda might be willing to say anything to further a cause.
I'm not suggesting these anon sources are liberals... if anything, I'm suggesting just the opposite.
Nothing like peak oil scares to drive up the cost of oil.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053632</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1257857820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But no matter how much I like apples, there's one price I will never pay for one, and that is two apples.</i></p><p>Well, obviously!  But how about one and a half apples?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But no matter how much I like apples , there 's one price I will never pay for one , and that is two apples.Well , obviously !
But how about one and a half apples ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But no matter how much I like apples, there's one price I will never pay for one, and that is two apples.Well, obviously!
But how about one and a half apples?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052054</id>
	<title>Background Reading</title>
	<author>infamous\_blah</author>
	<datestamp>1257850080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can find some good background reading here: <a href="http://www.omninerd.com/articles/What\_You\_Need\_to\_Know\_about\_Peak\_Oil/print\_friendly" title="omninerd.com" rel="nofollow">What You Need to Know about Peak Oil</a> [omninerd.com].<br>
<br>
There seems to be a lot of dispute over when world-wide peak oil will occur (or if it has already).  On the other hand, there is consensus that US peak oil has already happened (and that's accounting for shale, Alaska, etc).</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can find some good background reading here : What You Need to Know about Peak Oil [ omninerd.com ] .
There seems to be a lot of dispute over when world-wide peak oil will occur ( or if it has already ) .
On the other hand , there is consensus that US peak oil has already happened ( and that 's accounting for shale , Alaska , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can find some good background reading here: What You Need to Know about Peak Oil [omninerd.com].
There seems to be a lot of dispute over when world-wide peak oil will occur (or if it has already).
On the other hand, there is consensus that US peak oil has already happened (and that's accounting for shale, Alaska, etc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054008</id>
	<title>Re:Not worried</title>
	<author>Bertie</author>
	<datestamp>1257859980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're lucky.  You're relatively prosperous.  You have a very long way to fall before you <i>really<i> feel the pinch, by which I mean, for example, fuel costing so much relative to your income that you have to choose between heat and food.  There are billions of people less fortunate than you.  These people dream of being rich enough to heat or cook by natural gas or even kerosene - wood or charcoal's all they can afford (mind you, I'd rather cook on charcoal than kerosene, convenience be damned - that stuff <i>stinks</i>).  And as for owning a car... no chance.</i></i></p><p><i><i>As cheap oil dwindles, your world (and mine) will become more and more like theirs.  The only question is whether it happens gradually, through acceptance and adjustment, or suddenly, through denial and conflict.</i></i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're lucky .
You 're relatively prosperous .
You have a very long way to fall before you really feel the pinch , by which I mean , for example , fuel costing so much relative to your income that you have to choose between heat and food .
There are billions of people less fortunate than you .
These people dream of being rich enough to heat or cook by natural gas or even kerosene - wood or charcoal 's all they can afford ( mind you , I 'd rather cook on charcoal than kerosene , convenience be damned - that stuff stinks ) .
And as for owning a car... no chance.As cheap oil dwindles , your world ( and mine ) will become more and more like theirs .
The only question is whether it happens gradually , through acceptance and adjustment , or suddenly , through denial and conflict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're lucky.
You're relatively prosperous.
You have a very long way to fall before you really feel the pinch, by which I mean, for example, fuel costing so much relative to your income that you have to choose between heat and food.
There are billions of people less fortunate than you.
These people dream of being rich enough to heat or cook by natural gas or even kerosene - wood or charcoal's all they can afford (mind you, I'd rather cook on charcoal than kerosene, convenience be damned - that stuff stinks).
And as for owning a car... no chance.As cheap oil dwindles, your world (and mine) will become more and more like theirs.
The only question is whether it happens gradually, through acceptance and adjustment, or suddenly, through denial and conflict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>jnaujok</author>
	<datestamp>1257846000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot Reality C: There's over 3.2 Trillion barrels of known reserves around the world (1.5T of which are in the United States, 1T of which is in the Green River Oil Shales -- all of which is currently unaccessable only because we say it is [by government mandate]). Although some of this oil is more difficult to mine than it is in the middle east, where you can just about stick a pole in the ground and get oil bubbling up, as the price of oil increases, more of these reserves will be made available. As the price rises, some applications will become more cost effective to switch to other sources for power/raw materials/lubrication.<br>
<br>
As each one of these applications turns away from oil, the price of oil will temporarily drop or stabilize. Eventually we'll either be 100\% off oil, or at a level where it's sustainable for 1000's of years.<br>
<br>
Oh wait, that's free market economics, and I forgot that our president has announced that "that doesn't work any more."<br>
<br>
So, mandates, high taxes, and bans on exploration and new extraction will be the norm, the price of oil will skyrocket, people will be unable to adjust and will panic/starve/die. So we have scenario B, enforced by our "leaders" rather than a real crisis...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot Reality C : There 's over 3.2 Trillion barrels of known reserves around the world ( 1.5T of which are in the United States , 1T of which is in the Green River Oil Shales -- all of which is currently unaccessable only because we say it is [ by government mandate ] ) .
Although some of this oil is more difficult to mine than it is in the middle east , where you can just about stick a pole in the ground and get oil bubbling up , as the price of oil increases , more of these reserves will be made available .
As the price rises , some applications will become more cost effective to switch to other sources for power/raw materials/lubrication .
As each one of these applications turns away from oil , the price of oil will temporarily drop or stabilize .
Eventually we 'll either be 100 \ % off oil , or at a level where it 's sustainable for 1000 's of years .
Oh wait , that 's free market economics , and I forgot that our president has announced that " that does n't work any more .
" So , mandates , high taxes , and bans on exploration and new extraction will be the norm , the price of oil will skyrocket , people will be unable to adjust and will panic/starve/die .
So we have scenario B , enforced by our " leaders " rather than a real crisis.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot Reality C: There's over 3.2 Trillion barrels of known reserves around the world (1.5T of which are in the United States, 1T of which is in the Green River Oil Shales -- all of which is currently unaccessable only because we say it is [by government mandate]).
Although some of this oil is more difficult to mine than it is in the middle east, where you can just about stick a pole in the ground and get oil bubbling up, as the price of oil increases, more of these reserves will be made available.
As the price rises, some applications will become more cost effective to switch to other sources for power/raw materials/lubrication.
As each one of these applications turns away from oil, the price of oil will temporarily drop or stabilize.
Eventually we'll either be 100\% off oil, or at a level where it's sustainable for 1000's of years.
Oh wait, that's free market economics, and I forgot that our president has announced that "that doesn't work any more.
"

So, mandates, high taxes, and bans on exploration and new extraction will be the norm, the price of oil will skyrocket, people will be unable to adjust and will panic/starve/die.
So we have scenario B, enforced by our "leaders" rather than a real crisis...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30058206</id>
	<title>Re:We will NEVER run out of OIL!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257076020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Imagine you're in a big room full of peanuts. And you open the shell, eat the nut, and throw the shell aside. Eventually, it will be harder and harder to find a peanut, because you'll be finding increasingly more peanut shells with no peanut inside.</p> </div><p>So you won't run out of peanunts, true. You know what: you will still starve.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine you 're in a big room full of peanuts .
And you open the shell , eat the nut , and throw the shell aside .
Eventually , it will be harder and harder to find a peanut , because you 'll be finding increasingly more peanut shells with no peanut inside .
So you wo n't run out of peanunts , true .
You know what : you will still starve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine you're in a big room full of peanuts.
And you open the shell, eat the nut, and throw the shell aside.
Eventually, it will be harder and harder to find a peanut, because you'll be finding increasingly more peanut shells with no peanut inside.
So you won't run out of peanunts, true.
You know what: you will still starve.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051696</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1257848700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, there's plenty of oil, and there always will be, because we'll end up leaving most of it in the ground.</p><p>Those oil shales you mentioned, and the Bakken oil formations a bit farther north, have more oil in them than all of Saudi Arabia, and might as well be on Alpha Centauri, for all the good it'll ever do us.</p><p>The problem is this. Regardless of what available technology you choose, the majority of this stuff is neither energy positive, nor economical to produce. It's in *shale.* You know, rock. It's not some nice big pool of spongy liquid you can put a straw in like the Ghawar fields in Saudi. You have to dig the rock, grind the rock, and *heat* the rock to get the oil out. Depending on how much oil is in the rock and how finely you ground it, you may, or more often not, get as much oil energy out of the rock as you put into it.</p><p>Which is why all those new finds so breathlessly reported by those with journalism degrees don't mean squat.</p><p>A deep water find that only yields sulfur-laden, heavy crude (i.e. tar) in multiple scattered reservoirs is NOT equivalent to some nice little civilized shallow well in porous rock that yields light sweet crude. The first is cheap to get, cheap to process, cheap to ship and it all can be done quickly. The latter is NOTHING like that. The latter is a decade from well to the tank in your car, if then.</p><p>Bottom line? Cheap oil is a thing of the past. Our expanding economy depended on an ever expanding supply of cheap, portable energy. That goes away when oil goes away. We will transition, no doubt, but a few, maybe more than a few will starve to death before we do and more than a few governments may fall.</p><p>Cheers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there 's plenty of oil , and there always will be , because we 'll end up leaving most of it in the ground.Those oil shales you mentioned , and the Bakken oil formations a bit farther north , have more oil in them than all of Saudi Arabia , and might as well be on Alpha Centauri , for all the good it 'll ever do us.The problem is this .
Regardless of what available technology you choose , the majority of this stuff is neither energy positive , nor economical to produce .
It 's in * shale .
* You know , rock .
It 's not some nice big pool of spongy liquid you can put a straw in like the Ghawar fields in Saudi .
You have to dig the rock , grind the rock , and * heat * the rock to get the oil out .
Depending on how much oil is in the rock and how finely you ground it , you may , or more often not , get as much oil energy out of the rock as you put into it.Which is why all those new finds so breathlessly reported by those with journalism degrees do n't mean squat.A deep water find that only yields sulfur-laden , heavy crude ( i.e .
tar ) in multiple scattered reservoirs is NOT equivalent to some nice little civilized shallow well in porous rock that yields light sweet crude .
The first is cheap to get , cheap to process , cheap to ship and it all can be done quickly .
The latter is NOTHING like that .
The latter is a decade from well to the tank in your car , if then.Bottom line ?
Cheap oil is a thing of the past .
Our expanding economy depended on an ever expanding supply of cheap , portable energy .
That goes away when oil goes away .
We will transition , no doubt , but a few , maybe more than a few will starve to death before we do and more than a few governments may fall.Cheers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there's plenty of oil, and there always will be, because we'll end up leaving most of it in the ground.Those oil shales you mentioned, and the Bakken oil formations a bit farther north, have more oil in them than all of Saudi Arabia, and might as well be on Alpha Centauri, for all the good it'll ever do us.The problem is this.
Regardless of what available technology you choose, the majority of this stuff is neither energy positive, nor economical to produce.
It's in *shale.
* You know, rock.
It's not some nice big pool of spongy liquid you can put a straw in like the Ghawar fields in Saudi.
You have to dig the rock, grind the rock, and *heat* the rock to get the oil out.
Depending on how much oil is in the rock and how finely you ground it, you may, or more often not, get as much oil energy out of the rock as you put into it.Which is why all those new finds so breathlessly reported by those with journalism degrees don't mean squat.A deep water find that only yields sulfur-laden, heavy crude (i.e.
tar) in multiple scattered reservoirs is NOT equivalent to some nice little civilized shallow well in porous rock that yields light sweet crude.
The first is cheap to get, cheap to process, cheap to ship and it all can be done quickly.
The latter is NOTHING like that.
The latter is a decade from well to the tank in your car, if then.Bottom line?
Cheap oil is a thing of the past.
Our expanding economy depended on an ever expanding supply of cheap, portable energy.
That goes away when oil goes away.
We will transition, no doubt, but a few, maybe more than a few will starve to death before we do and more than a few governments may fall.Cheers!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051404</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1257847500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oil shale is not petroleum. It can be processed into fuel, but so can coal and natural gas. Shale is not processed more because it is expensive and environmentally harmful to to convert. Even tar sands are cheaper.
<p>
Here is what you probably don't know: Ronald Reagan stopped funding research on coal to liquids and extraction from oil shale by abolishing the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program in the 80s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oil shale is not petroleum .
It can be processed into fuel , but so can coal and natural gas .
Shale is not processed more because it is expensive and environmentally harmful to to convert .
Even tar sands are cheaper .
Here is what you probably do n't know : Ronald Reagan stopped funding research on coal to liquids and extraction from oil shale by abolishing the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program in the 80s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oil shale is not petroleum.
It can be processed into fuel, but so can coal and natural gas.
Shale is not processed more because it is expensive and environmentally harmful to to convert.
Even tar sands are cheaper.
Here is what you probably don't know: Ronald Reagan stopped funding research on coal to liquids and extraction from oil shale by abolishing the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program in the 80s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052572</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't "known reserves" all fucked up?</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1257852180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The medieval Saudi despots and thugs like Hugo Chavez want to grab all the money they can while <b>THEY'RE</b> alive.</p></div><p>Unlike the great patriots like Bush who have NO personal interest in the oil business? Hello? McFly?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The medieval Saudi despots and thugs like Hugo Chavez want to grab all the money they can while THEY 'RE alive.Unlike the great patriots like Bush who have NO personal interest in the oil business ?
Hello ? McFly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The medieval Saudi despots and thugs like Hugo Chavez want to grab all the money they can while THEY'RE alive.Unlike the great patriots like Bush who have NO personal interest in the oil business?
Hello? McFly?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30082624</id>
	<title>Re:Probably overblown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258039080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>with a smirk, mr gore just opened his wallet to send you some crocodile tears.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with a smirk , mr gore just opened his wallet to send you some crocodile tears .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with a smirk, mr gore just opened his wallet to send you some crocodile tears.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052038</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Robotbeat</author>
	<datestamp>1257850020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back when oil was $145 a barrel (i.e. last year), I read quite a bit about oil shale. It is thought by many that oil shale is, if you start from scratch with no investment on both sides, easier to extract than tar sands (political/environmental issues aside), or at least they are very close to equal. However, after decades of consistent investment (and, yes, libertarians, even government subsidies), tar sand oil extraction is far ahead of oil shale oil extraction. Oil shale investment has waxed and waned primarily with the price of oil, instead of being upheld by the government during the lean years, like tar sands development was.</p><p>I do agree, though, with your point that you can get oil from coal, etc.</p><p>The point of all this is that I think that the US government should put resources into developing oil shale (or coal-to-oil, whatever) as the mother-of-all strategic reserves. It should be funded like the national security priority that it is. We should extract a token amount every year (maybe enough to fund maintenance on the infrastructure), with the capability of ramping up production before our <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic\_Petroleum\_Reserve" title="wikipedia.org">Strategic Petroleum Reserve</a> [wikipedia.org] dries up, in case of war or a spike in the price of oil. This should be done while also funding research into other sorts of energy solutions which don't exact as much of an environmental toll (i.e. nuclear power, cheap solar/wind, cheap/energy-dense/resilient batteries, etc.). In fact, if oil shale is profitable enough (currently costs $60 per barrel for oil shale production, but this would decrease with investment), the funds can be directed in that direction. Even if it isn't profitable, though, it should still be there as a strategic reserve.</p><p>Although this makes the most sense, it would never happen because of libertarians on one side and environmentalists on the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back when oil was $ 145 a barrel ( i.e .
last year ) , I read quite a bit about oil shale .
It is thought by many that oil shale is , if you start from scratch with no investment on both sides , easier to extract than tar sands ( political/environmental issues aside ) , or at least they are very close to equal .
However , after decades of consistent investment ( and , yes , libertarians , even government subsidies ) , tar sand oil extraction is far ahead of oil shale oil extraction .
Oil shale investment has waxed and waned primarily with the price of oil , instead of being upheld by the government during the lean years , like tar sands development was.I do agree , though , with your point that you can get oil from coal , etc.The point of all this is that I think that the US government should put resources into developing oil shale ( or coal-to-oil , whatever ) as the mother-of-all strategic reserves .
It should be funded like the national security priority that it is .
We should extract a token amount every year ( maybe enough to fund maintenance on the infrastructure ) , with the capability of ramping up production before our Strategic Petroleum Reserve [ wikipedia.org ] dries up , in case of war or a spike in the price of oil .
This should be done while also funding research into other sorts of energy solutions which do n't exact as much of an environmental toll ( i.e .
nuclear power , cheap solar/wind , cheap/energy-dense/resilient batteries , etc. ) .
In fact , if oil shale is profitable enough ( currently costs $ 60 per barrel for oil shale production , but this would decrease with investment ) , the funds can be directed in that direction .
Even if it is n't profitable , though , it should still be there as a strategic reserve.Although this makes the most sense , it would never happen because of libertarians on one side and environmentalists on the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back when oil was $145 a barrel (i.e.
last year), I read quite a bit about oil shale.
It is thought by many that oil shale is, if you start from scratch with no investment on both sides, easier to extract than tar sands (political/environmental issues aside), or at least they are very close to equal.
However, after decades of consistent investment (and, yes, libertarians, even government subsidies), tar sand oil extraction is far ahead of oil shale oil extraction.
Oil shale investment has waxed and waned primarily with the price of oil, instead of being upheld by the government during the lean years, like tar sands development was.I do agree, though, with your point that you can get oil from coal, etc.The point of all this is that I think that the US government should put resources into developing oil shale (or coal-to-oil, whatever) as the mother-of-all strategic reserves.
It should be funded like the national security priority that it is.
We should extract a token amount every year (maybe enough to fund maintenance on the infrastructure), with the capability of ramping up production before our Strategic Petroleum Reserve [wikipedia.org] dries up, in case of war or a spike in the price of oil.
This should be done while also funding research into other sorts of energy solutions which don't exact as much of an environmental toll (i.e.
nuclear power, cheap solar/wind, cheap/energy-dense/resilient batteries, etc.).
In fact, if oil shale is profitable enough (currently costs $60 per barrel for oil shale production, but this would decrease with investment), the funds can be directed in that direction.
Even if it isn't profitable, though, it should still be there as a strategic reserve.Although this makes the most sense, it would never happen because of libertarians on one side and environmentalists on the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053338</id>
	<title>Re:We will NEVER run out of OIL!</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257856140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By definition, we will always run out of oil, unless there is an infinite supply of it. Which there isn't.</p><p>In any case, the real problem is that "hard to extract" can in fact be quantified in terms of energy spent. And at some point, the amount of energy you have to spend extracting oil is greater than the amount of energy you'll gain from using it as fuel. At that point, extracting oil <em>for fuel</em> will stop, because it will be pointless regardless of how you rehash the numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By definition , we will always run out of oil , unless there is an infinite supply of it .
Which there is n't.In any case , the real problem is that " hard to extract " can in fact be quantified in terms of energy spent .
And at some point , the amount of energy you have to spend extracting oil is greater than the amount of energy you 'll gain from using it as fuel .
At that point , extracting oil for fuel will stop , because it will be pointless regardless of how you rehash the numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By definition, we will always run out of oil, unless there is an infinite supply of it.
Which there isn't.In any case, the real problem is that "hard to extract" can in fact be quantified in terms of energy spent.
