LIBERAL DEMOCRATS are the reason the price of fuel is so high, not Saudi Arabia. Liberals will not allow domestic supplies to be developed!

[m***@hotmail.com]

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil.  Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.

ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.

Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.


If you want to know the truth about ANWR, read this:
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html

But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

[Eddie Haskell]

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are, DNC toady. We need to be
increasing domestic production in ANWR and all across the country and
building nuke plants, but of course we can't because the democrats are
beholden to the environmentalists so they give you idiotic excuses to parrot
to cover their sorry self-serving asses. I'll never forget how the democrats
were claiming that ANWR would take 8 - 10 years so it wasn't worth it back
in 95 when Clinton vetoed it. That one is almost as stupid as the ANWR
wouldn't supply all our needs so it isn't worth it you toadies are parroting
today.

It's morons like you who parrot the party line instead of thinking for
yourselves who are responsible for high gas and the floundering economy, ya
fucking idiot.

-Eddie Haskell

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are

So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.

It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

[Eddie Haskell]

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"

Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

-Eddie Haskell

[Matt]

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them
out yourself:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm

I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
(or, like me, former geologist) could love. Here's the summary:

Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).

Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.

*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.

Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.


Matt

[Eddie Haskell]

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?

-Eddie Haskell

[Matt]

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?

It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers. Excuse
me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence).  By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?

Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.

Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

Matt

[Eddie Haskell]

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?

My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"

From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels

Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.

-Eddie Haskell

[Matt]

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.

If you say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!

I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.

You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.

If you say so.

Matt

[Joe Irvin]

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.

If you say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!

I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.

True it was set aside as a wildlife preserve. This is an area of 19.6
million acres. Oil exploration would be on about 2000 acres ... like
setting aside 2000 acres in South Carolina for drilling. We listened to the
same arguments about harming the enviroment with the Purdhoe Bay oil field
and the pipe line was proposed and built. It was a bogus argument, the
wildlife there has not been affected. Oil companies have experience in
drilling in enviromentally hostal areas. Any screw ups I'm sure the oil
companies will/would be held responsible like the Valdez oil spill. IMO its
a more sensible policy than to sue OPEC for price fixing.

You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.

We cannot even do that. We cannot pursue oil on the Atlantic and Pacific
coasts ... we cannot persue nuclear energy, we cannot, have not pursued
building more refinning capacity. Oil companies have to file expensive
environmental impact studies. It seem our govt is persuing a policy to
hinder the exploration and production of more energy. Alternative energy
isn't here yet, something has to or should be done. Don't you agree?

If you say so.

Matt

[Sid9]

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.

If you say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!

I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.
True it was set aside as a wildlife preserve. This is an area of 19.6
million acres. Oil exploration would be on about 2000 acres ... like
setting aside 2000 acres in South Carolina for drilling. We listened to
the same arguments about harming the enviroment with the Purdhoe Bay oil
field and the pipe line was proposed and built. It was a bogus argument,
the wildlife there has not been affected. Oil companies have experience
in drilling in enviromentally hostal areas. Any screw ups I'm sure the
oil companies will/would be held responsible like the Valdez oil spill.
IMO its a more sensible policy than to sue OPEC for price fixing.
You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.

We cannot even do that. We cannot pursue oil on the Atlantic and Pacific
coasts ... we cannot persue nuclear energy, we cannot, have not pursued
building more refinning capacity. Oil companies have to file expensive
environmental impact studies. It seem our govt is persuing a policy to
hinder the exploration and production of more energy. Alternative energy
isn't here yet, something has to or should be done. Don't you agree?
If you say so.
Matt

from today's news:

"...Thursday’s gains came after a series of unsettling reports that
suggested world oil supplies may not be able to keep up with future demand,
a situation that could potentially lead to even higher prices...."

More oil is a stop gap measure.

When we get rid of the Oil company
administration in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem

[Joe Irvin]

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.

If you say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!

I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.
True it was set aside as a wildlife preserve. This is an area of 19.6
million acres. Oil exploration would be on about 2000 acres ... like
setting aside 2000 acres in South Carolina for drilling. We listened to
the same arguments about harming the enviroment with the Purdhoe Bay oil
field and the pipe line was proposed and built. It was a bogus argument,
the wildlife there has not been affected. Oil companies have experience
in drilling in enviromentally hostal areas. Any screw ups I'm sure the
oil companies will/would be held responsible like the Valdez oil spill.
IMO its a more sensible policy than to sue OPEC for price fixing.
You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.

We cannot even do that. We cannot pursue oil on the Atlantic and Pacific
coasts ... we cannot persue nuclear energy, we cannot, have not pursued
building more refinning capacity. Oil companies have to file expensive
environmental impact studies. It seem our govt is persuing a policy to
hinder the exploration and production of more energy. Alternative energy
isn't here yet, something has to or should be done. Don't you agree?
If you say so.
Matt

"...Thursday's gains came after a series of unsettling reports that
suggested world oil supplies may not be able to keep up with future
demand, a situation that could potentially lead to even higher prices...."