And at some point, the amount of energy you have to spend extracting oil is greater than the amount of energy you'll gain from using it as fuel.
At that point, extracting oil for fuel will stop, because it will be pointless regardless of how you rehash the numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910</id>
	<title>If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257845460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Reality A:  No withheld data.  Data is disseminated with some initial shock that by 20xx we will have oil shortages.  People get a chance to plan accordingly.  Private business gets a chance to cash in on better alternatives and more efficient products marketed to the consumer.  California starts to look a little less crazy.  Gasoline and fuel slowly becomes more expensive over the years as production slows.  People adjust.  <br> <br>

Reality B:  It's 20xx, suddenly there's no oil.  Mass panic.  People flip out.  People die.  Fuel shortages lead to water/food/heating shortages lead to war.  Private industry doesn't have a chance to adjust.  People aren't prepared to buy a new vehicle on the spot.  Californians ride the nearest comet to Heaven's Gate.  Crime increases, lawlessness arises, civilization breaks down, I'm forced into a Thunderdome with Cowboy Neal for my right to live.  <br> <br>

If the IEA is capable of any logic at all, they are not cooking the books or withholding data.  What's the motive of retaining data or fixing charts?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reality A : No withheld data .
Data is disseminated with some initial shock that by 20xx we will have oil shortages .
People get a chance to plan accordingly .
Private business gets a chance to cash in on better alternatives and more efficient products marketed to the consumer .
California starts to look a little less crazy .
Gasoline and fuel slowly becomes more expensive over the years as production slows .
People adjust .
Reality B : It 's 20xx , suddenly there 's no oil .
Mass panic .
People flip out .
People die .
Fuel shortages lead to water/food/heating shortages lead to war .
Private industry does n't have a chance to adjust .
People are n't prepared to buy a new vehicle on the spot .
Californians ride the nearest comet to Heaven 's Gate .
Crime increases , lawlessness arises , civilization breaks down , I 'm forced into a Thunderdome with Cowboy Neal for my right to live .
If the IEA is capable of any logic at all , they are not cooking the books or withholding data .
What 's the motive of retaining data or fixing charts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Reality A:  No withheld data.
Data is disseminated with some initial shock that by 20xx we will have oil shortages.
People get a chance to plan accordingly.
Private business gets a chance to cash in on better alternatives and more efficient products marketed to the consumer.
California starts to look a little less crazy.
Gasoline and fuel slowly becomes more expensive over the years as production slows.
People adjust.
Reality B:  It's 20xx, suddenly there's no oil.
Mass panic.
People flip out.
People die.
Fuel shortages lead to water/food/heating shortages lead to war.
Private industry doesn't have a chance to adjust.
People aren't prepared to buy a new vehicle on the spot.
Californians ride the nearest comet to Heaven's Gate.
Crime increases, lawlessness arises, civilization breaks down, I'm forced into a Thunderdome with Cowboy Neal for my right to live.
If the IEA is capable of any logic at all, they are not cooking the books or withholding data.
What's the motive of retaining data or fixing charts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051364</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257847380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Oh wait, that's free market economics, and I forgot that our president has announced that "that doesn't work any more.""</p><p>Except it's not the government, it's speculators, next deferment to an abstraction does not mean that somehow magically oil producers would expand just because you believe in free market economics, big oil has a track record of scotching energy alternatives and in the REAL free market (the real world), not your fantasy land, speculators and other interested parties come in.</p><p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-ed-markey/oil-speculators-cost-cons\_b\_120713.html" title="huffingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-ed-markey/oil-speculators-cost-cons\_b\_120713.html</a> [huffingtonpost.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Oh wait , that 's free market economics , and I forgot that our president has announced that " that does n't work any more .
" " Except it 's not the government , it 's speculators , next deferment to an abstraction does not mean that somehow magically oil producers would expand just because you believe in free market economics , big oil has a track record of scotching energy alternatives and in the REAL free market ( the real world ) , not your fantasy land , speculators and other interested parties come in.http : //www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-ed-markey/oil-speculators-cost-cons \ _b \ _120713.html [ huffingtonpost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Oh wait, that's free market economics, and I forgot that our president has announced that "that doesn't work any more.
""Except it's not the government, it's speculators, next deferment to an abstraction does not mean that somehow magically oil producers would expand just because you believe in free market economics, big oil has a track record of scotching energy alternatives and in the REAL free market (the real world), not your fantasy land, speculators and other interested parties come in.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-ed-markey/oil-speculators-cost-cons\_b\_120713.html [huffingtonpost.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051746</id>
	<title>"Whistleblower" == Fact</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257848820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's interesting that many people tend to implicitly accept as true whatever is alledged; provided that it's alledged by a "whistleblower".</p><p>I'll have to try this sometime... I'll be the whistleblower who says I deserve a raise and then see if my boss gives me one. Sweet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting that many people tend to implicitly accept as true whatever is alledged ; provided that it 's alledged by a " whistleblower " .I 'll have to try this sometime... I 'll be the whistleblower who says I deserve a raise and then see if my boss gives me one .
Sweet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting that many people tend to implicitly accept as true whatever is alledged; provided that it's alledged by a "whistleblower".I'll have to try this sometime... I'll be the whistleblower who says I deserve a raise and then see if my boss gives me one.
Sweet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30062916</id>
	<title>Re:Probably overblown</title>
	<author>RazorSharp</author>
	<datestamp>1257102360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More often than not, whistleblowers endanger their career or personal safety. They may be wrong from time to time, but it's hard to imagine someone taking that much risk without legitimate moral concerns.</p><p>Concerning nuclear energy, we should have been fast tracking it a long time ago. Also, much to the despair of energy companies, solar panels should be on houses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More often than not , whistleblowers endanger their career or personal safety .
They may be wrong from time to time , but it 's hard to imagine someone taking that much risk without legitimate moral concerns.Concerning nuclear energy , we should have been fast tracking it a long time ago .
Also , much to the despair of energy companies , solar panels should be on houses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More often than not, whistleblowers endanger their career or personal safety.
They may be wrong from time to time, but it's hard to imagine someone taking that much risk without legitimate moral concerns.Concerning nuclear energy, we should have been fast tracking it a long time ago.
Also, much to the despair of energy companies, solar panels should be on houses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052140</id>
	<title>Gas prices a factor in economic collapse?</title>
	<author>gorfie</author>
	<datestamp>1257850500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't seen many articles citing the high fuel prices in 2007 as a factor in the economic collapse.  Surely the diversion of $$$ from typical consumer spending towards oil was a factor.  It *had* to be a factor.  So why isn't anyone talking about it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen many articles citing the high fuel prices in 2007 as a factor in the economic collapse .
Surely the diversion of $ $ $ from typical consumer spending towards oil was a factor .
It * had * to be a factor .
So why is n't anyone talking about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen many articles citing the high fuel prices in 2007 as a factor in the economic collapse.
Surely the diversion of $$$ from typical consumer spending towards oil was a factor.
It *had* to be a factor.
So why isn't anyone talking about it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052076</id>
	<title>Re:Why Peak Oilers are utterly uninteresting.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257850200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like Peak Oiler, as you put it, is one of those reactionary things. Maybe they wouldn't be pushing such a simple idea that everyone knows if in fact everyone really knew it. You seem to be ignoring the fact that there were significant numbers (seemed like it was the majority at the time) of 'experts' saying over and over and over and over and over again that oil wasn't going to run out at all, or at least not for dozens of generations and that peak oil was a myth. The Peak Oilers sound like monomaniacs because they've spent decades pounding their heads against a wall. Now all of a sudden people are admitting that, in fact, the peak oil concept makes perfect sense and of course it's obvious and oh no, we weren't wrong, we've known this all along, of course we didn't argue against it. Just like the Bush administration with WMDs. Anyone who was paying attention knows that they were all WMDs all the time when trying to justify the war, publicizing any minute thing they could find even remotely related to WMDs, like that shipment of aluminum tubes they insisted was for making gas centrifuges for processing nuclear material even though every expert that wasn't clearly in their pocket said that the tubes were virtually useless as components for gas centrifuges, but were in fact components for traditional artillery. It was all WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, this war is necessary and justified because Saddam Hussein has illegal Weapons of Mass Destruction and therefore the war is legal and the UN can't complain.  After the country was 'secured' (long before the war was actually over of course, but once the country was thoroughly occupied), all of a sudden, WMDs weren't the reason for the war after all and never were. No, no, WMDs were just something they were checking for offhand while they were invading to free the Iraqi people from a tyrant. Oh, and of course that doesn't make it an illegal war, no no, they never said anything about the war only being legal because of the presence of illegal WMDs. That's the way it's done. Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, then lie about ever having lied and just about everyone forgets about the previous lies except for a minority who then get treated like a lunatic fringe.<br>I'm using the Iraq war as an example of how successful lying about lying can be, but it has a clear relation to the peak oil issue. The Iraq war is about oil, securing Middle Eastern oil for US interests (that and a personal vendetta). The common counter-argument to this has always been "if that were true, it wouldn't cost me so much at the pump", which is a ridiculous argument completely missing the point that it's the oil companies and those heavily invested in them (like the president and vice-president at the time) who were meant to benefit, not the public (except in some abstract, trickle-down fashion).<br>The point about this is that the oil business in general is full of lies and manipulation and shenanigans over price manipulation, etc. That's why we get the whistleblowers and crusaders for truth. The problem is, when they get proven right, those walls they were pounding their heads against suddenly dissolve to mist and fade from memory and everyone points and laughs at the crazies telling people what they already know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like Peak Oiler , as you put it , is one of those reactionary things .
Maybe they would n't be pushing such a simple idea that everyone knows if in fact everyone really knew it .
You seem to be ignoring the fact that there were significant numbers ( seemed like it was the majority at the time ) of 'experts ' saying over and over and over and over and over again that oil was n't going to run out at all , or at least not for dozens of generations and that peak oil was a myth .
The Peak Oilers sound like monomaniacs because they 've spent decades pounding their heads against a wall .
Now all of a sudden people are admitting that , in fact , the peak oil concept makes perfect sense and of course it 's obvious and oh no , we were n't wrong , we 've known this all along , of course we did n't argue against it .
Just like the Bush administration with WMDs .
Anyone who was paying attention knows that they were all WMDs all the time when trying to justify the war , publicizing any minute thing they could find even remotely related to WMDs , like that shipment of aluminum tubes they insisted was for making gas centrifuges for processing nuclear material even though every expert that was n't clearly in their pocket said that the tubes were virtually useless as components for gas centrifuges , but were in fact components for traditional artillery .
It was all WMDs , WMDs , WMDs , this war is necessary and justified because Saddam Hussein has illegal Weapons of Mass Destruction and therefore the war is legal and the UN ca n't complain .
After the country was 'secured ' ( long before the war was actually over of course , but once the country was thoroughly occupied ) , all of a sudden , WMDs were n't the reason for the war after all and never were .
No , no , WMDs were just something they were checking for offhand while they were invading to free the Iraqi people from a tyrant .
Oh , and of course that does n't make it an illegal war , no no , they never said anything about the war only being legal because of the presence of illegal WMDs .
That 's the way it 's done .
Lie , lie , lie , lie , lie , then lie about ever having lied and just about everyone forgets about the previous lies except for a minority who then get treated like a lunatic fringe.I 'm using the Iraq war as an example of how successful lying about lying can be , but it has a clear relation to the peak oil issue .
The Iraq war is about oil , securing Middle Eastern oil for US interests ( that and a personal vendetta ) .
The common counter-argument to this has always been " if that were true , it would n't cost me so much at the pump " , which is a ridiculous argument completely missing the point that it 's the oil companies and those heavily invested in them ( like the president and vice-president at the time ) who were meant to benefit , not the public ( except in some abstract , trickle-down fashion ) .The point about this is that the oil business in general is full of lies and manipulation and shenanigans over price manipulation , etc .
That 's why we get the whistleblowers and crusaders for truth .
The problem is , when they get proven right , those walls they were pounding their heads against suddenly dissolve to mist and fade from memory and everyone points and laughs at the crazies telling people what they already know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like Peak Oiler, as you put it, is one of those reactionary things.
Maybe they wouldn't be pushing such a simple idea that everyone knows if in fact everyone really knew it.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that there were significant numbers (seemed like it was the majority at the time) of 'experts' saying over and over and over and over and over again that oil wasn't going to run out at all, or at least not for dozens of generations and that peak oil was a myth.
The Peak Oilers sound like monomaniacs because they've spent decades pounding their heads against a wall.
Now all of a sudden people are admitting that, in fact, the peak oil concept makes perfect sense and of course it's obvious and oh no, we weren't wrong, we've known this all along, of course we didn't argue against it.
Just like the Bush administration with WMDs.
Anyone who was paying attention knows that they were all WMDs all the time when trying to justify the war, publicizing any minute thing they could find even remotely related to WMDs, like that shipment of aluminum tubes they insisted was for making gas centrifuges for processing nuclear material even though every expert that wasn't clearly in their pocket said that the tubes were virtually useless as components for gas centrifuges, but were in fact components for traditional artillery.
It was all WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, this war is necessary and justified because Saddam Hussein has illegal Weapons of Mass Destruction and therefore the war is legal and the UN can't complain.
After the country was 'secured' (long before the war was actually over of course, but once the country was thoroughly occupied), all of a sudden, WMDs weren't the reason for the war after all and never were.
No, no, WMDs were just something they were checking for offhand while they were invading to free the Iraqi people from a tyrant.
Oh, and of course that doesn't make it an illegal war, no no, they never said anything about the war only being legal because of the presence of illegal WMDs.
That's the way it's done.
Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, then lie about ever having lied and just about everyone forgets about the previous lies except for a minority who then get treated like a lunatic fringe.I'm using the Iraq war as an example of how successful lying about lying can be, but it has a clear relation to the peak oil issue.
The Iraq war is about oil, securing Middle Eastern oil for US interests (that and a personal vendetta).
The common counter-argument to this has always been "if that were true, it wouldn't cost me so much at the pump", which is a ridiculous argument completely missing the point that it's the oil companies and those heavily invested in them (like the president and vice-president at the time) who were meant to benefit, not the public (except in some abstract, trickle-down fashion).The point about this is that the oil business in general is full of lies and manipulation and shenanigans over price manipulation, etc.
That's why we get the whistleblowers and crusaders for truth.
The problem is, when they get proven right, those walls they were pounding their heads against suddenly dissolve to mist and fade from memory and everyone points and laughs at the crazies telling people what they already know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051476</id>
	<title>With apologies to Andy Warhol</title>
	<author>wcrowe</author>
	<datestamp>1257847800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the future every entity will have an associated conspiracy theory, for 15 minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the future every entity will have an associated conspiracy theory , for 15 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the future every entity will have an associated conspiracy theory, for 15 minutes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052454</id>
	<title>Seems like environmentalists should be cheering</title>
	<author>matty619</author>
	<datestamp>1257851640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've gotten half of that stinky, dirty, polluting oil out of the ground!  The planet is much cleaner now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've gotten half of that stinky , dirty , polluting oil out of the ground !
The planet is much cleaner now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've gotten half of that stinky, dirty, polluting oil out of the ground!
The planet is much cleaner now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30058050</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Stuarticus</author>
	<datestamp>1257074400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> Herein Edinburgh we had some of the earliest exploitable shale reserves, mined by James Paraffin.
<br> <br>
 These were apparently fairly clean and rich in oil content by comparison to the ones discussed in US and Canada, and there are literally HILLS of shale littered over central Scotland left over from the processing. Might want to think about where you are going to put those...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Herein Edinburgh we had some of the earliest exploitable shale reserves , mined by James Paraffin .
These were apparently fairly clean and rich in oil content by comparison to the ones discussed in US and Canada , and there are literally HILLS of shale littered over central Scotland left over from the processing .
Might want to think about where you are going to put those.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Herein Edinburgh we had some of the earliest exploitable shale reserves, mined by James Paraffin.
These were apparently fairly clean and rich in oil content by comparison to the ones discussed in US and Canada, and there are literally HILLS of shale littered over central Scotland left over from the processing.
Might want to think about where you are going to put those...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054498</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>swingerman</author>
	<datestamp>1257863580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that he didn't "abolish" any program or stop funding research.  The Congress of the United States passed an omnibus budget reconciliation bill, and one of the provisions of that bill shut down the federal corporation which performed the research; President Reagan signed that bill into law.  Congress is free at any time to restart such research or fund any private research efforts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that he did n't " abolish " any program or stop funding research .
The Congress of the United States passed an omnibus budget reconciliation bill , and one of the provisions of that bill shut down the federal corporation which performed the research ; President Reagan signed that bill into law .
Congress is free at any time to restart such research or fund any private research efforts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that he didn't "abolish" any program or stop funding research.
The Congress of the United States passed an omnibus budget reconciliation bill, and one of the provisions of that bill shut down the federal corporation which performed the research; President Reagan signed that bill into law.
Congress is free at any time to restart such research or fund any private research efforts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30066024</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Deliveranc3</author>
	<datestamp>1257072000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Had a dream the other night that humanity adopted the concept of mega cities. Small landmass with cities built up and down and moving walkways...<br> <br> It was cool, the environmentalists loved it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Had a dream the other night that humanity adopted the concept of mega cities .
Small landmass with cities built up and down and moving walkways... It was cool , the environmentalists loved it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had a dream the other night that humanity adopted the concept of mega cities.
Small landmass with cities built up and down and moving walkways...  It was cool, the environmentalists loved it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051902</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The congnitive dissonance in your post is a bit loud for me.  First you say that judicious management of reserves is a good thing and will help wean the economy off of cheap oil as it runs out overseas.  Then you lambast government management of resources.  Do you realize that you just said "that's free market economics" in reference to explicit government management of a resource that would prevent market instability?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The congnitive dissonance in your post is a bit loud for me .
First you say that judicious management of reserves is a good thing and will help wean the economy off of cheap oil as it runs out overseas .
Then you lambast government management of resources .
Do you realize that you just said " that 's free market economics " in reference to explicit government management of a resource that would prevent market instability ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The congnitive dissonance in your post is a bit loud for me.
First you say that judicious management of reserves is a good thing and will help wean the economy off of cheap oil as it runs out overseas.
Then you lambast government management of resources.
Do you realize that you just said "that's free market economics" in reference to explicit government management of a resource that would prevent market instability?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051184</id>
	<title>Considering the source</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1257846720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no reason to trust to anonymous sources, so why should I?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no reason to trust to anonymous sources , so why should I ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no reason to trust to anonymous sources, so why should I?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051152</id>
	<title>Evil capitalists create a reverse debeers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257846600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would create an artificial abundance of oil, artificially depressing prices for no other reason to hide the terrible secret of PEAK OIL.</p><p>Never let it be said that paranoid loons are confined to the right. The religious left has just as many.</p><p>And I can find an editorial in The Guardian that argues Stalinism is better than capitalism. So an editorial in the Guardian aint worth much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would create an artificial abundance of oil , artificially depressing prices for no other reason to hide the terrible secret of PEAK OIL.Never let it be said that paranoid loons are confined to the right .
The religious left has just as many.And I can find an editorial in The Guardian that argues Stalinism is better than capitalism .
So an editorial in the Guardian aint worth much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would create an artificial abundance of oil, artificially depressing prices for no other reason to hide the terrible secret of PEAK OIL.Never let it be said that paranoid loons are confined to the right.
The religious left has just as many.And I can find an editorial in The Guardian that argues Stalinism is better than capitalism.
So an editorial in the Guardian aint worth much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30055448</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Dravik</author>
	<datestamp>1257868560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do so many people think that if the government doesn't fund it then it doesn't happen?  The only things the government needs to fund are those that no private person or group thinks is worth the investment.  Most of those, are of course, not worth the investment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do so many people think that if the government does n't fund it then it does n't happen ?
The only things the government needs to fund are those that no private person or group thinks is worth the investment .
Most of those , are of course , not worth the investment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do so many people think that if the government doesn't fund it then it doesn't happen?
The only things the government needs to fund are those that no private person or group thinks is worth the investment.
Most of those, are of course, not worth the investment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052204</id>
	<title>Re:Not worried</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257850740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the bigger problem is that ballooning prices will be accompanied by dwindling supplies.  You may be comfortable with paying double or triple the price of gas and giving up something else, but what happens when you can't even find a gas station that still has gas left?</p><p>Not that I'm saying that's going to happen, but rising prices are not the only concern.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the bigger problem is that ballooning prices will be accompanied by dwindling supplies .
You may be comfortable with paying double or triple the price of gas and giving up something else , but what happens when you ca n't even find a gas station that still has gas left ? Not that I 'm saying that 's going to happen , but rising prices are not the only concern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the bigger problem is that ballooning prices will be accompanied by dwindling supplies.
You may be comfortable with paying double or triple the price of gas and giving up something else, but what happens when you can't even find a gas station that still has gas left?Not that I'm saying that's going to happen, but rising prices are not the only concern.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30059136</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1257085500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It never has"? Are you suggesting that the free market has never solved any problem, ever? That's absurd on its face. The free market gave us:</p><p>the automobile<br>the laser<br>the telephone<br>the telegraph<br>the airplane<br>the computer<br>the CD (both financial and physical)</p><p>I could go on pretty much <i>ad infinitum</i> but hopefully this is enough to make you rethink your comment above.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It never has " ?
Are you suggesting that the free market has never solved any problem , ever ?
That 's absurd on its face .
The free market gave us : the automobilethe laserthe telephonethe telegraphthe airplanethe computerthe CD ( both financial and physical ) I could go on pretty much ad infinitum but hopefully this is enough to make you rethink your comment above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It never has"?
Are you suggesting that the free market has never solved any problem, ever?
That's absurd on its face.
The free market gave us:the automobilethe laserthe telephonethe telegraphthe airplanethe computerthe CD (both financial and physical)I could go on pretty much ad infinitum but hopefully this is enough to make you rethink your comment above.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051076</id>
	<title>Probably overblown</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1257846360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whistle Blowers have agendas too, sometimes.  But it's a moot point, because the proper response is the same either way: fast track nuclear plants.  There is no other reasonable solution to the inevitable energy problem.  We will switch to nuclear at some point or our civilization will collapse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whistle Blowers have agendas too , sometimes .
But it 's a moot point , because the proper response is the same either way : fast track nuclear plants .
There is no other reasonable solution to the inevitable energy problem .
We will switch to nuclear at some point or our civilization will collapse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whistle Blowers have agendas too, sometimes.
But it's a moot point, because the proper response is the same either way: fast track nuclear plants.
There is no other reasonable solution to the inevitable energy problem.
We will switch to nuclear at some point or our civilization will collapse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052494</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1257851820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not just drought.</p><p>The water would have to come from the Colorado River Compact. Which is already over extended (they accidentally based their assumptions on three wet years  in the region). There are huge players involved such as southern CA, the State of AZ and Las Vegas. Now the front range of Colorado wants to build a pipeline to the west, over the Rocky Mountains, to get more water from the compact.</p><p>There just isn't the water to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just drought.The water would have to come from the Colorado River Compact .
Which is already over extended ( they accidentally based their assumptions on three wet years in the region ) .
There are huge players involved such as southern CA , the State of AZ and Las Vegas .
Now the front range of Colorado wants to build a pipeline to the west , over the Rocky Mountains , to get more water from the compact.There just is n't the water to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just drought.The water would have to come from the Colorado River Compact.
Which is already over extended (they accidentally based their assumptions on three wet years  in the region).
There are huge players involved such as southern CA, the State of AZ and Las Vegas.
Now the front range of Colorado wants to build a pipeline to the west, over the Rocky Mountains, to get more water from the compact.There just isn't the water to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054420</id>
	<title>economics is a guessing game and not hard science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257863040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know that economics is a guessing game. Calculated guesses but still guesses. So let's say a gov agency has like 20 of these come up with estimates, everyone guessing a different number. so after avging the numbers, the avg case and worst case is far apart. So 2 of these who can't accept that their predictions are so far off everybody else's, started to take their talents to the media. Big deal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that economics is a guessing game .
Calculated guesses but still guesses .
So let 's say a gov agency has like 20 of these come up with estimates , everyone guessing a different number .
so after avging the numbers , the avg case and worst case is far apart .
So 2 of these who ca n't accept that their predictions are so far off everybody else 's , started to take their talents to the media .
Big deal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that economics is a guessing game.
Calculated guesses but still guesses.
So let's say a gov agency has like 20 of these come up with estimates, everyone guessing a different number.
so after avging the numbers, the avg case and worst case is far apart.
So 2 of these who can't accept that their predictions are so far off everybody else's, started to take their talents to the media.
Big deal</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051790</id>
	<title>Economic incentives?</title>
	<author>zerosomething</author>
	<datestamp>1257849000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And we know the whistleblowers don't have large investments in oil futures? Wow this creates a situation where you can't believe either side.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And we know the whistleblowers do n't have large investments in oil futures ?
Wow this creates a situation where you ca n't believe either side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we know the whistleblowers don't have large investments in oil futures?
Wow this creates a situation where you can't believe either side.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053724</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257858360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's less simple than that though...You have to think of entropy.  Oil is more than just energy.  It's a really convenient form of energy.  It might be worth a lot of solar energy to get a little oil energy.  Think about it - can you feasibly run a car on compressed air?  Isn't compressed air a form of stored energy though?  The problem is that oil is the most convenient form of energy we have for what we use it for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's less simple than that though...You have to think of entropy .
Oil is more than just energy .
It 's a really convenient form of energy .
It might be worth a lot of solar energy to get a little oil energy .
Think about it - can you feasibly run a car on compressed air ?
Is n't compressed air a form of stored energy though ?
The problem is that oil is the most convenient form of energy we have for what we use it for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's less simple than that though...You have to think of entropy.
Oil is more than just energy.
It's a really convenient form of energy.
It might be worth a lot of solar energy to get a little oil energy.
Think about it - can you feasibly run a car on compressed air?
Isn't compressed air a form of stored energy though?
The problem is that oil is the most convenient form of energy we have for what we use it for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30058860</id>
	<title>Adam Smith might disagree</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1257082980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no such thing as 'peak oil'.  This is the same extrapolationist nonsense that's been spouted in the same breath as 'we're running out of landfills', 'we're running out of fresh water', and 'we're running out of food'.  FUD BOLLOCKS.</p><p>(And here's a tip: nobody believes you because you've been spewing this same alarmist crap since the late 60's.)</p><p>As many people said above, there are trillions of bbls of reserve crude.<br>As others cogently pointed out, much of this is energetically nonsensical to retrieve.</p><p>However, oil is NOT our only source of energy.<br>As a hypothetical exercise, one could build a nuclear reactor - along with a nearby fast breeder for reprocessing plutonium wastes - and essentially have infinite energy at that site.  If electrical energy was not in the format we need (ie until the electric car becomes practical), then that energy can be used to retrieve more oil.</p><p>It's very very simple: as supplies for oil become more prohibitive to retrieve, the incentive to develop replacements for it increases.  Eventually, oil will probably not be needed at all for energy, only for its use as a source for other raw materials.</p><p>For now, all those plastic shopping bags fluttering in the trees down in the street put the lie to any nonsensical fears about 'peak oil'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such thing as 'peak oil' .
This is the same extrapolationist nonsense that 's been spouted in the same breath as 'we 're running out of landfills ' , 'we 're running out of fresh water ' , and 'we 're running out of food' .
FUD BOLLOCKS .
( And here 's a tip : nobody believes you because you 've been spewing this same alarmist crap since the late 60 's .
) As many people said above , there are trillions of bbls of reserve crude.As others cogently pointed out , much of this is energetically nonsensical to retrieve.However , oil is NOT our only source of energy.As a hypothetical exercise , one could build a nuclear reactor - along with a nearby fast breeder for reprocessing plutonium wastes - and essentially have infinite energy at that site .
If electrical energy was not in the format we need ( ie until the electric car becomes practical ) , then that energy can be used to retrieve more oil.It 's very very simple : as supplies for oil become more prohibitive to retrieve , the incentive to develop replacements for it increases .
Eventually , oil will probably not be needed at all for energy , only for its use as a source for other raw materials.For now , all those plastic shopping bags fluttering in the trees down in the street put the lie to any nonsensical fears about 'peak oil' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such thing as 'peak oil'.
This is the same extrapolationist nonsense that's been spouted in the same breath as 'we're running out of landfills', 'we're running out of fresh water', and 'we're running out of food'.
FUD BOLLOCKS.
(And here's a tip: nobody believes you because you've been spewing this same alarmist crap since the late 60's.
)As many people said above, there are trillions of bbls of reserve crude.As others cogently pointed out, much of this is energetically nonsensical to retrieve.However, oil is NOT our only source of energy.As a hypothetical exercise, one could build a nuclear reactor - along with a nearby fast breeder for reprocessing plutonium wastes - and essentially have infinite energy at that site.
If electrical energy was not in the format we need (ie until the electric car becomes practical), then that energy can be used to retrieve more oil.It's very very simple: as supplies for oil become more prohibitive to retrieve, the incentive to develop replacements for it increases.
Eventually, oil will probably not be needed at all for energy, only for its use as a source for other raw materials.For now, all those plastic shopping bags fluttering in the trees down in the street put the lie to any nonsensical fears about 'peak oil'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052754</id>
	<title>Re:Not worried</title>
	<author>IamTheRealMike</author>
	<datestamp>1257852960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's true of many people, however, there is still a sizable number of people in the world for whom gas is a large fraction of their living costs. These people will be very unhappy when their bills no longer balance due to factors outside their control. Some of them will get violent. See what happens in developing countries when oil prices rise or subsidies are reduced (eg the riots in Burma).</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's true of many people , however , there is still a sizable number of people in the world for whom gas is a large fraction of their living costs .
These people will be very unhappy when their bills no longer balance due to factors outside their control .
Some of them will get violent .
See what happens in developing countries when oil prices rise or subsidies are reduced ( eg the riots in Burma ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's true of many people, however, there is still a sizable number of people in the world for whom gas is a large fraction of their living costs.
These people will be very unhappy when their bills no longer balance due to factors outside their control.
Some of them will get violent.
See what happens in developing countries when oil prices rise or subsidies are reduced (eg the riots in Burma).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30055408</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't "known reserves" all fucked up?</title>
	<author>philipgar</author>
	<datestamp>1257868320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>uh... actually those with ties to big oil would BENEFIT from the IEA overplaying peak oil, not from them downplaying it.  If people think people oil is coming sooner, oil prices increase, big oil owns many of the current wells, and would profit handsomely if oil sold for more money.  Think about it . . . everyone said it was an oil company conspiracy a few years ago that drove UP the price of oil...  But somehow it would also be an oil company conspiracy to drive down the price of oil by downplaying peak oil...<br><br>This blaming everything on Bush seems very like a soviet tactic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. . blame everything on your predecessor.. it doesn't matter what.   Sure plenty can be blamed on him, but of course he's responsible for a conspiracy to increase and decrease oil prices.... Go figure.<br><br>Phil</htmltext>
<tokenext>uh... actually those with ties to big oil would BENEFIT from the IEA overplaying peak oil , not from them downplaying it .
If people think people oil is coming sooner , oil prices increase , big oil owns many of the current wells , and would profit handsomely if oil sold for more money .
Think about it .
. .
everyone said it was an oil company conspiracy a few years ago that drove UP the price of oil... But somehow it would also be an oil company conspiracy to drive down the price of oil by downplaying peak oil...This blaming everything on Bush seems very like a soviet tactic .. . blame everything on your predecessor.. it does n't matter what .
Sure plenty can be blamed on him , but of course he 's responsible for a conspiracy to increase and decrease oil prices.... Go figure.Phil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uh... actually those with ties to big oil would BENEFIT from the IEA overplaying peak oil, not from them downplaying it.
If people think people oil is coming sooner, oil prices increase, big oil owns many of the current wells, and would profit handsomely if oil sold for more money.
Think about it .
. .
everyone said it was an oil company conspiracy a few years ago that drove UP the price of oil...  But somehow it would also be an oil company conspiracy to drive down the price of oil by downplaying peak oil...This blaming everything on Bush seems very like a soviet tactic .. . blame everything on your predecessor.. it doesn't matter what.
Sure plenty can be blamed on him, but of course he's responsible for a conspiracy to increase and decrease oil prices.... Go figure.Phil</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052696</id>
	<title>Re:Probably overblown</title>
	<author>jcoy42</author>
	<datestamp>1257852720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That hardly seems likely.</p><p>I could say the same thing for wind, solar, etc.. but I'd be wrong as well.  Personally I think the worst thing we could do is tie ourselves to one single source of energy, the only reason we did that with oil is it's so cheap and so plentiful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That hardly seems likely.I could say the same thing for wind , solar , etc.. but I 'd be wrong as well .
Personally I think the worst thing we could do is tie ourselves to one single source of energy , the only reason we did that with oil is it 's so cheap and so plentiful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That hardly seems likely.I could say the same thing for wind, solar, etc.. but I'd be wrong as well.
Personally I think the worst thing we could do is tie ourselves to one single source of energy, the only reason we did that with oil is it's so cheap and so plentiful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30071086</id>
	<title>Re:Not worried</title>
	<author>cdavidneely</author>
	<datestamp>1258030440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difficulty with your argument is that you have not factored other areas which are affected by oil supplies. We have relatively cheap agriculture because it runs on oil or coal based fertilizers. When the price of oil goes up the price of fertilizer goes up. Farms use a wide range of petroleum powered machines which factor into the cost of your food. Added to the cost of your food is the packaging which it comes in which are almost exclusively created from petroleum products. When the cost of oil goes up then the price of the food goes up. The real source of the problem is that most people don't realize how ubiquitous petroleum products have become in our lives. It is not simply about the cost of driving your car or driving the truck which delivers the products.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difficulty with your argument is that you have not factored other areas which are affected by oil supplies .
We have relatively cheap agriculture because it runs on oil or coal based fertilizers .
When the price of oil goes up the price of fertilizer goes up .
Farms use a wide range of petroleum powered machines which factor into the cost of your food .
Added to the cost of your food is the packaging which it comes in which are almost exclusively created from petroleum products .
When the cost of oil goes up then the price of the food goes up .
The real source of the problem is that most people do n't realize how ubiquitous petroleum products have become in our lives .
It is not simply about the cost of driving your car or driving the truck which delivers the products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difficulty with your argument is that you have not factored other areas which are affected by oil supplies.
We have relatively cheap agriculture because it runs on oil or coal based fertilizers.
When the price of oil goes up the price of fertilizer goes up.
Farms use a wide range of petroleum powered machines which factor into the cost of your food.
Added to the cost of your food is the packaging which it comes in which are almost exclusively created from petroleum products.
When the cost of oil goes up then the price of the food goes up.
The real source of the problem is that most people don't realize how ubiquitous petroleum products have become in our lives.
It is not simply about the cost of driving your car or driving the truck which delivers the products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050996</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257845940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sudden known changes in prices are much better for oil futures traders.</p><p>Particularly if few other traders know they are comming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sudden known changes in prices are much better for oil futures traders.Particularly if few other traders know they are comming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sudden known changes in prices are much better for oil futures traders.Particularly if few other traders know they are comming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051950</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>America, with 5\% of the world's population, consumes about 25\% of its resources. Reason? Single Use Zoning. The silly settlement pattern that puts housing neatly in one area, shopping in another, office space in another, and industry in another, and then forces people to drive between all these areas throughout the course of the day. Okay, it makes sense to zone off industry in certain cases where noise and pollution is an issue.  But making it illegal to open a corner store in a residential area? No wonder so many journeys are made by car in the USA, bus journeys in that kind of sprawl take forever and mass transit gets a bad reputation (deservedly so).  Induced traffic is another symptom of this problem - roads get wider, developers develop farther out to allow people to take advantage of the faster commute and lower property prices, roads get filled with cars belonging to these new commuters, and we're back to square one again with people demanding that the road gets widened even more!</p><p>As long as American settlement patterns are so screwed up, the problem will exist even if we aren't in a state of world peak oil.  The problem is a hopeless addiction to petroleum that no magic wand nuclear power solution (mentioned by someone above) will be able to fix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>America , with 5 \ % of the world 's population , consumes about 25 \ % of its resources .
Reason ? Single Use Zoning .
The silly settlement pattern that puts housing neatly in one area , shopping in another , office space in another , and industry in another , and then forces people to drive between all these areas throughout the course of the day .
Okay , it makes sense to zone off industry in certain cases where noise and pollution is an issue .
But making it illegal to open a corner store in a residential area ?
No wonder so many journeys are made by car in the USA , bus journeys in that kind of sprawl take forever and mass transit gets a bad reputation ( deservedly so ) .
Induced traffic is another symptom of this problem - roads get wider , developers develop farther out to allow people to take advantage of the faster commute and lower property prices , roads get filled with cars belonging to these new commuters , and we 're back to square one again with people demanding that the road gets widened even more ! As long as American settlement patterns are so screwed up , the problem will exist even if we are n't in a state of world peak oil .
The problem is a hopeless addiction to petroleum that no magic wand nuclear power solution ( mentioned by someone above ) will be able to fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America, with 5\% of the world's population, consumes about 25\% of its resources.
Reason? Single Use Zoning.
The silly settlement pattern that puts housing neatly in one area, shopping in another, office space in another, and industry in another, and then forces people to drive between all these areas throughout the course of the day.
Okay, it makes sense to zone off industry in certain cases where noise and pollution is an issue.
But making it illegal to open a corner store in a residential area?
No wonder so many journeys are made by car in the USA, bus journeys in that kind of sprawl take forever and mass transit gets a bad reputation (deservedly so).
Induced traffic is another symptom of this problem - roads get wider, developers develop farther out to allow people to take advantage of the faster commute and lower property prices, roads get filled with cars belonging to these new commuters, and we're back to square one again with people demanding that the road gets widened even more!As long as American settlement patterns are so screwed up, the problem will exist even if we aren't in a state of world peak oil.