Anyone can 'suggest,' what are the facts?

More oil is a stop gap measure.

Maybe it is ... but we have to have oil today and the near future. That is
undeniable. Why not persue a policy to get more oil and use nuclear energy
in the mean time ... let oil companies drill in both oceans and ANWR?
Surely suing OPEC is not going to lower prices. During the 2006 elections Ms
Polosi said she had a 'plan' to lower oil prices and we are still waiting.

When we get rid of the Oil company
administration in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem

If you mean the Bush administration IMO, you are wrong. If it was up to
Bush and many others we would be drilling in ANWR and have at least started
nuclear power plants. Congress is the one that will say if we drill in both
oceans and start building nuclear plants. We have a Dem Congress and the
price of oil continues to rise. Windfall profit taxes are not the answer
... Cosmetics and Pharmacuticals have a higher profit MARGIN than oil
companies.

[Eddie Haskell]

Post by Joe Irvin

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

On May 20, 8:00 pm, blue_collar_worker

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya
goddamn
liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.

If you say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be
commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!

I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.
True it was set aside as a wildlife preserve. This is an area of 19.6
million acres. Oil exploration would be on about 2000 acres ... like
setting aside 2000 acres in South Carolina for drilling. We listened to
the same arguments about harming the enviroment with the Purdhoe Bay oil
field and the pipe line was proposed and built. It was a bogus
argument, the wildlife there has not been affected. Oil companies have
experience in drilling in enviromentally hostal areas. Any screw ups
I'm sure the oil companies will/would be held responsible like the
Valdez oil spill. IMO its a more sensible policy than to sue OPEC for
price fixing.
You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.

We cannot even do that. We cannot pursue oil on the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts ... we cannot persue nuclear energy, we cannot, have not
pursued building more refinning capacity. Oil companies have to file
expensive environmental impact studies. It seem our govt is persuing a
policy to hinder the exploration and production of more energy.
Alternative energy isn't here yet, something has to or should be done.
Don't you agree?
If you say so.
Matt

"...Thursday's gains came after a series of unsettling reports that
suggested world oil supplies may not be able to keep up with future
demand, a situation that could potentially lead to even higher prices...."

Anyone can 'suggest,' what are the facts?

More oil is a stop gap measure.

Maybe it is ... but we have to have oil today and the near future. That
is undeniable. Why not persue a policy to get more oil and use nuclear
energy in the mean time ... let oil companies drill in both oceans and
ANWR?

Because the democrats are beholden to the environmentalists and so make up
stupid excuses like "ANWR would take 10 years" and "it wouldn't supply ALL
our needs" to spoon feed their idiot constituents like we have here in this
forum. They'll buy anything their corrupt masters tell them because they are
too stupid to think for themselves, meanwhile the rest of us suffer for it.

Dumbfucks.

-Eddie Haskell

Post by Joe Irvin
Surely suing OPEC is not going to lower prices. During the 2006 elections
Ms Polosi said she had a 'plan' to lower oil prices and we are still
waiting.

When we get rid of the Oil company
administration in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem

If you mean the Bush administration IMO, you are wrong. If it was up to
Bush and many others we would be drilling in ANWR and have at least
started nuclear power plants. Congress is the one that will say if we
drill in both oceans and start building nuclear plants. We have a Dem
Congress and the price of oil continues to rise. Windfall profit taxes
are not the answer ... Cosmetics and Pharmacuticals have a higher profit
MARGIN than oil companies.

[Eddie Haskell]

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.

If you say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!

I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.
True it was set aside as a wildlife preserve. This is an area of 19.6
million acres. Oil exploration would be on about 2000 acres ... like
setting aside 2000 acres in South Carolina for drilling. We listened to
the same arguments about harming the enviroment with the Purdhoe Bay oil
field and the pipe line was proposed and built. It was a bogus argument,
the wildlife there has not been affected. Oil companies have experience
in drilling in enviromentally hostal areas. Any screw ups I'm sure the
oil companies will/would be held responsible like the Valdez oil spill.
IMO its a more sensible policy than to sue OPEC for price fixing.
You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.

We cannot even do that. We cannot pursue oil on the Atlantic and Pacific
coasts ... we cannot persue nuclear energy, we cannot, have not pursued
building more refinning capacity. Oil companies have to file expensive
environmental impact studies. It seem our govt is persuing a policy to
hinder the exploration and production of more energy. Alternative energy
isn't here yet, something has to or should be done. Don't you agree?
If you say so.
Matt

"...Thursday’s gains came after a series of unsettling reports that
suggested world oil supplies may not be able to keep up with future
demand, a situation that could potentially lead to even higher prices...."
More oil is a stop gap measure.
When we get rid of the Oil company
administration in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem

You're an idiot. The democrats have been preventing us from drilling for
more oil, building new refineries and building nuke plants for YEARS and
putting them in power will make the problem WORSE.

My god PLEASE start THINKING for yourself. Our country is at stake. You
know, that place where you live? That place that if it goes down, you will
go down with it?

Do-you-not-un-der-stand-that?

-Eddie Haskell

[Sid9]

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

On May 20, 8:00 pm, blue_collar_worker

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya
goddamn
liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.

If you say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be
commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!

I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.
True it was set aside as a wildlife preserve. This is an area of 19.6
million acres. Oil exploration would be on about 2000 acres ... like
setting aside 2000 acres in South Carolina for drilling. We listened to
the same arguments about harming the enviroment with the Purdhoe Bay oil
field and the pipe line was proposed and built. It was a bogus
argument, the wildlife there has not been affected. Oil companies have
experience in drilling in enviromentally hostal areas. Any screw ups
I'm sure the oil companies will/would be held responsible like the
Valdez oil spill. IMO its a more sensible policy than to sue OPEC for
price fixing.
You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.

We cannot even do that. We cannot pursue oil on the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts ... we cannot persue nuclear energy, we cannot, have not
pursued building more refinning capacity. Oil companies have to file
expensive environmental impact studies. It seem our govt is persuing a
policy to hinder the exploration and production of more energy.
Alternative energy isn't here yet, something has to or should be done.
Don't you agree?
If you say so.
Matt

"...Thursday’s gains came after a series of unsettling reports that
suggested world oil supplies may not be able to keep up with future
demand, a situation that could potentially lead to even higher prices...."
More oil is a stop gap measure.
When we get rid of the Oil company
administration in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem

You're an idiot. The democrats have been preventing us from drilling for
more oil, building new refineries and building nuke plants for YEARS and
putting them in power will make the problem WORSE.
My god PLEASE start THINKING for yourself. Our country is at stake. You
know, that place where you live? That place that if it goes down, you will
go down with it?
Do-you-not-un-der-stand-that?
-Eddie Haskell

When we get rid of the Oil company
administration in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem.

There is no "shortage" of oil or gasoline...there's only price inflation
1. Devaluation of the dollar under Republicans
2. Speculation
3. Instability in the Middle East and Nigeria

[Eddie Haskell]

Post by Sid9

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

On May 20, 8:00 pm, blue_collar_worker

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya
goddamn
liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.

If you say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!

I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.
True it was set aside as a wildlife preserve. This is an area of 19.6
million acres. Oil exploration would be on about 2000 acres ... like
setting aside 2000 acres in South Carolina for drilling. We listened
to the same arguments about harming the enviroment with the Purdhoe Bay
oil field and the pipe line was proposed and built. It was a bogus
argument, the wildlife there has not been affected. Oil companies have
experience in drilling in enviromentally hostal areas. Any screw ups
I'm sure the oil companies will/would be held responsible like the
Valdez oil spill. IMO its a more sensible policy than to sue OPEC for
price fixing.
You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.

We cannot even do that. We cannot pursue oil on the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts ... we cannot persue nuclear energy, we cannot, have not
pursued building more refinning capacity. Oil companies have to file
expensive environmental impact studies. It seem our govt is persuing a
policy to hinder the exploration and production of more energy.
Alternative energy isn't here yet, something has to or should be done.
Don't you agree?
If you say so.
Matt

"...Thursday’s gains came after a series of unsettling reports that
suggested world oil supplies may not be able to keep up with future
demand, a situation that could potentially lead to even higher prices...."
More oil is a stop gap measure.
When we get rid of the Oil company
administration in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem

You're an idiot. The democrats have been preventing us from drilling for
more oil, building new refineries and building nuke plants for YEARS and
putting them in power will make the problem WORSE.
My god PLEASE start THINKING for yourself. Our country is at stake. You
know, that place where you live? That place that if it goes down, you
will go down with it?
Do-you-not-un-der-stand-that?
-Eddie Haskell

When we get rid of the Oil company
administration

Install a democrat that'll prevent new sources of oil and nuke energy so as
to keep the price high.

Cool..

Post by Sid9
in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem.
There is no "shortage" of oil or gasoline...there's only price inflation
1. Devaluation of the dollar under Republicans
2. Speculation
3. Instability in the Middle East and Nigeria

Yeah, let Iran take over Iraq and that'll solve it.

GD mumble grumble..

-Eddie Haskell

[Sid9]

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

On May 20, 8:00 pm, blue_collar_worker

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil.
Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing
700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking
idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya
goddamn
liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.

If you say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!