The problem is a hopeless addiction to petroleum that no magic wand nuclear power solution (mentioned by someone above) will be able to fix.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051914</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.5T available barrels of oil / 20B barrels consumed daily by the US = 75 days</p><p>hmmm... That doesn't seem that great IMO.</p><p>Personally, my car runs on veggie oil, so I'm not in an "OMG Were all gonna die!" panic streak, but I'm pretty sure you're screwed.</p><p>Realistically though, what we have now is not a true free market, it is impossible to have a consumer base that is well enough informed and a corporate base that is motivated by profit over dividends. Capitalism fails in the same way that Communism does. In a perfect environment, both would flourish. But out side of academia, no such environment exists. The only logical conclusion is that some balance of free market, oversight, subsidies, and regulation will work.</p><p>Getting intelligent and open minded individuals to debate out differing points of view on that balance is what give our economy strength. Unfortunately, the media loves a good polarizing story and has managed to turn damn near every political debate into a hot button "our way or NO WAY" fight.</p><p>If you leave it to the free(er) market, the cheapest production will always get the most pressure. When sales start dropping again, more lobbying and pressure will come to bear to open up more reserves. And each time they move to the next cheapest production, prices will rise. Eventually opening the door for other more competitive fuel sources.</p><p>-Rick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1.5T available barrels of oil / 20B barrels consumed daily by the US = 75 dayshmmm... That does n't seem that great IMO.Personally , my car runs on veggie oil , so I 'm not in an " OMG Were all gon na die !
" panic streak , but I 'm pretty sure you 're screwed.Realistically though , what we have now is not a true free market , it is impossible to have a consumer base that is well enough informed and a corporate base that is motivated by profit over dividends .
Capitalism fails in the same way that Communism does .
In a perfect environment , both would flourish .
But out side of academia , no such environment exists .
The only logical conclusion is that some balance of free market , oversight , subsidies , and regulation will work.Getting intelligent and open minded individuals to debate out differing points of view on that balance is what give our economy strength .
Unfortunately , the media loves a good polarizing story and has managed to turn damn near every political debate into a hot button " our way or NO WAY " fight.If you leave it to the free ( er ) market , the cheapest production will always get the most pressure .
When sales start dropping again , more lobbying and pressure will come to bear to open up more reserves .
And each time they move to the next cheapest production , prices will rise .
Eventually opening the door for other more competitive fuel sources.-Rick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.5T available barrels of oil / 20B barrels consumed daily by the US = 75 dayshmmm... That doesn't seem that great IMO.Personally, my car runs on veggie oil, so I'm not in an "OMG Were all gonna die!
" panic streak, but I'm pretty sure you're screwed.Realistically though, what we have now is not a true free market, it is impossible to have a consumer base that is well enough informed and a corporate base that is motivated by profit over dividends.
Capitalism fails in the same way that Communism does.
In a perfect environment, both would flourish.
But out side of academia, no such environment exists.
The only logical conclusion is that some balance of free market, oversight, subsidies, and regulation will work.Getting intelligent and open minded individuals to debate out differing points of view on that balance is what give our economy strength.
Unfortunately, the media loves a good polarizing story and has managed to turn damn near every political debate into a hot button "our way or NO WAY" fight.If you leave it to the free(er) market, the cheapest production will always get the most pressure.
When sales start dropping again, more lobbying and pressure will come to bear to open up more reserves.
And each time they move to the next cheapest production, prices will rise.
Eventually opening the door for other more competitive fuel sources.-Rick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053796</id>
	<title>Re:Not worried</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257858720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forgot that crude oil is used for far more than just gasoline for transportation.  When oil price goes up, how much more is every piece of plastic you buy throughout a day going to cost?  Where are you going to get large amounts of raw materials for chemical and drug manufacture?  Oil is intertwined with every facet of our modern lives and not just energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forgot that crude oil is used for far more than just gasoline for transportation .
When oil price goes up , how much more is every piece of plastic you buy throughout a day going to cost ?
Where are you going to get large amounts of raw materials for chemical and drug manufacture ?
Oil is intertwined with every facet of our modern lives and not just energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forgot that crude oil is used for far more than just gasoline for transportation.
When oil price goes up, how much more is every piece of plastic you buy throughout a day going to cost?
Where are you going to get large amounts of raw materials for chemical and drug manufacture?
Oil is intertwined with every facet of our modern lives and not just energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30058954</id>
	<title>It's not just cars and trucks ...</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1257083880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Virtually everything in a modern home, a modern hospital, a modern medicine cabinet, our modern lives are made from petroleum. The Peak Oil proponents rarely mention that most of the stuff they intend to have us use to "Go Green" is made from Oil. Their fancy CFL bulbs depend on Oil for the components. Most "Green" solutions rely on Oil-derived materials to be manufactured. The very bicycles they want us to peddle, the stroller they push, the mosquito repellant they use to keep their hippy kids free of West Nile, are all petroleum based at one component level or another.</p><p>I can't wait for the day the PETA-loving Peak Oil blabbering tree huggers realize the only oil-free option for a new bicycle seat is leather. May as well leave the fur on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtually everything in a modern home , a modern hospital , a modern medicine cabinet , our modern lives are made from petroleum .
The Peak Oil proponents rarely mention that most of the stuff they intend to have us use to " Go Green " is made from Oil .
Their fancy CFL bulbs depend on Oil for the components .
Most " Green " solutions rely on Oil-derived materials to be manufactured .
The very bicycles they want us to peddle , the stroller they push , the mosquito repellant they use to keep their hippy kids free of West Nile , are all petroleum based at one component level or another.I ca n't wait for the day the PETA-loving Peak Oil blabbering tree huggers realize the only oil-free option for a new bicycle seat is leather .
May as well leave the fur on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtually everything in a modern home, a modern hospital, a modern medicine cabinet, our modern lives are made from petroleum.
The Peak Oil proponents rarely mention that most of the stuff they intend to have us use to "Go Green" is made from Oil.
Their fancy CFL bulbs depend on Oil for the components.
Most "Green" solutions rely on Oil-derived materials to be manufactured.
The very bicycles they want us to peddle, the stroller they push, the mosquito repellant they use to keep their hippy kids free of West Nile, are all petroleum based at one component level or another.I can't wait for the day the PETA-loving Peak Oil blabbering tree huggers realize the only oil-free option for a new bicycle seat is leather.
May as well leave the fur on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052534</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>lupine</author>
	<datestamp>1257852000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Peak oil doesn't mean that we are going to run out of oil, it means that we are going to run out of cheap, high quality, easy to extract oil.</p><p>Example: Iraq just sold the rights to develop their oil reserves for $2 per barrel. These contracts will probably go down in history as the best oil extraction deals ever made because Iraqi oil fields are as sizable as those in Saudi Arabia, the oil is high quality: easy to pump easy to drill, the fields have always been underdeveloped and underutilized and all other large developed oil fields are in decline so the price is sure to spike higher even as production ramps up.</p><p>Oil shale can be a source of oil, but it is not a source of cheap oil which means that our society will need to change fundamentally as the price we pay for energy increases faster than the rate of inflation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Peak oil does n't mean that we are going to run out of oil , it means that we are going to run out of cheap , high quality , easy to extract oil.Example : Iraq just sold the rights to develop their oil reserves for $ 2 per barrel .
These contracts will probably go down in history as the best oil extraction deals ever made because Iraqi oil fields are as sizable as those in Saudi Arabia , the oil is high quality : easy to pump easy to drill , the fields have always been underdeveloped and underutilized and all other large developed oil fields are in decline so the price is sure to spike higher even as production ramps up.Oil shale can be a source of oil , but it is not a source of cheap oil which means that our society will need to change fundamentally as the price we pay for energy increases faster than the rate of inflation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peak oil doesn't mean that we are going to run out of oil, it means that we are going to run out of cheap, high quality, easy to extract oil.Example: Iraq just sold the rights to develop their oil reserves for $2 per barrel.
These contracts will probably go down in history as the best oil extraction deals ever made because Iraqi oil fields are as sizable as those in Saudi Arabia, the oil is high quality: easy to pump easy to drill, the fields have always been underdeveloped and underutilized and all other large developed oil fields are in decline so the price is sure to spike higher even as production ramps up.Oil shale can be a source of oil, but it is not a source of cheap oil which means that our society will need to change fundamentally as the price we pay for energy increases faster than the rate of inflation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054932</id>
	<title>Its all Bush's fault</title>
	<author>ras</author>
	<datestamp>1257865620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No seriously.  The IEA and USGS (US Geological Survey) were both formed after the 1970's oil shock to provide us with reliable data about future oil supplies.  They idea was to provide us with plenty of time to prepare ourselves for future oil shocks.  And they did just that - delivering solid if boring data for 30 years.</p><p>The suddenly in 2000 everything changed.  Sources hereto though uneconomic were included, assumptions like magic improvements in extraction efficiency were added.  And the projections altered accordingly.</p><p>Seems Bush put about as much store in solid reliable oil data as he did in solid reliable Iraqi intelligence, or scientific advice on global warming for that matter.  He was nothing if not consistent.</p><p> <a href="http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/weo2004/TheUppsalaCode.html" title="peakoil.net">http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/weo2004/TheUppsalaCode.html</a> [peakoil.net].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No seriously .
The IEA and USGS ( US Geological Survey ) were both formed after the 1970 's oil shock to provide us with reliable data about future oil supplies .
They idea was to provide us with plenty of time to prepare ourselves for future oil shocks .
And they did just that - delivering solid if boring data for 30 years.The suddenly in 2000 everything changed .
Sources hereto though uneconomic were included , assumptions like magic improvements in extraction efficiency were added .
And the projections altered accordingly.Seems Bush put about as much store in solid reliable oil data as he did in solid reliable Iraqi intelligence , or scientific advice on global warming for that matter .
He was nothing if not consistent .
http : //www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/weo2004/TheUppsalaCode.html [ peakoil.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No seriously.
The IEA and USGS (US Geological Survey) were both formed after the 1970's oil shock to provide us with reliable data about future oil supplies.
They idea was to provide us with plenty of time to prepare ourselves for future oil shocks.
And they did just that - delivering solid if boring data for 30 years.The suddenly in 2000 everything changed.
Sources hereto though uneconomic were included, assumptions like magic improvements in extraction efficiency were added.
And the projections altered accordingly.Seems Bush put about as much store in solid reliable oil data as he did in solid reliable Iraqi intelligence, or scientific advice on global warming for that matter.
He was nothing if not consistent.
http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/weo2004/TheUppsalaCode.html [peakoil.net].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052160</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257850560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but...</p><p>The equivalent oil in Canada is the Tar Sands in Alberta.</p><p>First, it takes a barrel of oil to make 2 barrels of oil, or some rdidculous number like this. If the development included nuclear power plants, or a massive hydroelectric dam, or some other source of heat that did not involve burning thevery product you make - maybe it would make more sense. That's sand, at the surface. How much more energy to strip-mine and pulverize more deeply buried shale?</p><p>Secondly, the other major complaint about the Tar Sands is that they are seriously polluting the waters around them, which are used to process the oil. Fortunately, this won't be a problem in Montana or Wyoming as there is NO WATER! Certainly nothing of the volume of the rivers feeding Great Slave Lake area. Of course, you could truck the shale a few hundred miles in order to pollute the headwaters of the Missouri-Misissippi system, this wasting even greater percentage of the recovered oil. If you can defeat those darned enviro-nazis with enviro-corporate-free-marketeer-laissez-faire-guerilla-polluters, then transferring the cost from the corporations having to clean up pollution to the diminished quality of life for people in the Lower Mississippi and that chocolate city, and maybe anyone wanting recreation time in the Gulf, or Bubba Gump and his fishermen friends...</p><p>Technology is never as simple as some would have us believe, nor as impossible as others want you to believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but...The equivalent oil in Canada is the Tar Sands in Alberta.First , it takes a barrel of oil to make 2 barrels of oil , or some rdidculous number like this .
If the development included nuclear power plants , or a massive hydroelectric dam , or some other source of heat that did not involve burning thevery product you make - maybe it would make more sense .
That 's sand , at the surface .
How much more energy to strip-mine and pulverize more deeply buried shale ? Secondly , the other major complaint about the Tar Sands is that they are seriously polluting the waters around them , which are used to process the oil .
Fortunately , this wo n't be a problem in Montana or Wyoming as there is NO WATER !
Certainly nothing of the volume of the rivers feeding Great Slave Lake area .
Of course , you could truck the shale a few hundred miles in order to pollute the headwaters of the Missouri-Misissippi system , this wasting even greater percentage of the recovered oil .
If you can defeat those darned enviro-nazis with enviro-corporate-free-marketeer-laissez-faire-guerilla-polluters , then transferring the cost from the corporations having to clean up pollution to the diminished quality of life for people in the Lower Mississippi and that chocolate city , and maybe anyone wanting recreation time in the Gulf , or Bubba Gump and his fishermen friends...Technology is never as simple as some would have us believe , nor as impossible as others want you to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but...The equivalent oil in Canada is the Tar Sands in Alberta.First, it takes a barrel of oil to make 2 barrels of oil, or some rdidculous number like this.
If the development included nuclear power plants, or a massive hydroelectric dam, or some other source of heat that did not involve burning thevery product you make - maybe it would make more sense.
That's sand, at the surface.
How much more energy to strip-mine and pulverize more deeply buried shale?Secondly, the other major complaint about the Tar Sands is that they are seriously polluting the waters around them, which are used to process the oil.
Fortunately, this won't be a problem in Montana or Wyoming as there is NO WATER!
Certainly nothing of the volume of the rivers feeding Great Slave Lake area.
Of course, you could truck the shale a few hundred miles in order to pollute the headwaters of the Missouri-Misissippi system, this wasting even greater percentage of the recovered oil.
If you can defeat those darned enviro-nazis with enviro-corporate-free-marketeer-laissez-faire-guerilla-polluters, then transferring the cost from the corporations having to clean up pollution to the diminished quality of life for people in the Lower Mississippi and that chocolate city, and maybe anyone wanting recreation time in the Gulf, or Bubba Gump and his fishermen friends...Technology is never as simple as some would have us believe, nor as impossible as others want you to believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30057058</id>
	<title>Re:Not worried</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1257882660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This man has no concept of the hundreds of uses for oil and his post should simply not be +5 interesting, +5 uninformed yes, +5 interesting, no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This man has no concept of the hundreds of uses for oil and his post should simply not be + 5 interesting , + 5 uninformed yes , + 5 interesting , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This man has no concept of the hundreds of uses for oil and his post should simply not be +5 interesting, +5 uninformed yes, +5 interesting, no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051706</id>
	<title>We will NEVER run out of OIL!</title>
	<author>thickdiick</author>
	<datestamp>1257848700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reality is that we will NEVER run out of oil! Many people lie, and the rest are too stupid to realise the folly of their words. Still others just want to push their own agenda &mdash; but the reality is that we will never run out of oil.<br> <br>

Imagine you're in a big room full of peanuts. And you open the shell, eat the nut, and throw the shell aside. Eventually, it will be harder and harder to find a peanut, because you'll be finding increasingly more peanut shells with no peanut inside. <br> <br>

The same story is with oil. It will just be harder and harder to find the oil, and the price will rise to reflect the increased costs of getting it. But there will always be some oil, somewhere, to be drilled. <b>We will NEVER RUN OUT OF OIL!!!</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reality is that we will NEVER run out of oil !
Many people lie , and the rest are too stupid to realise the folly of their words .
Still others just want to push their own agenda    but the reality is that we will never run out of oil .
Imagine you 're in a big room full of peanuts .
And you open the shell , eat the nut , and throw the shell aside .
Eventually , it will be harder and harder to find a peanut , because you 'll be finding increasingly more peanut shells with no peanut inside .
The same story is with oil .
It will just be harder and harder to find the oil , and the price will rise to reflect the increased costs of getting it .
But there will always be some oil , somewhere , to be drilled .
We will NEVER RUN OUT OF OIL ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reality is that we will NEVER run out of oil!
Many people lie, and the rest are too stupid to realise the folly of their words.
Still others just want to push their own agenda — but the reality is that we will never run out of oil.
Imagine you're in a big room full of peanuts.
And you open the shell, eat the nut, and throw the shell aside.
Eventually, it will be harder and harder to find a peanut, because you'll be finding increasingly more peanut shells with no peanut inside.
The same story is with oil.
It will just be harder and harder to find the oil, and the price will rise to reflect the increased costs of getting it.
But there will always be some oil, somewhere, to be drilled.
We will NEVER RUN OUT OF OIL!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051942</id>
	<title>Let's keep score and try to assign a letter grade</title>
	<author>MarkWatson</author>
	<datestamp>1257849600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's grade our (USA) government on:</p><p>* Transparency on real unemployment rates<br>* Transparency on getting into the Iraq war<br>* Transparency on getting into the Vietnam war<br>* Transparency on (not) publishing the M3 figures</p><p>I could go on, but I'll subjectively assign a grade of "D-"</p><p>It may be a cliche, but people are good and governments are usually mediocre at best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's grade our ( USA ) government on : * Transparency on real unemployment rates * Transparency on getting into the Iraq war * Transparency on getting into the Vietnam war * Transparency on ( not ) publishing the M3 figuresI could go on , but I 'll subjectively assign a grade of " D- " It may be a cliche , but people are good and governments are usually mediocre at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's grade our (USA) government on:* Transparency on real unemployment rates* Transparency on getting into the Iraq war* Transparency on getting into the Vietnam war* Transparency on (not) publishing the M3 figuresI could go on, but I'll subjectively assign a grade of "D-"It may be a cliche, but people are good and governments are usually mediocre at best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30060972</id>
	<title>Peak oil is very difficult to predict</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20 years ago peak oil was put at 2001</p><p>50 years ago peak oil was put at 1970</p><p>At the start of last centurary it was estimated that there was 10 years left</p><p>The key is that for each well we only recover max 40\% of the oil using current technology. Predictions on peak oil usually forget about technological advances hence the innacurate asertions.</p><p>Furthermore most wells are in the US, we have very few wells in other sedimentary basins.</p><p>While oil is dirty it is still plentifiul of we are willing to pollutr and pay for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20 years ago peak oil was put at 200150 years ago peak oil was put at 1970At the start of last centurary it was estimated that there was 10 years leftThe key is that for each well we only recover max 40 \ % of the oil using current technology .
Predictions on peak oil usually forget about technological advances hence the innacurate asertions.Furthermore most wells are in the US , we have very few wells in other sedimentary basins.While oil is dirty it is still plentifiul of we are willing to pollutr and pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 years ago peak oil was put at 200150 years ago peak oil was put at 1970At the start of last centurary it was estimated that there was 10 years leftThe key is that for each well we only recover max 40\% of the oil using current technology.
Predictions on peak oil usually forget about technological advances hence the innacurate asertions.Furthermore most wells are in the US, we have very few wells in other sedimentary basins.While oil is dirty it is still plentifiul of we are willing to pollutr and pay for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051446</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257847680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; So, there are reserves that are "unattainable" because it is not energetically sane to extract, and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.</p><p>As one witty peak oiler explained it: If I want an apple, I may pay a dollar for it. If I really want and apple, I might pay a thousand dollars for it. But no matter how much I like apples, there's one price I will never pay for one, and that is <i>two</i>apples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So , there are reserves that are " unattainable " because it is not energetically sane to extract , and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.As one witty peak oiler explained it : If I want an apple , I may pay a dollar for it .