I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.
True it was set aside as a wildlife preserve. This is an area of 19.6
million acres. Oil exploration would be on about 2000 acres ... like
setting aside 2000 acres in South Carolina for drilling. We listened
to the same arguments about harming the enviroment with the Purdhoe
Bay oil field and the pipe line was proposed and built. It was a
bogus argument, the wildlife there has not been affected. Oil
companies have experience in drilling in enviromentally hostal areas.
Any screw ups I'm sure the oil companies will/would be held
responsible like the Valdez oil spill. IMO its a more sensible policy
than to sue OPEC for price fixing.
You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.

We cannot even do that. We cannot pursue oil on the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts ... we cannot persue nuclear energy, we cannot, have
not pursued building more refinning capacity. Oil companies have to
file expensive environmental impact studies. It seem our govt is
persuing a policy to hinder the exploration and production of more
energy. Alternative energy isn't here yet, something has to or should
be done. Don't you agree?
If you say so.
Matt

"...Thursday’s gains came after a series of unsettling reports that
suggested world oil supplies may not be able to keep up with future
demand, a situation that could potentially lead to even higher prices...."
More oil is a stop gap measure.
When we get rid of the Oil company
administration in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem

You're an idiot. The democrats have been preventing us from drilling for
more oil, building new refineries and building nuke plants for YEARS and
putting them in power will make the problem WORSE.
My god PLEASE start THINKING for yourself. Our country is at stake. You
know, that place where you live? That place that if it goes down, you
will go down with it?
Do-you-not-un-der-stand-that?
-Eddie Haskell

When we get rid of the Oil company
administration

Install a democrat that'll prevent new sources of oil and nuke energy so
as to keep the price high.
Cool..

Post by Sid9
in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem.
There is no "shortage" of oil or gasoline...there's only price inflation
1. Devaluation of the dollar under Republicans
2. Speculation
3. Instability in the Middle East and Nigeria

Yeah, let Iran take over Iraq and that'll solve it.
GD mumble grumble..
-Eddie Haskell

Why did you switch subjects?
You want to discuss Iran and Iraq start a new thread?


There is no "shortage" of oil or gasoline...there's only price inflation

1. Devaluation of the dollar under Republicans
2. Speculation
3. Instability in the Middle East and Nigeria

Now we pay for republican incompetence

[Eddie Haskell]

Post by Sid9

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

On May 20, 8:00 pm, blue_collar_worker

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil.
Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing
700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking
idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and
said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated
at least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya
goddamn
liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little
parentheses
thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.

If you say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!

I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.
True it was set aside as a wildlife preserve. This is an area of
19.6 million acres. Oil exploration would be on about 2000 acres ...
like setting aside 2000 acres in South Carolina for drilling. We
listened to the same arguments about harming the enviroment with the
Purdhoe Bay oil field and the pipe line was proposed and built. It
was a bogus argument, the wildlife there has not been affected. Oil
companies have experience in drilling in enviromentally hostal areas.
Any screw ups I'm sure the oil companies will/would be held
responsible like the Valdez oil spill. IMO its a more sensible policy
than to sue OPEC for price fixing.
You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.

We cannot even do that. We cannot pursue oil on the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts ... we cannot persue nuclear energy, we cannot, have
not pursued building more refinning capacity. Oil companies have to
file expensive environmental impact studies. It seem our govt is
persuing a policy to hinder the exploration and production of more
energy. Alternative energy isn't here yet, something has to or should
be done. Don't you agree?
If you say so.
Matt

"...Thursday’s gains came after a series of unsettling reports that
suggested world oil supplies may not be able to keep up with future
demand, a situation that could potentially lead to even higher prices...."
More oil is a stop gap measure.
When we get rid of the Oil company
administration in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem

You're an idiot. The democrats have been preventing us from drilling
for more oil, building new refineries and building nuke plants for
YEARS and putting them in power will make the problem WORSE.
My god PLEASE start THINKING for yourself. Our country is at stake. You
know, that place where you live? That place that if it goes down, you
will go down with it?
Do-you-not-un-der-stand-that?
-Eddie Haskell

When we get rid of the Oil company
administration

Install a democrat that'll prevent new sources of oil and nuke energy so
as to keep the price high.
Cool..

Post by Sid9
in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem.
There is no "shortage" of oil or gasoline...there's only price inflation
1. Devaluation of the dollar under Republicans
2. Speculation
3. Instability in the Middle East and Nigeria

Yeah, let Iran take over Iraq and that'll solve it.
GD mumble grumble..
-Eddie Haskell

Why did you switch subjects?

Iran controlling the region and how that will affect the price of oil IS the
subject, boy wonder.

Post by Sid9
You want to discuss Iran and Iraq start a new thread?

Why? Handing Iraq over to Iran will affect the price of oil and that is the
subject, brainiac.

Post by Sid9
There is no "shortage" of oil or gasoline...there's only price inflation

Speculators can clearly see that supply will not keep up with demand and
that is why the price is up.