If I really want and apple , I might pay a thousand dollars for it .
But no matter how much I like apples , there 's one price I will never pay for one , and that is twoapples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; So, there are reserves that are "unattainable" because it is not energetically sane to extract, and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.As one witty peak oiler explained it: If I want an apple, I may pay a dollar for it.
If I really want and apple, I might pay a thousand dollars for it.
But no matter how much I like apples, there's one price I will never pay for one, and that is twoapples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050982</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>skgrey</author>
	<datestamp>1257845880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the looks of Reality B, it would be to maintain the current state of business and finance so they can enjoy their lives, rather than causing the panic, wars, and breakdown of civilization any sooner than they have to.
<br> <br>
Maybe they think they have their thumb stuck in the dam, holding back a huge wave, and are trying to live as well as possible until the inevitable happens? It's not like they aren't going to be blamed a bit if it does..
<br> <br>
Of course they'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the looks of Reality B , it would be to maintain the current state of business and finance so they can enjoy their lives , rather than causing the panic , wars , and breakdown of civilization any sooner than they have to .
Maybe they think they have their thumb stuck in the dam , holding back a huge wave , and are trying to live as well as possible until the inevitable happens ?
It 's not like they are n't going to be blamed a bit if it does. . Of course they 'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the looks of Reality B, it would be to maintain the current state of business and finance so they can enjoy their lives, rather than causing the panic, wars, and breakdown of civilization any sooner than they have to.
Maybe they think they have their thumb stuck in the dam, holding back a huge wave, and are trying to live as well as possible until the inevitable happens?
It's not like they aren't going to be blamed a bit if it does..
 
Of course they'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30058704</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic of economists</title>
	<author>Eunuchswear</author>
	<datestamp>1257081660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I am not advocating socialism or anything like that. The best system is probably a mixture of elements of a free market and a controlled economy.</p></div></blockquote><p>But that <em>is</em> socialism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not advocating socialism or anything like that .
The best system is probably a mixture of elements of a free market and a controlled economy.But that is socialism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not advocating socialism or anything like that.
The best system is probably a mixture of elements of a free market and a controlled economy.But that is socialism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30056090</id>
	<title>Play it again sam</title>
	<author>ebvwfbw</author>
	<datestamp>1257873180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember this from the 1960s, then the 1970s when they showed a boy about 8 years old saying there would be no oil for him when he was 16 and old enough to drive.  His son is driving and perhaps his son is driving by now.  Another scare in 1983, 1987, 1991, 1999-2000, 2004 and a big one in 2007/2008 just in time for the election which I personally believe was very much intentional.  If they keep "predicting" it, it will eventually happen I'm sure.  They also stopped making new oil refineries in the US in the 1970s.  So it is possible that we will hit peak oil because they won't be able to refine any more due to the environmentalists.  More of the same.  Nothing to see, move along.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember this from the 1960s , then the 1970s when they showed a boy about 8 years old saying there would be no oil for him when he was 16 and old enough to drive .
His son is driving and perhaps his son is driving by now .
Another scare in 1983 , 1987 , 1991 , 1999-2000 , 2004 and a big one in 2007/2008 just in time for the election which I personally believe was very much intentional .
If they keep " predicting " it , it will eventually happen I 'm sure .
They also stopped making new oil refineries in the US in the 1970s .
So it is possible that we will hit peak oil because they wo n't be able to refine any more due to the environmentalists .
More of the same .
Nothing to see , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember this from the 1960s, then the 1970s when they showed a boy about 8 years old saying there would be no oil for him when he was 16 and old enough to drive.
His son is driving and perhaps his son is driving by now.
Another scare in 1983, 1987, 1991, 1999-2000, 2004 and a big one in 2007/2008 just in time for the election which I personally believe was very much intentional.
If they keep "predicting" it, it will eventually happen I'm sure.
They also stopped making new oil refineries in the US in the 1970s.
So it is possible that we will hit peak oil because they won't be able to refine any more due to the environmentalists.
More of the same.
Nothing to see, move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051252</id>
	<title>We will always have deep sea exploration....</title>
	<author>teumesmo</author>
	<datestamp>1257846960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Judging by Brazil's exploits, by actually spending, as Brazil does, some 40 dollars per barrel in operational costs(deep sea exploration), I think peak oil might still be 100 years away. Hopefully big oil's addiction to their own criminal profiteering will lead them to cleaner(more profitable by a factor of 100) alternatives, unless they figure they are rich enough already, and decide to take a "moral" stand to us mere mortals.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judging by Brazil 's exploits , by actually spending , as Brazil does , some 40 dollars per barrel in operational costs ( deep sea exploration ) , I think peak oil might still be 100 years away .
Hopefully big oil 's addiction to their own criminal profiteering will lead them to cleaner ( more profitable by a factor of 100 ) alternatives , unless they figure they are rich enough already , and decide to take a " moral " stand to us mere mortals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judging by Brazil's exploits, by actually spending, as Brazil does, some 40 dollars per barrel in operational costs(deep sea exploration), I think peak oil might still be 100 years away.
Hopefully big oil's addiction to their own criminal profiteering will lead them to cleaner(more profitable by a factor of 100) alternatives, unless they figure they are rich enough already, and decide to take a "moral" stand to us mere mortals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051534</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1257848040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would anyone prefer not knowing about the lack of easily-accessible reserves? Something known to be limited will fetch a higher price on the market, which will bring more profit to the supplier, and reduce usage, which would satisfy those who call for reduced usage. Who wins when the lack of easily-accessible reserves is kept secret?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone prefer not knowing about the lack of easily-accessible reserves ?
Something known to be limited will fetch a higher price on the market , which will bring more profit to the supplier , and reduce usage , which would satisfy those who call for reduced usage .
Who wins when the lack of easily-accessible reserves is kept secret ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone prefer not knowing about the lack of easily-accessible reserves?
Something known to be limited will fetch a higher price on the market, which will bring more profit to the supplier, and reduce usage, which would satisfy those who call for reduced usage.
Who wins when the lack of easily-accessible reserves is kept secret?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052458</id>
	<title>(Marginalized, demonized) economists</title>
	<author>mckyj57</author>
	<datestamp>1257851640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Guardian has an editorial claiming that the economic establishment is too fearful to come clean on the reality of oil suppplies, and makes an analogy with the (marginalized, demonized) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.</p></div></blockquote><p>What about the (marginalized, demonized) economists who forecast an economic collapse every year from 1980 to 2000? Even Jeanne Dixon got a few right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Guardian has an editorial claiming that the economic establishment is too fearful to come clean on the reality of oil suppplies , and makes an analogy with the ( marginalized , demonized ) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.What about the ( marginalized , demonized ) economists who forecast an economic collapse every year from 1980 to 2000 ?
Even Jeanne Dixon got a few right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Guardian has an editorial claiming that the economic establishment is too fearful to come clean on the reality of oil suppplies, and makes an analogy with the (marginalized, demonized) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.What about the (marginalized, demonized) economists who forecast an economic collapse every year from 1980 to 2000?
Even Jeanne Dixon got a few right.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051680</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>tiks</author>
	<datestamp>1257848640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A comment about shale oil &amp; canada's tar sands (has been discussed quite extensively on the oil drum, PO discussion site). Even if the govt ban is lifted and the price of oil hovers above $120/bl still the big problem with these 'non-traditional' sources is a concept called EROEI which is basically the net energy gain over the amount spend extracting the energy source. So basically, the EROEI for traditional oil has been in range of 100:1 to 20:1. for these sources it is quite low (i think 5:1 at best) which will certainly sustain present economic model of the world.</p><p>BTW the would you care to guess the net energy for corn ethanol<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... its is 1.3:1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A comment about shale oil &amp; canada 's tar sands ( has been discussed quite extensively on the oil drum , PO discussion site ) .
Even if the govt ban is lifted and the price of oil hovers above $ 120/bl still the big problem with these 'non-traditional ' sources is a concept called EROEI which is basically the net energy gain over the amount spend extracting the energy source .
So basically , the EROEI for traditional oil has been in range of 100 : 1 to 20 : 1. for these sources it is quite low ( i think 5 : 1 at best ) which will certainly sustain present economic model of the world.BTW the would you care to guess the net energy for corn ethanol ... its is 1.3 : 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A comment about shale oil &amp; canada's tar sands (has been discussed quite extensively on the oil drum, PO discussion site).
Even if the govt ban is lifted and the price of oil hovers above $120/bl still the big problem with these 'non-traditional' sources is a concept called EROEI which is basically the net energy gain over the amount spend extracting the energy source.
So basically, the EROEI for traditional oil has been in range of 100:1 to 20:1. for these sources it is quite low (i think 5:1 at best) which will certainly sustain present economic model of the world.BTW the would you care to guess the net energy for corn ethanol ... its is 1.3:1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050860</id>
	<title>Bah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257845280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's more light sweet crude under the Dakotas than Saudi Arabia...</p><p>More propaganda/Bullplop..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's more light sweet crude under the Dakotas than Saudi Arabia...More propaganda/Bullplop. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's more light sweet crude under the Dakotas than Saudi Arabia...More propaganda/Bullplop..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051170</id>
	<title>Why Peak Oilers are utterly uninteresting.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257846660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't I listen to Peak Oilers or read their articles?</p><p>Because everything they say is either fantastically basic and self-explanatory, based on armchair assessments of the situation, or purely based on speculation.</p><p>Of sayings that fall in the first category, we find "The world will run out of oil" - "some time in the next 10/20/30/60 years we will reach a plateau in the amount of hydrocarbons produced" - "we cannot extract hydrocarbons infinitely" - "people think they can substitute gas, but do we have infinite gas? No we don't" - all of these things I was aware of at the age of 10. There is nothing interesting in it whatsoever, for values of 'interesting' that also include 'new'.</p><p>Of sayings in the second category, we find "the world will descend into chaos" - "it will be the war to end all wars" - etc. This is pure speculation. And the reason this is speculation is enshrined in the third point I would like to make:</p><p>Nobody knows what will happen. Once we have reached the "peak", how long will it take to actually "run out"? In the meantime, how high will the prices go, and how much will supply be extended as a result of the fall in demand resulting from increasing prices? How will people adapt to a situation where there is limited and rationed hydrocarbons? How will society be reshaped? Will Joe Bloggs pull out a gun and start shooting as soon as he is told? Or will he just get on the bus, along with his children who will never see personal vehicles like today? What will be the cost in living standard of this? How much of the cost can be balanced by what spending on research in renewable energy, what theoretical limits does renewable energy has, and most importantly, in the time to (peak oil plus the duration of the decline), how far can technology come? Furthermore, what attention should we devote to Peak Oil as a threat, as opposed to other possible threats, including global warming, Western aging, migration, raw materials, the state of the global economy over the next year?</p><p>If Peak Oilers actually had anything interesting what-so-ever to say on these things, I might actually start listening to them. Because I read with great interest articles on Slashdot about fission and fusion, about energy efficiency, solar cells, etc. So do pretty much everyone with an above average interest in the world, I would say. But very few of them actually bother to buy the books of Peak Oilers or read their articles. This is simply because all Peak Oilers say is "We will reach a point called a 'peak' and it's game over from there and it is the death of everything you know, hurr durr durr [beard scratching, knowing-and-condescending-smirk]". No numbers, no reliable forecasts, no credible and very well-researched and plausible answers to any of the previous questions. Just armchair philosophy and speculation. If Peak Oiler is a job that you can survive on with a good income, then hell - I WANT THAT JOB MORE THAN ANYTHING,</p><p>If you're a Peak Oiler who feel a lack of respect, try spending your entire life saying something else than what billions of people already know. Just a hint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't I listen to Peak Oilers or read their articles ? Because everything they say is either fantastically basic and self-explanatory , based on armchair assessments of the situation , or purely based on speculation.Of sayings that fall in the first category , we find " The world will run out of oil " - " some time in the next 10/20/30/60 years we will reach a plateau in the amount of hydrocarbons produced " - " we can not extract hydrocarbons infinitely " - " people think they can substitute gas , but do we have infinite gas ?
No we do n't " - all of these things I was aware of at the age of 10 .
There is nothing interesting in it whatsoever , for values of 'interesting ' that also include 'new'.Of sayings in the second category , we find " the world will descend into chaos " - " it will be the war to end all wars " - etc .
This is pure speculation .
And the reason this is speculation is enshrined in the third point I would like to make : Nobody knows what will happen .
Once we have reached the " peak " , how long will it take to actually " run out " ?
In the meantime , how high will the prices go , and how much will supply be extended as a result of the fall in demand resulting from increasing prices ?
How will people adapt to a situation where there is limited and rationed hydrocarbons ?
How will society be reshaped ?
Will Joe Bloggs pull out a gun and start shooting as soon as he is told ?
Or will he just get on the bus , along with his children who will never see personal vehicles like today ?
What will be the cost in living standard of this ?
How much of the cost can be balanced by what spending on research in renewable energy , what theoretical limits does renewable energy has , and most importantly , in the time to ( peak oil plus the duration of the decline ) , how far can technology come ?
Furthermore , what attention should we devote to Peak Oil as a threat , as opposed to other possible threats , including global warming , Western aging , migration , raw materials , the state of the global economy over the next year ? If Peak Oilers actually had anything interesting what-so-ever to say on these things , I might actually start listening to them .
Because I read with great interest articles on Slashdot about fission and fusion , about energy efficiency , solar cells , etc .
So do pretty much everyone with an above average interest in the world , I would say .
But very few of them actually bother to buy the books of Peak Oilers or read their articles .
This is simply because all Peak Oilers say is " We will reach a point called a 'peak ' and it 's game over from there and it is the death of everything you know , hurr durr durr [ beard scratching , knowing-and-condescending-smirk ] " .
No numbers , no reliable forecasts , no credible and very well-researched and plausible answers to any of the previous questions .
Just armchair philosophy and speculation .
If Peak Oiler is a job that you can survive on with a good income , then hell - I WANT THAT JOB MORE THAN ANYTHING,If you 're a Peak Oiler who feel a lack of respect , try spending your entire life saying something else than what billions of people already know .
Just a hint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't I listen to Peak Oilers or read their articles?Because everything they say is either fantastically basic and self-explanatory, based on armchair assessments of the situation, or purely based on speculation.Of sayings that fall in the first category, we find "The world will run out of oil" - "some time in the next 10/20/30/60 years we will reach a plateau in the amount of hydrocarbons produced" - "we cannot extract hydrocarbons infinitely" - "people think they can substitute gas, but do we have infinite gas?
No we don't" - all of these things I was aware of at the age of 10.
There is nothing interesting in it whatsoever, for values of 'interesting' that also include 'new'.Of sayings in the second category, we find "the world will descend into chaos" - "it will be the war to end all wars" - etc.
This is pure speculation.
And the reason this is speculation is enshrined in the third point I would like to make:Nobody knows what will happen.
Once we have reached the "peak", how long will it take to actually "run out"?
In the meantime, how high will the prices go, and how much will supply be extended as a result of the fall in demand resulting from increasing prices?
How will people adapt to a situation where there is limited and rationed hydrocarbons?
How will society be reshaped?
Will Joe Bloggs pull out a gun and start shooting as soon as he is told?
Or will he just get on the bus, along with his children who will never see personal vehicles like today?
What will be the cost in living standard of this?
How much of the cost can be balanced by what spending on research in renewable energy, what theoretical limits does renewable energy has, and most importantly, in the time to (peak oil plus the duration of the decline), how far can technology come?
Furthermore, what attention should we devote to Peak Oil as a threat, as opposed to other possible threats, including global warming, Western aging, migration, raw materials, the state of the global economy over the next year?If Peak Oilers actually had anything interesting what-so-ever to say on these things, I might actually start listening to them.
Because I read with great interest articles on Slashdot about fission and fusion, about energy efficiency, solar cells, etc.
So do pretty much everyone with an above average interest in the world, I would say.
But very few of them actually bother to buy the books of Peak Oilers or read their articles.
This is simply because all Peak Oilers say is "We will reach a point called a 'peak' and it's game over from there and it is the death of everything you know, hurr durr durr [beard scratching, knowing-and-condescending-smirk]".
No numbers, no reliable forecasts, no credible and very well-researched and plausible answers to any of the previous questions.
Just armchair philosophy and speculation.
If Peak Oiler is a job that you can survive on with a good income, then hell - I WANT THAT JOB MORE THAN ANYTHING,If you're a Peak Oiler who feel a lack of respect, try spending your entire life saying something else than what billions of people already know.
Just a hint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051592</id>
	<title>The Guardian no less...</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1257848280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is amazing how the Guardian manages to scoop everybody else.   I've read investigative articles in that paper that no other news source will even comment on, never mind publish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is amazing how the Guardian manages to scoop everybody else .
I 've read investigative articles in that paper that no other news source will even comment on , never mind publish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is amazing how the Guardian manages to scoop everybody else.
I've read investigative articles in that paper that no other news source will even comment on, never mind publish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054328</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>sphealey</author>
	<datestamp>1257862260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; So, there are reserves that are "unattainable" because it is not energetically<br>&gt;  sane to extract, and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.</p><p>Besides the energy balance point, there is also the point where extraction of a resource does so much damage to the Earth that it would be better to die peacefully than to die very slowly in the hell that would be created by extracting it.  Many of the marginal oil reserves fall into this category, requiring the total destruction of large areas (not neglecting the water that has to be robbed from elsewhere to feed the extraction process) to get it with both anticipated direct and unknown 2nd- and 3rd-order effects on the planet's ecology.</p><p>sPh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So , there are reserves that are " unattainable " because it is not energetically &gt; sane to extract , and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.Besides the energy balance point , there is also the point where extraction of a resource does so much damage to the Earth that it would be better to die peacefully than to die very slowly in the hell that would be created by extracting it .
Many of the marginal oil reserves fall into this category , requiring the total destruction of large areas ( not neglecting the water that has to be robbed from elsewhere to feed the extraction process ) to get it with both anticipated direct and unknown 2nd- and 3rd-order effects on the planet 's ecology.sPh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; So, there are reserves that are "unattainable" because it is not energetically&gt;  sane to extract, and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.Besides the energy balance point, there is also the point where extraction of a resource does so much damage to the Earth that it would be better to die peacefully than to die very slowly in the hell that would be created by extracting it.
Many of the marginal oil reserves fall into this category, requiring the total destruction of large areas (not neglecting the water that has to be robbed from elsewhere to feed the extraction process) to get it with both anticipated direct and unknown 2nd- and 3rd-order effects on the planet's ecology.sPh</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051974</id>
	<title>Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic of economists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Oh wait, that's free market economics,</i>
<br> <br>
See, here is where you are missing something. The 'Free market' isn't the magic bullet that you want to think it is. Oh sure, it will find an equilibrium between supply and demand. Nobody argues that. However, people might die and there might might be economic collapse while its happening, but gosh darn it, letting things take care of themselves gust makes sense!
<br> <br>
'The free market' isn't omniscient. It can be blindsided by sudden changes. Those changes can be very bad in the short term. I might point out how the 'fee market' responded to banking deregulation over the last twenty years to illustrate my point. 'The market' has nobody's best interest at heart.
<br> <br>
I am not advocating socialism or anything like that. The best system is probably a mixture of elements of a free market and a controlled economy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wait , that 's free market economics , See , here is where you are missing something .
The 'Free market ' is n't the magic bullet that you want to think it is .
Oh sure , it will find an equilibrium between supply and demand .
Nobody argues that .
However , people might die and there might might be economic collapse while its happening , but gosh darn it , letting things take care of themselves gust makes sense !
'The free market ' is n't omniscient .
It can be blindsided by sudden changes .
Those changes can be very bad in the short term .
I might point out how the 'fee market ' responded to banking deregulation over the last twenty years to illustrate my point .
'The market ' has nobody 's best interest at heart .
I am not advocating socialism or anything like that .
The best system is probably a mixture of elements of a free market and a controlled economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wait, that's free market economics,
 
See, here is where you are missing something.
The 'Free market' isn't the magic bullet that you want to think it is.
Oh sure, it will find an equilibrium between supply and demand.
Nobody argues that.
However, people might die and there might might be economic collapse while its happening, but gosh darn it, letting things take care of themselves gust makes sense!
'The free market' isn't omniscient.
It can be blindsided by sudden changes.
Those changes can be very bad in the short term.
I might point out how the 'fee market' responded to banking deregulation over the last twenty years to illustrate my point.
'The market' has nobody's best interest at heart.
I am not advocating socialism or anything like that.
The best system is probably a mixture of elements of a free market and a controlled economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051850</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1257849240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ronald Reagan stopped funding research on coal to liquids and extraction from oil shale by abolishing the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program in the 80s</p></div><p>I guess the government has to fund any research that takes place or it won't get done?  Reagan did attempt to cut spending, as I recall.  Maybe he decided this was something businesses could do, since they would directly benefit, and it would take the burden off the taxpayer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ronald Reagan stopped funding research on coal to liquids and extraction from oil shale by abolishing the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program in the 80sI guess the government has to fund any research that takes place or it wo n't get done ?
Reagan did attempt to cut spending , as I recall .
Maybe he decided this was something businesses could do , since they would directly benefit , and it would take the burden off the taxpayer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ronald Reagan stopped funding research on coal to liquids and extraction from oil shale by abolishing the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program in the 80sI guess the government has to fund any research that takes place or it won't get done?
Reagan did attempt to cut spending, as I recall.
Maybe he decided this was something businesses could do, since they would directly benefit, and it would take the burden off the taxpayer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30064482</id>
	<title>Peak Oil: neo-Malthusian thinking</title>
	<author>mr\_death</author>
	<datestamp>1257107820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As it has happened in the past, someone is plotting a rising demand curve against a presumed insufficient supply, and screams "we're doomed!". This kind of thinking ignores new oil finds, and new recovery techniques which extract more oil from existing finds.</p><p>Also ignored are two known Saudi Arabia-sized oil sources -- the tar sands of Alberta and oil shale in the US. At current prices, using these sources isn't economically feasible, but if the price of oil moves up and stays up, we'll see these sources come on line.</p><p>Can you name one thing the world has run out of? New technologies, close substitution, and ingenuity driven by economic need have always bolstered and increased the supply of a needed commodity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As it has happened in the past , someone is plotting a rising demand curve against a presumed insufficient supply , and screams " we 're doomed ! " .
This kind of thinking ignores new oil finds , and new recovery techniques which extract more oil from existing finds.Also ignored are two known Saudi Arabia-sized oil sources -- the tar sands of Alberta and oil shale in the US .
At current prices , using these sources is n't economically feasible , but if the price of oil moves up and stays up , we 'll see these sources come on line.Can you name one thing the world has run out of ?
New technologies , close substitution , and ingenuity driven by economic need have always bolstered and increased the supply of a needed commodity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As it has happened in the past, someone is plotting a rising demand curve against a presumed insufficient supply, and screams "we're doomed!".
This kind of thinking ignores new oil finds, and new recovery techniques which extract more oil from existing finds.Also ignored are two known Saudi Arabia-sized oil sources -- the tar sands of Alberta and oil shale in the US.
At current prices, using these sources isn't economically feasible, but if the price of oil moves up and stays up, we'll see these sources come on line.Can you name one thing the world has run out of?
New technologies, close substitution, and ingenuity driven by economic need have always bolstered and increased the supply of a needed commodity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30060136</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1257090720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, you're right, it's the American's fault.</p><p>Of course maybe if we hadn't had to come here to get away from the other f'd up countries it would have never been an issue, but hey, that's all right, continue to blame us for a GLOBAL problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , you 're right , it 's the American 's fault.Of course maybe if we had n't had to come here to get away from the other f 'd up countries it would have never been an issue , but hey , that 's all right , continue to blame us for a GLOBAL problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, you're right, it's the American's fault.Of course maybe if we hadn't had to come here to get away from the other f'd up countries it would have never been an issue, but hey, that's all right, continue to blame us for a GLOBAL problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052080</id>
	<title>This is stupid.</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1257850260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much everything else I could say on topic has already been posted.</p><p>"The world is ending!!1"<br>"No it isn't!"<br>"Yes it is!"</p><p>While everyone concerned is too preoccupied with their petty PR flame wars and protecting their bottom line, the world actually is getting fucked up beyond repair because of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much everything else I could say on topic has already been posted .
" The world is ending !
! 1 " " No it is n't !
" " Yes it is !
" While everyone concerned is too preoccupied with their petty PR flame wars and protecting their bottom line , the world actually is getting fucked up beyond repair because of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much everything else I could say on topic has already been posted.
"The world is ending!
!1""No it isn't!
""Yes it is!
"While everyone concerned is too preoccupied with their petty PR flame wars and protecting their bottom line, the world actually is getting fucked up beyond repair because of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051396</id>
	<title>usgs.gov site down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257847440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's funny?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's funny ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's funny?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051104</id>
	<title>DJIA News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257846420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oil prices sore today putting transportation at a standstill. Analysts claim that insiders at the IEA admitted to "fudging the numbers" when it came to oil reserves; these bold whistle-blowers are causing the exact market panic that the IEA was trying to avoid in the first place.</p><p>Wall Street is getting ready for $10/gallon and bailout 2.0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oil prices sore today putting transportation at a standstill .
Analysts claim that insiders at the IEA admitted to " fudging the numbers " when it came to oil reserves ; these bold whistle-blowers are causing the exact market panic that the IEA was trying to avoid in the first place.Wall Street is getting ready for $ 10/gallon and bailout 2.0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oil prices sore today putting transportation at a standstill.
Analysts claim that insiders at the IEA admitted to "fudging the numbers" when it came to oil reserves; these bold whistle-blowers are causing the exact market panic that the IEA was trying to avoid in the first place.Wall Street is getting ready for $10/gallon and bailout 2.0</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051786</id>
	<title>it's not about the size, it's about net energy...</title>
	<author>Gooseygoose</author>
	<datestamp>1257849000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The easy oil has been had, folks.  It came out of the ground Beverly Hillbillies style.  So, now we have to increasingly go deeper in the ocean or inject water into extant wells--and that gets expensive.  Even the energy return on investment of oil has been declining (cite: <a href="http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/5600" title="theoildrum.com" rel="nofollow">http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/5600</a> [theoildrum.com] ), and the energy return for alternatives is slowly improving, but is still 10 times less than that of light sweet crude--and because this is a liquid fuels/transportation problem, that means that economic growth can be curtailed unless we become more efficient AND use less.<p>
(This is why I pay attention to the folks at The Oil Drum ( <a href="http://theoildrum.com/" title="theoildrum.com" rel="nofollow">http://theoildrum.com/</a> [theoildrum.com] ) and Energy Bulletin ( <a href="http://energybulletin.net/" title="energybulletin.net" rel="nofollow">http://energybulletin.net/</a> [energybulletin.net] ), they're well-intentioned academics/educators who are trying to get the world to live more smartly and sustainably...and the faster we do that, the better off we are going to be.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The easy oil has been had , folks .
It came out of the ground Beverly Hillbillies style .
So , now we have to increasingly go deeper in the ocean or inject water into extant wells--and that gets expensive .
Even the energy return on investment of oil has been declining ( cite : http : //netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/5600 [ theoildrum.com ] ) , and the energy return for alternatives is slowly improving , but is still 10 times less than that of light sweet crude--and because this is a liquid fuels/transportation problem , that means that economic growth can be curtailed unless we become more efficient AND use less .
( This is why I pay attention to the folks at The Oil Drum ( http : //theoildrum.com/ [ theoildrum.com ] ) and Energy Bulletin ( http : //energybulletin.net/ [ energybulletin.net ] ) , they 're well-intentioned academics/educators who are trying to get the world to live more smartly and sustainably...and the faster we do that , the better off we are going to be .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The easy oil has been had, folks.
It came out of the ground Beverly Hillbillies style.
So, now we have to increasingly go deeper in the ocean or inject water into extant wells--and that gets expensive.
Even the energy return on investment of oil has been declining (cite: http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/5600 [theoildrum.com] ), and the energy return for alternatives is slowly improving, but is still 10 times less than that of light sweet crude--and because this is a liquid fuels/transportation problem, that means that economic growth can be curtailed unless we become more efficient AND use less.
(This is why I pay attention to the folks at The Oil Drum ( http://theoildrum.com/ [theoildrum.com] ) and Energy Bulletin ( http://energybulletin.net/ [energybulletin.net] ), they're well-intentioned academics/educators who are trying to get the world to live more smartly and sustainably...and the faster we do that, the better off we are going to be.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051270</id>
	<title>PEAK LYING</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257847080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets just examine this for a moment-</p><p>whistleblower alleges that profit oriented entities (oil companys) are engaged in a conspiracy to withold data (hiding current and future shortages of oil) in regard to the future trending of oil markets which would have an effect on todays supply and hence price from now until forever, effectively passing on the profit making panic that would ensue right here and right now and never mind the gouging of 2008 where billions were reaped despite not apparent shortages of supply</p><p>if anything, 2008 shows the lengths these entities will go to promote and oil panic where there is none and with wall streets full complicity, what you thought financial derivaties were the only dildo we shoved up the ass of the american taxpayer let alone the suckers in international markets</p><p>this is about as sound as obamanomics and of course emanates from the green idiots who cannot seem to understand we dont want to freeze in winter, we dont want to starve in general and we dont want to die in the OR while getting our triple bypass and we dont want any of this for our families, friends, country, city, town etc.</p><p>what i look forward to is the massive die off of the greenies when they eschew modern life and retreat to the woods barefoot and naked</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets just examine this for a moment-whistleblower alleges that profit oriented entities ( oil companys ) are engaged in a conspiracy to withold data ( hiding current and future shortages of oil ) in regard to the future trending of oil markets which would have an effect on todays supply and hence price from now until forever , effectively passing on the profit making panic that would ensue right here and right now and never mind the gouging of 2008 where billions were reaped despite not apparent shortages of supplyif anything , 2008 shows the lengths these entities will go to promote and oil panic where there is none and with wall streets full complicity , what you thought financial derivaties were the only dildo we shoved up the ass of the american taxpayer let alone the suckers in international marketsthis is about as sound as obamanomics and of course emanates from the green idiots who can not seem to understand we dont want to freeze in winter , we dont want to starve in general and we dont want to die in the OR while getting our triple bypass and we dont want any of this for our families , friends , country , city , town etc.what i look forward to is the massive die off of the greenies when they eschew modern life and retreat to the woods barefoot and naked</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets just examine this for a moment-whistleblower alleges that profit oriented entities (oil companys) are engaged in a conspiracy to withold data (hiding current and future shortages of oil) in regard to the future trending of oil markets which would have an effect on todays supply and hence price from now until forever, effectively passing on the profit making panic that would ensue right here and right now and never mind the gouging of 2008 where billions were reaped despite not apparent shortages of supplyif anything, 2008 shows the lengths these entities will go to promote and oil panic where there is none and with wall streets full complicity, what you thought financial derivaties were the only dildo we shoved up the ass of the american taxpayer let alone the suckers in international marketsthis is about as sound as obamanomics and of course emanates from the green idiots who cannot seem to understand we dont want to freeze in winter, we dont want to starve in general and we dont want to die in the OR while getting our triple bypass and we dont want any of this for our families, friends, country, city, town etc.what i look forward to is the massive die off of the greenies when they eschew modern life and retreat to the woods barefoot and naked</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051630</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>crmarvin42</author>
	<datestamp>1257848520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, there are reserves that are "unattainable" because it is not energetically sane to extract, and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.</p></div><p>You are operating under the assumption that methods cannot be developed to change the cost per unit of energy input.  As costs go up, those with a keen eye for efficient design and a desire to make a lot of money will try to discover ways to make extraction cost effective and then patent it.  They get to make tons of money off of the oil industry, and the industry gets to tap previously impractical wells.  <br> <br>By assuming that it is impossible no mater how much time or energy is put into the problem and then legislating from that assumption, they have kneecapped the entire oil industry in the US.  I'm not a huge fan of any Politician that doubts the intelligence and fortitude of his own constituents.  Especially when he's the president of the US, a country that is famous for it's problem solving abilities in the technical arena.  It's akin to assuming that space flight will always be so expensive that only governments can afford to get involved, and then prohibiting any commercial research in that direction.  Maybe the problem is too complex/expensive, but that doesn't mean you should prevent people from even <i>trying</i> to solve it if they want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , there are reserves that are " unattainable " because it is not energetically sane to extract , and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.You are operating under the assumption that methods can not be developed to change the cost per unit of energy input .
As costs go up , those with a keen eye for efficient design and a desire to make a lot of money will try to discover ways to make extraction cost effective and then patent it .
They get to make tons of money off of the oil industry , and the industry gets to tap previously impractical wells .
By assuming that it is impossible no mater how much time or energy is put into the problem and then legislating from that assumption , they have kneecapped the entire oil industry in the US .
I 'm not a huge fan of any Politician that doubts the intelligence and fortitude of his own constituents .
Especially when he 's the president of the US , a country that is famous for it 's problem solving abilities in the technical arena .
It 's akin to assuming that space flight will always be so expensive that only governments can afford to get involved , and then prohibiting any commercial research in that direction .
Maybe the problem is too complex/expensive , but that does n't mean you should prevent people from even trying to solve it if they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, there are reserves that are "unattainable" because it is not energetically sane to extract, and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.You are operating under the assumption that methods cannot be developed to change the cost per unit of energy input.
As costs go up, those with a keen eye for efficient design and a desire to make a lot of money will try to discover ways to make extraction cost effective and then patent it.
They get to make tons of money off of the oil industry, and the industry gets to tap previously impractical wells.
By assuming that it is impossible no mater how much time or energy is put into the problem and then legislating from that assumption, they have kneecapped the entire oil industry in the US.
I'm not a huge fan of any Politician that doubts the intelligence and fortitude of his own constituents.
Especially when he's the president of the US, a country that is famous for it's problem solving abilities in the technical arena.
It's akin to assuming that space flight will always be so expensive that only governments can afford to get involved, and then prohibiting any commercial research in that direction.
Maybe the problem is too complex/expensive, but that doesn't mean you should prevent people from even trying to solve it if they want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052070</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257850200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1T of which is in the Green River Oil Shales -- all of which is currently unaccessable only because we say it is [by government mandate]). Although some of this oil is more difficult to mine than it is in the middle east, where you can ju</p></div><p>By government mandate for the good of the American people - current and future generations.<br>If you have a heart, a basic sense of beauty and humility and have ever been to the Green River area, you will understand. If either of those are missing, it is a good thing that the American government has decided to keep people like you from destroying one of the wonders of nature.</p><p>It is rather depressing to me to see someone modded "insightful" that would destroy a work of quite literally billions of years to keep the price of a commodity down for another five or six years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1T of which is in the Green River Oil Shales -- all of which is currently unaccessable only because we say it is [ by government mandate ] ) .
Although some of this oil is more difficult to mine than it is in the middle east , where you can juBy government mandate for the good of the American people - current and future generations.If you have a heart , a basic sense of beauty and humility and have ever been to the Green River area , you will understand .
If either of those are missing , it is a good thing that the American government has decided to keep people like you from destroying one of the wonders of nature.It is rather depressing to me to see someone modded " insightful " that would destroy a work of quite literally billions of years to keep the price of a commodity down for another five or six years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1T of which is in the Green River Oil Shales -- all of which is currently unaccessable only because we say it is [by government mandate]).
Although some of this oil is more difficult to mine than it is in the middle east, where you can juBy government mandate for the good of the American people - current and future generations.If you have a heart, a basic sense of beauty and humility and have ever been to the Green River area, you will understand.
If either of those are missing, it is a good thing that the American government has decided to keep people like you from destroying one of the wonders of nature.It is rather depressing to me to see someone modded "insightful" that would destroy a work of quite literally billions of years to keep the price of a commodity down for another five or six years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051348</id>
	<title>"Climate Change" is secret code for "Peak Oil"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257847380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a tinfoil-hat theory for ya: Leaders know Peak Oil is coming, but they don't want everybody to freak out about it, so instead they make a huge push to address another crisis, maybe one that can appear more urgent: Anthropogenic Climate Change.  Environmental treaties are already in place, and there's a proven path to change direction on a global scale out of concern for the environment. Not so out of anticipated future economic issues.  And oh, what a nice coincidence, things we do to address Climate Change also leave us in better shape for dealing with Peak Oil.  How about that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a tinfoil-hat theory for ya : Leaders know Peak Oil is coming , but they do n't want everybody to freak out about it , so instead they make a huge push to address another crisis , maybe one that can appear more urgent : Anthropogenic Climate Change .
Environmental treaties are already in place , and there 's a proven path to change direction on a global scale out of concern for the environment .
Not so out of anticipated future economic issues .
And oh , what a nice coincidence , things we do to address Climate Change also leave us in better shape for dealing with Peak Oil .
How about that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a tinfoil-hat theory for ya: Leaders know Peak Oil is coming, but they don't want everybody to freak out about it, so instead they make a huge push to address another crisis, maybe one that can appear more urgent: Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Environmental treaties are already in place, and there's a proven path to change direction on a global scale out of concern for the environment.
Not so out of anticipated future economic issues.
And oh, what a nice coincidence, things we do to address Climate Change also leave us in better shape for dealing with Peak Oil.
How about that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054534</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257863760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But no matter how much I like apples, there's one price I will never pay for one, and that is two apples.</p></div></blockquote><p>Congratulations! You've just disproved the economic viability of charging batteries! What are you going to do next?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But no matter how much I like apples , there 's one price I will never pay for one , and that is two apples.Congratulations !
You 've just disproved the economic viability of charging batteries !
What are you going to do next ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But no matter how much I like apples, there's one price I will never pay for one, and that is two apples.Congratulations!
You've just disproved the economic viability of charging batteries!
What are you going to do next?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052138</id>
	<title>Re:Not worried</title>
	<author>PhysicsPhil</author>
	<datestamp>1257850500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe I'm the exception, but gas is a very small part of my recurring bills.</p> </div><p>Oil goes into a lot more than just your gas tank.  It represents energy to do stuff--purify water, create medicines, run semiconductor foundries and produce plastics.  Even simple stuff like chewing gum depends on oil--it's all processed petroleum.</p><p>Perhaps most importantly, though, oil/natural gas are crucial inputs for fertilizers.  The green revolution that makes it possible to feed the planet works only because we can convert petroleum into fertilizers.  Natural organic fertilizers (i.e., bull&amp;*\%#) just aren't enough for six billion people.  When we run out of cheap oil, we're going to be in for a food crisis as well as a transportation crisis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm the exception , but gas is a very small part of my recurring bills .