Post by Sid9
1. Devaluation of the dollar under Republicans
2. Speculation
3. Instability in the Middle East and Nigeria
Now we pay for republican incompetence

We pay for years and years of democrats refusal to allow us to provide more
of our own energy needs because they are beholden to the environmentalists.

-Eddie Haskell

[sittingduck]

Post by Eddie Haskell
We pay for years and years of democrats refusal to allow us to provide
more of our own energy needs because they are beholden to the
environmentalists.

I bet you have no idea how stupid that statement makes you look.

[Eddie Haskell]

Post by sittingduck

Post by Eddie Haskell
We pay for years and years of democrats refusal to allow us to provide
more of our own energy needs because they are beholden to the
environmentalists.

I bet you have no idea how stupid that statement makes you look.

Oh, the irony..

Oh, the projection..

-Eddie Haskell

[Sid9]

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

On May 20, 8:00 pm, blue_collar_worker

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil.
Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing
700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya
fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and
said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated
at least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya
goddamn
liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little
parentheses
thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.

If you say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its
the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a
day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!

I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.
True it was set aside as a wildlife preserve. This is an area of
19.6 million acres. Oil exploration would be on about 2000 acres
... like setting aside 2000 acres in South Carolina for drilling.
We listened to the same arguments about harming the enviroment with
the Purdhoe Bay oil field and the pipe line was proposed and built.
It was a bogus argument, the wildlife there has not been affected.
Oil companies have experience in drilling in enviromentally hostal
areas. Any screw ups I'm sure the oil companies will/would be held
responsible like the Valdez oil spill. IMO its a more sensible
policy than to sue OPEC for price fixing.
You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on
alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.

We cannot even do that. We cannot pursue oil on the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts ... we cannot persue nuclear energy, we cannot, have
not pursued building more refinning capacity. Oil companies have to
file expensive environmental impact studies. It seem our govt is
persuing a policy to hinder the exploration and production of more
energy. Alternative energy isn't here yet, something has to or
should be done. Don't you agree?
If you say so.
Matt

"...Thursday’s gains came after a series of unsettling reports that
suggested world oil supplies may not be able to keep up with future
demand, a situation that could potentially lead to even higher prices...."
More oil is a stop gap measure.
When we get rid of the Oil company
administration in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem

You're an idiot. The democrats have been preventing us from drilling
for more oil, building new refineries and building nuke plants for
YEARS and putting them in power will make the problem WORSE.
My god PLEASE start THINKING for yourself. Our country is at stake.
You know, that place where you live? That place that if it goes down,
you will go down with it?
Do-you-not-un-der-stand-that?
-Eddie Haskell

When we get rid of the Oil company
administration

Install a democrat that'll prevent new sources of oil and nuke energy so
as to keep the price high.
Cool..

Post by Sid9
in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem.
There is no "shortage" of oil or gasoline...there's only price inflation
1. Devaluation of the dollar under Republicans
2. Speculation
3. Instability in the Middle East and Nigeria

Yeah, let Iran take over Iraq and that'll solve it.
GD mumble grumble..
-Eddie Haskell

Why did you switch subjects?

Iran controlling the region and how that will affect the price of oil IS
the subject, boy wonder.

Post by Sid9
You want to discuss Iran and Iraq start a new thread?

Why? Handing Iraq over to Iran will affect the price of oil and that is
the subject, brainiac.

Post by Sid9
There is no "shortage" of oil or gasoline...there's only price inflation

Speculators can clearly see that supply will not keep up with demand and
that is why the price is up.

Post by Sid9
1. Devaluation of the dollar under Republicans
2. Speculation
3. Instability in the Middle East and Nigeria
Now we pay for republican incompetence

We pay for years and years of democrats refusal to allow us to provide
more of our own energy needs because they are beholden to the
environmentalists.
-Eddie Haskell

Drilling comes nowhere near
providing for our needs.

Consrvation and alternate energy
is needed....not an oil company
administration in Washington.

BUT...you've been told this twenty or thirty times and its failed to
penetrate

[Eddie Haskell]

Post by Sid9

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

On May 20, 8:00 pm, blue_collar_worker

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil.
Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing
700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as
usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable
oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya
fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and
said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated
at least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5
billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya
goddamn
liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers.
Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little
parentheses
thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8
billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.

If you say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its
the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil
within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated
to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a
mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain
between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to
the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of
oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be
commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a
day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50
= 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a
500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just
throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!

I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.
True it was set aside as a wildlife preserve. This is an area of
19.6 million acres. Oil exploration would be on about 2000 acres
... like setting aside 2000 acres in South Carolina for drilling.
We listened to the same arguments about harming the enviroment with
the Purdhoe Bay oil field and the pipe line was proposed and built.
It was a bogus argument, the wildlife there has not been affected.
Oil companies have experience in drilling in enviromentally hostal
areas. Any screw ups I'm sure the oil companies will/would be held
responsible like the Valdez oil spill. IMO its a more sensible
policy than to sue OPEC for price fixing.
You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.

We cannot even do that. We cannot pursue oil on the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts ... we cannot persue nuclear energy, we cannot, have
not pursued building more refinning capacity. Oil companies have
to file expensive environmental impact studies. It seem our govt
is persuing a policy to hinder the exploration and production of
more energy. Alternative energy isn't here yet, something has to or
should be done. Don't you agree?
If you say so.
Matt

"...Thursday’s gains came after a series of unsettling reports that
suggested world oil supplies may not be able to keep up with future
demand, a situation that could potentially lead to even higher prices...."
More oil is a stop gap measure.
When we get rid of the Oil company
administration in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem

You're an idiot. The democrats have been preventing us from drilling
for more oil, building new refineries and building nuke plants for
YEARS and putting them in power will make the problem WORSE.
My god PLEASE start THINKING for yourself. Our country is at stake.
You know, that place where you live? That place that if it goes down,
you will go down with it?
Do-you-not-un-der-stand-that?
-Eddie Haskell

When we get rid of the Oil company
administration

Install a democrat that'll prevent new sources of oil and nuke energy
so as to keep the price high.
Cool..

Post by Sid9
in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem.
There is no "shortage" of oil or gasoline...there's only price inflation
1. Devaluation of the dollar under Republicans
2. Speculation
3. Instability in the Middle East and Nigeria

Yeah, let Iran take over Iraq and that'll solve it.
GD mumble grumble..
-Eddie Haskell

Why did you switch subjects?

Iran controlling the region and how that will affect the price of oil IS
the subject, boy wonder.

Post by Sid9
You want to discuss Iran and Iraq start a new thread?

Why? Handing Iraq over to Iran will affect the price of oil and that is
the subject, brainiac.

Post by Sid9
There is no "shortage" of oil or gasoline...there's only price inflation

Speculators can clearly see that supply will not keep up with demand and
that is why the price is up.

Post by Sid9
1. Devaluation of the dollar under Republicans
2. Speculation
3. Instability in the Middle East and Nigeria
Now we pay for republican incompetence

We pay for years and years of democrats refusal to allow us to provide
more of our own energy needs because they are beholden to the
environmentalists.
-Eddie Haskell

Drilling comes nowhere near
providing for our needs.
Consrvation and alternate energy
is needed

Conservation and alternate energy come nowhere providing for our needs, but
you've told this over and over but it fails to penetrate.

Post by Sid9
....not an oil company
administration in Washington.

How did Bush drive up the worldwide price of oil, kook? Is he a genius now?
What day is it?

Post by Sid9
BUT...you've been told this twenty or thirty times and its failed to
penetrate

Bullshit is too soft.

-Eddie Haskell

[Sid9]

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

On May 20, 8:00 pm, blue_collar_worker

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil.
Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still
producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as
usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable
oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya
fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your
lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and
said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study
indicated at least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8
billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5
billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya
goddamn
liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers.
Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little
parentheses
thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study
indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8
billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3
and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.

If you say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its
the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the
entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil
within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is
estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent
probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The
undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2
billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a
mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain
between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While
it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be
punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to
the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of
oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be
commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil
a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50
= 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a
500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very
long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just
throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything.
You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the
reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a
bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!

I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.
True it was set aside as a wildlife preserve. This is an area of
19.6 million acres. Oil exploration would be on about 2000 acres
... like setting aside 2000 acres in South Carolina for drilling.
We listened to the same arguments about harming the enviroment
with the Purdhoe Bay oil field and the pipe line was proposed and
built. It was a bogus argument, the wildlife there has not been
affected. Oil companies have experience in drilling in
enviromentally hostal areas. Any screw ups I'm sure the oil
companies will/would be held responsible like the Valdez oil
spill. IMO its a more sensible policy than to sue OPEC for price
fixing.
You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the
country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on
alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.

We cannot even do that. We cannot pursue oil on the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts ... we cannot persue nuclear energy, we cannot,
have not pursued building more refinning capacity. Oil companies
have to file expensive environmental impact studies. It seem our
govt is persuing a policy to hinder the exploration and production
of more energy. Alternative energy isn't here yet, something has
to or should be done. Don't you agree?
If you say so.
Matt

"...Thursday’s gains came after a series of unsettling reports that
suggested world oil supplies may not be able to keep up with future
demand, a situation that could potentially lead to even higher prices...."
More oil is a stop gap measure.
When we get rid of the Oil company
administration in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem

You're an idiot. The democrats have been preventing us from drilling
for more oil, building new refineries and building nuke plants for
YEARS and putting them in power will make the problem WORSE.
My god PLEASE start THINKING for yourself. Our country is at stake.
You know, that place where you live? That place that if it goes
down, you will go down with it?
Do-you-not-un-der-stand-that?
-Eddie Haskell

When we get rid of the Oil company
administration

Install a democrat that'll prevent new sources of oil and nuke energy
so as to keep the price high.
Cool..