Oil goes into a lot more than just your gas tank .
It represents energy to do stuff--purify water , create medicines , run semiconductor foundries and produce plastics .
Even simple stuff like chewing gum depends on oil--it 's all processed petroleum.Perhaps most importantly , though , oil/natural gas are crucial inputs for fertilizers .
The green revolution that makes it possible to feed the planet works only because we can convert petroleum into fertilizers .
Natural organic fertilizers ( i.e. , bull&amp; * \ % # ) just are n't enough for six billion people .
When we run out of cheap oil , we 're going to be in for a food crisis as well as a transportation crisis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm the exception, but gas is a very small part of my recurring bills.
Oil goes into a lot more than just your gas tank.
It represents energy to do stuff--purify water, create medicines, run semiconductor foundries and produce plastics.
Even simple stuff like chewing gum depends on oil--it's all processed petroleum.Perhaps most importantly, though, oil/natural gas are crucial inputs for fertilizers.
The green revolution that makes it possible to feed the planet works only because we can convert petroleum into fertilizers.
Natural organic fertilizers (i.e., bull&amp;*\%#) just aren't enough for six billion people.
When we run out of cheap oil, we're going to be in for a food crisis as well as a transportation crisis.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30055682</id>
	<title>And there was peak oil in the 1970s, too</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1257870300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And global cooling.  And killer bees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And global cooling .
And killer bees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And global cooling.
And killer bees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051292</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>orzetto</author>
	<datestamp>1257847140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are thinking only in economic terms. At some point there is an absolute economic limit when you are using as much energy to extract and process the oil as the energy you actually get out of it.</p><p>So, there are reserves that are "unattainable" because it is not <em>energetically</em> sane to extract, and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.</p><p>Keep in mind that already now extracting only 50\% of the oil of a reservoir is not considered that bad (and that's secondary recovery already, when you flush with water to get more oil out).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are thinking only in economic terms .
At some point there is an absolute economic limit when you are using as much energy to extract and process the oil as the energy you actually get out of it.So , there are reserves that are " unattainable " because it is not energetically sane to extract , and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.Keep in mind that already now extracting only 50 \ % of the oil of a reservoir is not considered that bad ( and that 's secondary recovery already , when you flush with water to get more oil out ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are thinking only in economic terms.
At some point there is an absolute economic limit when you are using as much energy to extract and process the oil as the energy you actually get out of it.So, there are reserves that are "unattainable" because it is not energetically sane to extract, and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.Keep in mind that already now extracting only 50\% of the oil of a reservoir is not considered that bad (and that's secondary recovery already, when you flush with water to get more oil out).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30062962</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>RazorSharp</author>
	<datestamp>1257102540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that's what makes Sim City so much fun!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's what makes Sim City so much fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's what makes Sim City so much fun!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051994</id>
	<title>It's all about "lifting cost"</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1257849780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know someone in the industry and they had this to say when I was talking to them off the record.</p><ul><li>There is plenty of oil</li><li>There is plenty of oil in the US</li><li>The problem is the oil in the middle east is so damn cheap. It is cheaper to pump it there and transport it here, thanks to labor and environmental regulations</li><li>What you'll see eventuality, is domestic oil pumping, but only until after all the cheap crude is pumped out of the middle east. Once the price of Eastern crude gets to the point where domestic production can fetch a price to pay for its lifting, it you'll see the country come alive with pumping. This will serve to keep oil costs from sky rocketing, though they may sky rocket in today's terms.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know someone in the industry and they had this to say when I was talking to them off the record.There is plenty of oilThere is plenty of oil in the USThe problem is the oil in the middle east is so damn cheap .
It is cheaper to pump it there and transport it here , thanks to labor and environmental regulationsWhat you 'll see eventuality , is domestic oil pumping , but only until after all the cheap crude is pumped out of the middle east .
Once the price of Eastern crude gets to the point where domestic production can fetch a price to pay for its lifting , it you 'll see the country come alive with pumping .
This will serve to keep oil costs from sky rocketing , though they may sky rocket in today 's terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know someone in the industry and they had this to say when I was talking to them off the record.There is plenty of oilThere is plenty of oil in the USThe problem is the oil in the middle east is so damn cheap.
It is cheaper to pump it there and transport it here, thanks to labor and environmental regulationsWhat you'll see eventuality, is domestic oil pumping, but only until after all the cheap crude is pumped out of the middle east.
Once the price of Eastern crude gets to the point where domestic production can fetch a price to pay for its lifting, it you'll see the country come alive with pumping.
This will serve to keep oil costs from sky rocketing, though they may sky rocket in today's terms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30062240</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>dasunt</author>
	<datestamp>1257099240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Bottom line? Cheap oil is a thing of the past. Our expanding economy depended on an ever expanding supply of cheap, portable energy. That goes away when oil goes away. We will transition, no doubt, but a few, maybe more than a few will starve to death before we do and more than a few governments may fall.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Perhaps.
</p><p>
But as far as I can tell, the only thing that is dependant on oil is transportation, specifically cars.  The rest, we have alternatives for (coal/nuclear for electricity, natural gas and electric for heating, etc).
</p><p>
Even for cars, hybrids are more common, and plug-in hybrids are coming out.  Since cars seem to have a finite lifespan of ten to fifteen years, and since many households have multiple vehicles of varying gas mileage, gas price shocks should be partially mitigated in the short term, and eliminated completely in the long term.
</p><p>
The nice thing about having an economy full of cheap, throw away goods is that moving to different energy sources is easier as a particular energy source becomes scarce.  And one of the ironies of this age is that even furnaces and water heaters are disposable goods with a lifespan of a decade or two.
</p><p>
And so we move to an electricity-based energy system, and we can choose between different sources to generate that electricity.  Nuclear power seems to be a likely candidate.  Considering the amount of uranium and thorium that we can extract, both from the ground and from seawater, we should be good for centuries, if not thousands of years.  One nice thing about nuclear power is that the fuel costs are only a small percentage of operating costs, so if the current fuel sources become more expensive, we can extract currently unprofitable sources for 10x the cost and only need to raise electricity prices a fraction of a cent.
</p><p>
And heck, we don't need nuclear power to last for thousands of years.  Sooner or later we'll figure out fusion, or have orbital solar satellites beaming energy down, or some alternative that is so unimaginable to us as a nuclear power plant would be to a scientist in 1850.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bottom line ?
Cheap oil is a thing of the past .
Our expanding economy depended on an ever expanding supply of cheap , portable energy .
That goes away when oil goes away .
We will transition , no doubt , but a few , maybe more than a few will starve to death before we do and more than a few governments may fall .
Perhaps . But as far as I can tell , the only thing that is dependant on oil is transportation , specifically cars .
The rest , we have alternatives for ( coal/nuclear for electricity , natural gas and electric for heating , etc ) .
Even for cars , hybrids are more common , and plug-in hybrids are coming out .
Since cars seem to have a finite lifespan of ten to fifteen years , and since many households have multiple vehicles of varying gas mileage , gas price shocks should be partially mitigated in the short term , and eliminated completely in the long term .
The nice thing about having an economy full of cheap , throw away goods is that moving to different energy sources is easier as a particular energy source becomes scarce .
And one of the ironies of this age is that even furnaces and water heaters are disposable goods with a lifespan of a decade or two .
And so we move to an electricity-based energy system , and we can choose between different sources to generate that electricity .
Nuclear power seems to be a likely candidate .
Considering the amount of uranium and thorium that we can extract , both from the ground and from seawater , we should be good for centuries , if not thousands of years .
One nice thing about nuclear power is that the fuel costs are only a small percentage of operating costs , so if the current fuel sources become more expensive , we can extract currently unprofitable sources for 10x the cost and only need to raise electricity prices a fraction of a cent .
And heck , we do n't need nuclear power to last for thousands of years .
Sooner or later we 'll figure out fusion , or have orbital solar satellites beaming energy down , or some alternative that is so unimaginable to us as a nuclear power plant would be to a scientist in 1850 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bottom line?
Cheap oil is a thing of the past.
Our expanding economy depended on an ever expanding supply of cheap, portable energy.
That goes away when oil goes away.
We will transition, no doubt, but a few, maybe more than a few will starve to death before we do and more than a few governments may fall.
Perhaps.

But as far as I can tell, the only thing that is dependant on oil is transportation, specifically cars.
The rest, we have alternatives for (coal/nuclear for electricity, natural gas and electric for heating, etc).
Even for cars, hybrids are more common, and plug-in hybrids are coming out.
Since cars seem to have a finite lifespan of ten to fifteen years, and since many households have multiple vehicles of varying gas mileage, gas price shocks should be partially mitigated in the short term, and eliminated completely in the long term.
The nice thing about having an economy full of cheap, throw away goods is that moving to different energy sources is easier as a particular energy source becomes scarce.
And one of the ironies of this age is that even furnaces and water heaters are disposable goods with a lifespan of a decade or two.
And so we move to an electricity-based energy system, and we can choose between different sources to generate that electricity.
Nuclear power seems to be a likely candidate.
Considering the amount of uranium and thorium that we can extract, both from the ground and from seawater, we should be good for centuries, if not thousands of years.
One nice thing about nuclear power is that the fuel costs are only a small percentage of operating costs, so if the current fuel sources become more expensive, we can extract currently unprofitable sources for 10x the cost and only need to raise electricity prices a fraction of a cent.
And heck, we don't need nuclear power to last for thousands of years.
Sooner or later we'll figure out fusion, or have orbital solar satellites beaming energy down, or some alternative that is so unimaginable to us as a nuclear power plant would be to a scientist in 1850.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051460</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>dtolman</author>
	<datestamp>1257847740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't get too excited by the Green River shale solving all our problems - that stuff has to be stripped mined out, and then processed with water... a lot of water in drought prone areas... so your # barrels per day from the deposit is never going to be high enough to meet domestic needs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get too excited by the Green River shale solving all our problems - that stuff has to be stripped mined out , and then processed with water... a lot of water in drought prone areas... so your # barrels per day from the deposit is never going to be high enough to meet domestic needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get too excited by the Green River shale solving all our problems - that stuff has to be stripped mined out, and then processed with water... a lot of water in drought prone areas... so your # barrels per day from the deposit is never going to be high enough to meet domestic needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432</id>
	<title>Not worried</title>
	<author>hatemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1257847560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe I'm the exception, but gas is a very small part of my recurring bills. If gas prices double or triple, maybe I'll skip a new video game or dinner out every month. Whoop-de-do. And the price of shipping goods will increase. So I'll pay $0.79 instead of $0.59 for a potato. I'm just not quaking in my boots. The biggest overlooked fact of peak oil is that it will be a gradual decline as more oil recovery methods become economically feasible. So over the rest of my life, I suspect there will eventually be a cheaper mode of transportation than gas-powered cars. But for now, I'll stick with the convenience of 400 miles/fill-up, gas stations everywhere, and transportation costs (including car payment) below 15\% of my income.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm the exception , but gas is a very small part of my recurring bills .
If gas prices double or triple , maybe I 'll skip a new video game or dinner out every month .
Whoop-de-do. And the price of shipping goods will increase .
So I 'll pay $ 0.79 instead of $ 0.59 for a potato .
I 'm just not quaking in my boots .
The biggest overlooked fact of peak oil is that it will be a gradual decline as more oil recovery methods become economically feasible .
So over the rest of my life , I suspect there will eventually be a cheaper mode of transportation than gas-powered cars .
But for now , I 'll stick with the convenience of 400 miles/fill-up , gas stations everywhere , and transportation costs ( including car payment ) below 15 \ % of my income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm the exception, but gas is a very small part of my recurring bills.
If gas prices double or triple, maybe I'll skip a new video game or dinner out every month.
Whoop-de-do. And the price of shipping goods will increase.
So I'll pay $0.79 instead of $0.59 for a potato.
I'm just not quaking in my boots.
The biggest overlooked fact of peak oil is that it will be a gradual decline as more oil recovery methods become economically feasible.
So over the rest of my life, I suspect there will eventually be a cheaper mode of transportation than gas-powered cars.
But for now, I'll stick with the convenience of 400 miles/fill-up, gas stations everywhere, and transportation costs (including car payment) below 15\% of my income.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054804</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257864900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gosh, the way you make it sound, Carter will be deified after the next decade for having had the insight to at least partially run the White House with solar panels!  Meanwhile Reagan will be lambasted as the ass-clown who tore them out, and effectively set the progress on solar-cell  technology back 10 to 20 years!
<p>
-Oz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gosh , the way you make it sound , Carter will be deified after the next decade for having had the insight to at least partially run the White House with solar panels !
Meanwhile Reagan will be lambasted as the ass-clown who tore them out , and effectively set the progress on solar-cell technology back 10 to 20 years !
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gosh, the way you make it sound, Carter will be deified after the next decade for having had the insight to at least partially run the White House with solar panels!
Meanwhile Reagan will be lambasted as the ass-clown who tore them out, and effectively set the progress on solar-cell  technology back 10 to 20 years!
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30059548</id>
	<title>solution: LS9</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1257088080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over 600 comments in and no one has mentioned <a href="http://www.ls9.com/" title="ls9.com">LS9</a> [ls9.com]? These folks have found the solution to peak oil: make more of the stuff. Hopefully they can get up to speed quickly; if they can keep costs reasonable, we could have true energy independence...and a fresh source of tariffs on exported petroleum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over 600 comments in and no one has mentioned LS9 [ ls9.com ] ?
These folks have found the solution to peak oil : make more of the stuff .
Hopefully they can get up to speed quickly ; if they can keep costs reasonable , we could have true energy independence...and a fresh source of tariffs on exported petroleum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over 600 comments in and no one has mentioned LS9 [ls9.com]?
These folks have found the solution to peak oil: make more of the stuff.
Hopefully they can get up to speed quickly; if they can keep costs reasonable, we could have true energy independence...and a fresh source of tariffs on exported petroleum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30059360</id>
	<title>Re:We will NEVER run out of OIL!</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1257087120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fine print: Only valid for peanut-emitting rooms (not included in the OP)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine print : Only valid for peanut-emitting rooms ( not included in the OP )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine print: Only valid for peanut-emitting rooms (not included in the OP)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052004</id>
	<title>Which Explains All The Activity In</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Afghanistan: 444 billion cubic meters of natural gas.</p><p>Yours In Novy Urengoy,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Afghanistan : 444 billion cubic meters of natural gas.Yours In Novy Urengoy,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Afghanistan: 444 billion cubic meters of natural gas.Yours In Novy Urengoy,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30056056</id>
	<title>Re:Probably overblown</title>
	<author>mr exploiter</author>
	<datestamp>1257872880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nuclear is nice to have but not sufficient. You need something for transportation as well and nuclear isn't it. Not until electric cars are cost-effective.</p></div><p>When the only option to electric is horses then it will be cost-effective, even with today technology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear is nice to have but not sufficient .
You need something for transportation as well and nuclear is n't it .
Not until electric cars are cost-effective.When the only option to electric is horses then it will be cost-effective , even with today technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear is nice to have but not sufficient.
You need something for transportation as well and nuclear isn't it.
Not until electric cars are cost-effective.When the only option to electric is horses then it will be cost-effective, even with today technology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30057264</id>
	<title>Peak oil.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1257107760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There's general agreement in the industry that we're near peak oil.  The peak may have happened already, in 2006-2008.  The most optimistic view is that the peak will be around 2020.  That's not far away.
</p><p>
Prices aren't that good an indicator of availability.  Because supply and demand are both relatively inelastic and change slowly.  So small variations in supply or demand produce big changes in price. The worldwide recession has cut demand a bit, which brought the price way down.  Supply did not increase.
</p><p>
All the easy places have already been drilled. US oil production peaked in 1970.  Look at <a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5576" title="theoildrum.com">this list of countries where production has peaked.</a> [theoildrum.com]
</p><p>
Then there's France.  Back in the 1970s, France decided to go nuclear.  France has 59 nuclear power plants and exports electricity.  It's good to plan ahead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's general agreement in the industry that we 're near peak oil .
The peak may have happened already , in 2006-2008 .
The most optimistic view is that the peak will be around 2020 .
That 's not far away .
Prices are n't that good an indicator of availability .
Because supply and demand are both relatively inelastic and change slowly .
So small variations in supply or demand produce big changes in price .
The worldwide recession has cut demand a bit , which brought the price way down .
Supply did not increase .
All the easy places have already been drilled .
US oil production peaked in 1970 .
Look at this list of countries where production has peaked .
[ theoildrum.com ] Then there 's France .
Back in the 1970s , France decided to go nuclear .
France has 59 nuclear power plants and exports electricity .
It 's good to plan ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There's general agreement in the industry that we're near peak oil.
The peak may have happened already, in 2006-2008.
The most optimistic view is that the peak will be around 2020.
That's not far away.
Prices aren't that good an indicator of availability.
Because supply and demand are both relatively inelastic and change slowly.
So small variations in supply or demand produce big changes in price.
The worldwide recession has cut demand a bit, which brought the price way down.
Supply did not increase.
All the easy places have already been drilled.
US oil production peaked in 1970.
Look at this list of countries where production has peaked.
[theoildrum.com]

Then there's France.
Back in the 1970s, France decided to go nuclear.
France has 59 nuclear power plants and exports electricity.
It's good to plan ahead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052368</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Ibag</author>
	<datestamp>1257851400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As each one of these applications turns away from oil, the price of oil will temporarily drop or stabilize. Eventually we'll either be 100\% off oil, or at a level where it's sustainable for 1000's of years.</p><p>Oh wait, that's free market economics, and I forgot that our president has announced that "that doesn't work any more."</p></div><p>Yes, far in the future, if we survive past when oil becomes truly scarce, either we will no longer use oil, or it will be used sparingly because we can't afford otherwise.  Call it economics.  Call it common sense.  Call it whatever.</p><p>What you are overlooking is the transition period and the inelasticity of oil demand.  There are a lot of things that run on oil.  There are a lot of things that we have no good replacement in lieu of their oil consumption.  When oil prices rise, if we don't have alternatives, then we will have no choice but to spend extra money on oil, which will cost more than it would because demand is higher.  For some people, this will mean that they have less disposable income.  For others, it will mean that they can no longer afford to drive to work.  As the cost of shipping everything increases, some businesses stop being economically viable at prices the market can bear.  Even if electric cars become the norm, how will things be shipped to Hawaii?</p><p>Yes, at higher prices, we will tap into oil shales, but because of the way oil is integral to so many things right now, nobody will be able to afford not to pay, and the consequences could be dire.  Finding a way to wean ourselves off of oil will both postpone the problems of an oil shortage and lessen the cost when the shortage happens.  The market won't magically cure our oil dependence, it will just give us a bigger incentive to cure it.  It's better to act now, before everybody is had by the short hairs.</p><p>To put this all in a different way, if a drug dealer lost his supplier of heroin but he had a decent stockpile, then yes, down the road, his clients would no longer be using heroin.  But in the mean time, they would pay more and more, go through horrible withdrawal as they could no longer afford to buy, and the aftermath would not be pretty.  But if someone saw their plight, realized that the cost was going to skyrocket, and get them into rehab *before* they wasted their life savings, the cost (both human and monetary) would be greatly decreased.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As each one of these applications turns away from oil , the price of oil will temporarily drop or stabilize .