Post by Sid9
in Washington we
can start a rational, urgent attack
on our energy problem.
There is no "shortage" of oil or gasoline...there's only price inflation
1. Devaluation of the dollar under Republicans
2. Speculation
3. Instability in the Middle East and Nigeria

Yeah, let Iran take over Iraq and that'll solve it.
GD mumble grumble..
-Eddie Haskell

Why did you switch subjects?

Iran controlling the region and how that will affect the price of oil IS
the subject, boy wonder.

Post by Sid9
You want to discuss Iran and Iraq start a new thread?

Why? Handing Iraq over to Iran will affect the price of oil and that is
the subject, brainiac.

Post by Sid9
There is no "shortage" of oil or gasoline...there's only price inflation

Speculators can clearly see that supply will not keep up with demand and
that is why the price is up.

Post by Sid9
1. Devaluation of the dollar under Republicans
2. Speculation
3. Instability in the Middle East and Nigeria
Now we pay for republican incompetence

We pay for years and years of democrats refusal to allow us to provide
more of our own energy needs because they are beholden to the
environmentalists.
-Eddie Haskell

Drilling comes nowhere near
providing for our needs.
Consrvation and alternate energy
is needed

Conservation and alternate energy come nowhere providing for our needs,
but you've told this over and over but it fails to penetrate.

Post by Sid9
....not an oil company
administration in Washington.

How did Bush drive up the worldwide price of oil, kook? Is he a genius
now? What day is it?

Post by Sid9
BUT...you've been told this twenty or thirty times and its failed to
penetrate

Bullshit is too soft.
-Eddie Haskell

The Republicans since St Ronnie Reagan are
responsible for the lack of an energy program
that would have prevented us from getting into this fix.

Nearly 30 years wasted.

jr and his oily friend Cheney and their secret
energy plan have exacerbated the situation.

This is a natioanl security issue and the
Republicans have failed miserably.

Americans suffer and will pay back at the polls
in November

[Eddie Haskell]

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.

If you say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!

I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.
True it was set aside as a wildlife preserve. This is an area of 19.6
million acres. Oil exploration would be on about 2000 acres ... like
setting aside 2000 acres in South Carolina for drilling. We listened to
the same arguments about harming the enviroment with the Purdhoe Bay oil
field and the pipe line was proposed and built. It was a bogus argument,
the wildlife there has not been affected. Oil companies have experience
in drilling in enviromentally hostal areas. Any screw ups I'm sure the
oil companies will/would be held responsible like the Valdez oil spill.
IMO its a more sensible policy than to sue OPEC for price fixing.
You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.

We cannot even do that. We cannot pursue oil on the Atlantic and Pacific
coasts ... we cannot persue nuclear energy, we cannot, have not pursued
building more refinning capacity. Oil companies have to file expensive
environmental impact studies. It seem our govt is persuing a policy to
hinder the exploration and production of more energy. Alternative energy
isn't here yet, something has to or should be done. Don't you agree?

We can't because the democrats are beholden to the environmentalists and the
fact that their constituents are idiots. Yesterday I heard Schumer squawk
the "it would take 10 years" stupid assed argument to cover his corruption
like they were spoon feeding their idiots back in 95 when Clinton vetoed
ANWR.

-Eddie Haskell

[Eddie Haskell]

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.
If you say so.

I say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!
I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.

Again, the area slated for drilling is a tiny fraction of the reserve and is
a wilderness. If that area is too fragile to be drilled then no area should
be drilled.

Post by Eddie Haskell
You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

"I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is worth it"

-Matt

Are you too stupid to know that the argument you are parrotting means a
"year and a half of supply" of oil from ANWR all by itself? That is a HELL
of a LOT of oil!

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.
If you say so.

I say so.

-Eddie Haskell

[Matt]

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?
It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers.

More up to date numbers?
My post: "A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
From your post: Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area
(excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8
billion barrels
Same numbers, but more up to date, Einstein?

Post by Eddie Haskell
Excuse me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Just don't let it happen again.
If you say so.

I say so.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?
Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

The area slated for drilling represents a tiny fraction of the reserve and
it is not "fragile." Furthermore, you do understand that claiming that a
single well supplying ALL of our needs not lasting long is a bogus argument
and logically means we shouldn't drill anywhere don't you? And even yet
furthermore, a single well that could supply the entire nation for a year
and half is one HELL of a LOT of oil. Fucking incredible!
I don't recall claiming anything about a "single well". As for the
fragilness of
the area, this is a well documented fact, and one of the reasons it
was set
aside as a wildlife preserve.