Eventually we 'll either be 100 \ % off oil , or at a level where it 's sustainable for 1000 's of years.Oh wait , that 's free market economics , and I forgot that our president has announced that " that does n't work any more .
" Yes , far in the future , if we survive past when oil becomes truly scarce , either we will no longer use oil , or it will be used sparingly because we ca n't afford otherwise .
Call it economics .
Call it common sense .
Call it whatever.What you are overlooking is the transition period and the inelasticity of oil demand .
There are a lot of things that run on oil .
There are a lot of things that we have no good replacement in lieu of their oil consumption .
When oil prices rise , if we do n't have alternatives , then we will have no choice but to spend extra money on oil , which will cost more than it would because demand is higher .
For some people , this will mean that they have less disposable income .
For others , it will mean that they can no longer afford to drive to work .
As the cost of shipping everything increases , some businesses stop being economically viable at prices the market can bear .
Even if electric cars become the norm , how will things be shipped to Hawaii ? Yes , at higher prices , we will tap into oil shales , but because of the way oil is integral to so many things right now , nobody will be able to afford not to pay , and the consequences could be dire .
Finding a way to wean ourselves off of oil will both postpone the problems of an oil shortage and lessen the cost when the shortage happens .
The market wo n't magically cure our oil dependence , it will just give us a bigger incentive to cure it .
It 's better to act now , before everybody is had by the short hairs.To put this all in a different way , if a drug dealer lost his supplier of heroin but he had a decent stockpile , then yes , down the road , his clients would no longer be using heroin .
But in the mean time , they would pay more and more , go through horrible withdrawal as they could no longer afford to buy , and the aftermath would not be pretty .
But if someone saw their plight , realized that the cost was going to skyrocket , and get them into rehab * before * they wasted their life savings , the cost ( both human and monetary ) would be greatly decreased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As each one of these applications turns away from oil, the price of oil will temporarily drop or stabilize.
Eventually we'll either be 100\% off oil, or at a level where it's sustainable for 1000's of years.Oh wait, that's free market economics, and I forgot that our president has announced that "that doesn't work any more.
"Yes, far in the future, if we survive past when oil becomes truly scarce, either we will no longer use oil, or it will be used sparingly because we can't afford otherwise.
Call it economics.
Call it common sense.
Call it whatever.What you are overlooking is the transition period and the inelasticity of oil demand.
There are a lot of things that run on oil.
There are a lot of things that we have no good replacement in lieu of their oil consumption.
When oil prices rise, if we don't have alternatives, then we will have no choice but to spend extra money on oil, which will cost more than it would because demand is higher.
For some people, this will mean that they have less disposable income.
For others, it will mean that they can no longer afford to drive to work.
As the cost of shipping everything increases, some businesses stop being economically viable at prices the market can bear.
Even if electric cars become the norm, how will things be shipped to Hawaii?Yes, at higher prices, we will tap into oil shales, but because of the way oil is integral to so many things right now, nobody will be able to afford not to pay, and the consequences could be dire.
Finding a way to wean ourselves off of oil will both postpone the problems of an oil shortage and lessen the cost when the shortage happens.
The market won't magically cure our oil dependence, it will just give us a bigger incentive to cure it.
It's better to act now, before everybody is had by the short hairs.To put this all in a different way, if a drug dealer lost his supplier of heroin but he had a decent stockpile, then yes, down the road, his clients would no longer be using heroin.
But in the mean time, they would pay more and more, go through horrible withdrawal as they could no longer afford to buy, and the aftermath would not be pretty.
But if someone saw their plight, realized that the cost was going to skyrocket, and get them into rehab *before* they wasted their life savings, the cost (both human and monetary) would be greatly decreased.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054720</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1257864480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've made the point very well. This is what ive been trying to explain to people. The dakota bakkan formation is not going to solve our problem. Its a complete fantasy put forward by some dimwit republicans. First of all, it will leave a huge hole in tghe ground, baically obliterating a large area. The peak oil would probably not be affected much, or only pushed back a few years. Its impractical, there is little net energy gain because it takes so much energy just to refine the stuff. It's a bit selfish of us dont you think to destroy a large swath of country for oil that will be long gone by the time our future generations lives, leaving them with basically this large area of moonscape? Talking about shortsighted, crazed greed. Lets deal with this with renewables rather than more of these crazy ideas of strip mining hundreds of square miles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've made the point very well .
This is what ive been trying to explain to people .
The dakota bakkan formation is not going to solve our problem .
Its a complete fantasy put forward by some dimwit republicans .
First of all , it will leave a huge hole in tghe ground , baically obliterating a large area .
The peak oil would probably not be affected much , or only pushed back a few years .
Its impractical , there is little net energy gain because it takes so much energy just to refine the stuff .
It 's a bit selfish of us dont you think to destroy a large swath of country for oil that will be long gone by the time our future generations lives , leaving them with basically this large area of moonscape ?
Talking about shortsighted , crazed greed .
Lets deal with this with renewables rather than more of these crazy ideas of strip mining hundreds of square miles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've made the point very well.
This is what ive been trying to explain to people.
The dakota bakkan formation is not going to solve our problem.
Its a complete fantasy put forward by some dimwit republicans.
First of all, it will leave a huge hole in tghe ground, baically obliterating a large area.
The peak oil would probably not be affected much, or only pushed back a few years.
Its impractical, there is little net energy gain because it takes so much energy just to refine the stuff.
It's a bit selfish of us dont you think to destroy a large swath of country for oil that will be long gone by the time our future generations lives, leaving them with basically this large area of moonscape?
Talking about shortsighted, crazed greed.
Lets deal with this with renewables rather than more of these crazy ideas of strip mining hundreds of square miles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30056704</id>
	<title>When billionaire oilmen invest in wind energy...</title>
	<author>carl-in-vancouver</author>
	<datestamp>1257879060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...you know times they are a' changin' (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.\_Boone\_Pickens" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.\_Boone\_Pickens</a> [wikipedia.org]).  Personally, I'm lucky enough to have a petroleum geologist for a brother who can debunk all this stuff for me.  Only, he actually pointed out the reality of peak oil to me about two years ago.

I don't buy into the typical doomer analysis that society will come crumbling down around our ears.  I *do*, however, think that cheap oil is behind us.  And for the folks who just shrug their shoulders and say "meh, I don't drive, who cares", you really don't appreciate how energy-dependant (and thus oil-dependant) the world economy is.  For a realistic analysis, check out Jeff Rubin's book "Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller".</htmltext>
<tokenext>...you know times they are a ' changin ' ( see http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T. \ _Boone \ _Pickens [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
Personally , I 'm lucky enough to have a petroleum geologist for a brother who can debunk all this stuff for me .
Only , he actually pointed out the reality of peak oil to me about two years ago .
I do n't buy into the typical doomer analysis that society will come crumbling down around our ears .
I * do * , however , think that cheap oil is behind us .
And for the folks who just shrug their shoulders and say " meh , I do n't drive , who cares " , you really do n't appreciate how energy-dependant ( and thus oil-dependant ) the world economy is .
For a realistic analysis , check out Jeff Rubin 's book " Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you know times they are a' changin' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.\_Boone\_Pickens [wikipedia.org]).
Personally, I'm lucky enough to have a petroleum geologist for a brother who can debunk all this stuff for me.
Only, he actually pointed out the reality of peak oil to me about two years ago.
I don't buy into the typical doomer analysis that society will come crumbling down around our ears.
I *do*, however, think that cheap oil is behind us.
And for the folks who just shrug their shoulders and say "meh, I don't drive, who cares", you really don't appreciate how energy-dependant (and thus oil-dependant) the world economy is.
For a realistic analysis, check out Jeff Rubin's book "Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052760</id>
	<title>Re:Not worried</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1257853080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congratulations, not everyone else is so lucky.  Especially those in rural communities where the nature of their lives requires a lot of travel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations , not everyone else is so lucky .
Especially those in rural communities where the nature of their lives requires a lot of travel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations, not everyone else is so lucky.
Especially those in rural communities where the nature of their lives requires a lot of travel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30055096</id>
	<title>Demonized economists? Really?</title>
	<author>mghiggins</author>
	<datestamp>1257866520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; makes an analogy with the (marginalized, demonized) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.</p><p>Hrm... like Paul Krugman, the economic who warned of collapse and yet received a Nobel prize?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; makes an analogy with the ( marginalized , demonized ) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.Hrm... like Paul Krugman , the economic who warned of collapse and yet received a Nobel prize ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; makes an analogy with the (marginalized, demonized) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.Hrm... like Paul Krugman, the economic who warned of collapse and yet received a Nobel prize?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30057238</id>
	<title>Peak Sun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257107340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm terribly worried about peak sun.  I mean Sol burns through 4 billion kilograms of mass per second.  At this prodigious rate we are doomed to a mere 6 to 7 billion years of energy from this yellow dwarf.  What we need to do is focus on finding a planet near a red dwarf (they burn for billions of years at a much slower rate).  I think we all need to quit being so short sighted about oil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm terribly worried about peak sun .
I mean Sol burns through 4 billion kilograms of mass per second .
At this prodigious rate we are doomed to a mere 6 to 7 billion years of energy from this yellow dwarf .
What we need to do is focus on finding a planet near a red dwarf ( they burn for billions of years at a much slower rate ) .
I think we all need to quit being so short sighted about oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm terribly worried about peak sun.
I mean Sol burns through 4 billion kilograms of mass per second.
At this prodigious rate we are doomed to a mere 6 to 7 billion years of energy from this yellow dwarf.
What we need to do is focus on finding a planet near a red dwarf (they burn for billions of years at a much slower rate).
I think we all need to quit being so short sighted about oil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054306</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257861900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correction,</p><p>Ronald Reagan stopped GOVERNMENT funding research...</p><p>Private industry either simply has not picked up the ball, or had determined there is no market/economic benefit.</p><p>With the current focus on "green"/so-called "clean" energy there aren't a lot of companies that want to touch coal, especially in light of the recent proliferation of anti-clean coal propoganda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correction,Ronald Reagan stopped GOVERNMENT funding research...Private industry either simply has not picked up the ball , or had determined there is no market/economic benefit.With the current focus on " green " /so-called " clean " energy there are n't a lot of companies that want to touch coal , especially in light of the recent proliferation of anti-clean coal propoganda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correction,Ronald Reagan stopped GOVERNMENT funding research...Private industry either simply has not picked up the ball, or had determined there is no market/economic benefit.With the current focus on "green"/so-called "clean" energy there aren't a lot of companies that want to touch coal, especially in light of the recent proliferation of anti-clean coal propoganda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052574</id>
	<title>Re:Gas prices a factor in economic collapse?</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1257852180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So why isn't anyone talking about it?</i> </p><p>Well, because the economic collapse was caused by ACORN and the CRA, dummy!  Glenn Beck said so...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why is n't anyone talking about it ?
Well , because the economic collapse was caused by ACORN and the CRA , dummy !
Glenn Beck said so.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why isn't anyone talking about it?
Well, because the economic collapse was caused by ACORN and the CRA, dummy!
Glenn Beck said so...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051650</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>MrHanky</author>
	<datestamp>1257848520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh wait, that's free market economics, and I forgot that our president has announced that "that doesn't work any more."</p></div><p>s/"free market economics"/"day dreaming"/g</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wait , that 's free market economics , and I forgot that our president has announced that " that does n't work any more .
" s/ " free market economics " / " day dreaming " /g</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wait, that's free market economics, and I forgot that our president has announced that "that doesn't work any more.
"s/"free market economics"/"day dreaming"/g
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053682</id>
	<title>Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257858060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At some point, though, if it's worth while we will be able to synthesize any particular fraction of petroleum that we desire.  We might even be able to do that now, if we through enough resources into the effort.</p><p>I doubt, however, that this will ever be a practical way to acquire fuel.  I think beamed electric power would come first.  For plastics or antibiotics, though, it might well be reasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At some point , though , if it 's worth while we will be able to synthesize any particular fraction of petroleum that we desire .
We might even be able to do that now , if we through enough resources into the effort.I doubt , however , that this will ever be a practical way to acquire fuel .
I think beamed electric power would come first .
For plastics or antibiotics , though , it might well be reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At some point, though, if it's worth while we will be able to synthesize any particular fraction of petroleum that we desire.
We might even be able to do that now, if we through enough resources into the effort.I doubt, however, that this will ever be a practical way to acquire fuel.
I think beamed electric power would come first.
For plastics or antibiotics, though, it might well be reasonable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30059986</id>
	<title>horrible thought</title>
	<author>e-scetic</author>
	<datestamp>1257089880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Take a moment to think what will happen to you when/if the oil runs out.  </p><p>
No reason to panic, aside from the obvious losing your car, you'll start riding your bike and also go back to a mode of existence that most of our ancestors took for granted and which is much more in tune with nature, hopefully, due to lessons learned in retrospect.  You'll have to make do without your plasma TV, go back to using cotton and rubber insulated cords, everything on store shelves will start appearing without the insane packaging and in glass jars instead of plastic. It'll be locally made stuff or local and organically grown.  Hey, most advertising billboards will disappear, nice!  It will no longer make any sense to live in the suburbs, so cities become towns and everyone moves back to the towns or countryside.  The best jobs will be in the trades - carpentry, masonry, etc.  In general, it'll be back to the simpler and less wasteful life, which I'd argue was better anyway.</p><p>OH, no laptops, no PC's, thus no slashdot either.  OH GOD, kill yourself now!!!</p><p>As an environmentalist I WELCOME the day we run out of oil.  And I'm ready, already most of the way to reducing my dependence on oil.  Regardless of the oil question, I choose not to continue the wasteful inefficient lifestyle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a moment to think what will happen to you when/if the oil runs out .
No reason to panic , aside from the obvious losing your car , you 'll start riding your bike and also go back to a mode of existence that most of our ancestors took for granted and which is much more in tune with nature , hopefully , due to lessons learned in retrospect .
You 'll have to make do without your plasma TV , go back to using cotton and rubber insulated cords , everything on store shelves will start appearing without the insane packaging and in glass jars instead of plastic .
It 'll be locally made stuff or local and organically grown .
Hey , most advertising billboards will disappear , nice !
It will no longer make any sense to live in the suburbs , so cities become towns and everyone moves back to the towns or countryside .
The best jobs will be in the trades - carpentry , masonry , etc .
In general , it 'll be back to the simpler and less wasteful life , which I 'd argue was better anyway.OH , no laptops , no PC 's , thus no slashdot either .
OH GOD , kill yourself now ! !
! As an environmentalist I WELCOME the day we run out of oil .
And I 'm ready , already most of the way to reducing my dependence on oil .
Regardless of the oil question , I choose not to continue the wasteful inefficient lifestyle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Take a moment to think what will happen to you when/if the oil runs out.
No reason to panic, aside from the obvious losing your car, you'll start riding your bike and also go back to a mode of existence that most of our ancestors took for granted and which is much more in tune with nature, hopefully, due to lessons learned in retrospect.
You'll have to make do without your plasma TV, go back to using cotton and rubber insulated cords, everything on store shelves will start appearing without the insane packaging and in glass jars instead of plastic.
It'll be locally made stuff or local and organically grown.
Hey, most advertising billboards will disappear, nice!
It will no longer make any sense to live in the suburbs, so cities become towns and everyone moves back to the towns or countryside.
The best jobs will be in the trades - carpentry, masonry, etc.
In general, it'll be back to the simpler and less wasteful life, which I'd argue was better anyway.OH, no laptops, no PC's, thus no slashdot either.
OH GOD, kill yourself now!!
!As an environmentalist I WELCOME the day we run out of oil.
And I'm ready, already most of the way to reducing my dependence on oil.
Regardless of the oil question, I choose not to continue the wasteful inefficient lifestyle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054490</id>
	<title>option d</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257863520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> um somewhere around 10\%of what is burned in cars in the U.S. each day comes from Tar Sands in Alberta. This is incredibly toxic stuff, I've heard numbers like 80litres of burned fuel to each litre that gets sold. But methinks there are some comments here that are very 1970 in their total denial of global warming and belief that oil is the only answer out there.</p><p>How about option D: People slowly transition to renewable energy. Oil becomes unimportant. The rich free themselves from it first, at too much expense, but then the middle class finds ways to power houses and cars for free and once free of skyrocketing prices the technology soars.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>um somewhere around 10 \ % of what is burned in cars in the U.S. each day comes from Tar Sands in Alberta .
This is incredibly toxic stuff , I 've heard numbers like 80litres of burned fuel to each litre that gets sold .
But methinks there are some comments here that are very 1970 in their total denial of global warming and belief that oil is the only answer out there.How about option D : People slowly transition to renewable energy .
Oil becomes unimportant .
The rich free themselves from it first , at too much expense , but then the middle class finds ways to power houses and cars for free and once free of skyrocketing prices the technology soars .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext> um somewhere around 10\%of what is burned in cars in the U.S. each day comes from Tar Sands in Alberta.
This is incredibly toxic stuff, I've heard numbers like 80litres of burned fuel to each litre that gets sold.
But methinks there are some comments here that are very 1970 in their total denial of global warming and belief that oil is the only answer out there.How about option D: People slowly transition to renewable energy.
Oil becomes unimportant.
The rich free themselves from it first, at too much expense, but then the middle class finds ways to power houses and cars for free and once free of skyrocketing prices the technology soars.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051146</id>
	<title>Aren't "known reserves" all fucked up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257846540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure OPEC allocates allowed production levels by each country's "known reserves", giving the rulers of those countries all kinds of incentive to exaggerate their reserves.</p><p>The medieval Saudi despots and thugs like Hugo Chavez want to grab all the money they can while <b>THEY'RE</b> alive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure OPEC allocates allowed production levels by each country 's " known reserves " , giving the rulers of those countries all kinds of incentive to exaggerate their reserves.The medieval Saudi despots and thugs like Hugo Chavez want to grab all the money they can while THEY 'RE alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure OPEC allocates allowed production levels by each country's "known reserves", giving the rulers of those countries all kinds of incentive to exaggerate their reserves.The medieval Saudi despots and thugs like Hugo Chavez want to grab all the money they can while THEY'RE alive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30055448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30058704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30056056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30059360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30058206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30066024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30057058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30082624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30062962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30057344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30060136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30062916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30071086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30058050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30055408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30058418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30059136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30062240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1845245_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30071328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051292
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051630
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054328
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051446
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053724
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053632
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053682
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30071328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051460
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051696
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30062240
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054720
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054804
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30058050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052810
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30059136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051974
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30058704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051404
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30055448
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052038
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054498
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051850
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30055408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30057264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30058206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30059360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30057058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30054008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30071086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30053796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30050860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30058954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30062916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30056056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30082624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30058418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30052454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1845245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30051950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30066024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30060136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30062962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1845245.30057344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