Again, the area slated for drilling is a tiny fraction of the reserve and is
a wilderness. If that area is too fragile to be drilled then no area should
be drilled.

Interesting statement. Why is that? Would it be ok to drill within,
say,
a mile of the Washington Monument? Within Yosemite? Where is the
line, in your humble opinion.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
You seem to enjoy making strawman arguments.

"I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is worth it"

That's a strawman argument? Interesting. Why don't you define the term
for me, then?

Post by Eddie Haskell
-Matt
Are you too stupid to know that the argument you are parrotting means a
"year and a half of supply" of oil from ANWR all by itself? That is a HELL
of a LOT of oil!

Really. I don't think you understand what a lot of oil means. The
amount cited
is from 2004 usage. Do you think we use less oil now than then? Do you
think
we will use less next year? Or the year after? That "year and a half"
is probably
more like 8 months today, and might not be that tomorrow.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

I'd rather pursue what we know we have while we work on alternatives rather
than stop drilling and hope for miracle to save us.
If you say so.

I say so.

Good to know.

Matt

[Christopher Helms]

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?

It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers. Excuse
me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence).  By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?

Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?
Matt

"Gas is expensive because liberals won't let us drill in ANWR" is a
*major* Republican talking point. It's not even a minor fact. Needless
to say, that doesn't stop them from saying it over and over again
anyway. If this were a legitimate supply and demand issue there would
be gas lines and shortages all over the place. There would be talk of
rationing and mandated fuel standards for all domestically
manufactured vehicles. There is none of that despite a 450% increase
in the price of crude under Slappy The PetroChimps Exxon-friendly
"leadership" because there is no actual supply issue. This is a price
fixing scam. If it were anything else it would be almost literally the
end of the world as we know it and the white house and Congress would
be responding far differently than they have.

[Starkiller]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:59:01 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Helms

Post by Christopher Helms

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?

It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers. Excuse
me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence).  By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?

Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?
Matt

"Gas is expensive because liberals won't let us drill in ANWR" is a
*major* Republican talking point. It's not even a minor fact. Needless
to say, that doesn't stop them from saying it over and over again
anyway. If this were a legitimate supply and demand issue there would
be gas lines and shortages all over the place. There would be talk of
rationing and mandated fuel standards for all domestically
manufactured vehicles. There is none of that despite a 450% increase
in the price of crude under Slappy The PetroChimps Exxon-friendly
"leadership" because there is no actual supply issue. This is a price
fixing scam. If it were anything else it would be almost literally the
end of the world as we know it and the white house and Congress would
be responding far differently than they have.

If companies like Exxon were to stop buying OPEC crude and only depend
on what they pump themselves at $17 to $30 a barrel(a high estimate)
you would be seeing those shortages. Exxon has to buy nearly half of
the crude it refines on the world market.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/05/news/companies/exxon_oil/index.htm

If you forced Exxon to keep it's pump prices low then you would be
forcing them to buy less crude on the world market thus creating the
shortages you are referring to. Sure, they could refine nothing but
their own oil and only have to charge a little over a buck a gallon to
make the same profit per unit that they currently do. But it wouldn't
last long at the pumps because they'd be around 2.1 million barrels
shy of what it takes to meet our daily demands. Chevron refines over
3 million barrels a day but they only pump around 1.7 million from
their own wells. Conoco refines nearly as much but only proiduces
around 774,000 barrels themselves. The rest they all have to buy at
currently $132 a barrel from Canada, Mexico and OPEC.

By stating that supply and demand is the cause for rising prices in no
way implies that there will be an instant shortage. It simply means
that demand is increasing and the supply is not. When demand
completely surpasses supply is when you will see shortages.








Regards


Starkiller

[Sid9]

Post by Starkiller
On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:59:01 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Helms

Post by Christopher Helms

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?

It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers. Excuse
me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?

Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?
Matt

"Gas is expensive because liberals won't let us drill in ANWR" is a
*major* Republican talking point. It's not even a minor fact. Needless
to say, that doesn't stop them from saying it over and over again
anyway. If this were a legitimate supply and demand issue there would
be gas lines and shortages all over the place. There would be talk of
rationing and mandated fuel standards for all domestically
manufactured vehicles. There is none of that despite a 450% increase
in the price of crude under Slappy The PetroChimps Exxon-friendly
"leadership" because there is no actual supply issue. This is a price
fixing scam. If it were anything else it would be almost literally the
end of the world as we know it and the white house and Congress would
be responding far differently than they have.

If companies like Exxon were to stop buying OPEC crude and only depend
on what they pump themselves at $17 to $30 a barrel(a high estimate)
you would be seeing those shortages. Exxon has to buy nearly half of
the crude it refines on the world market.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/05/news/companies/exxon_oil/index.htm
If you forced Exxon to keep it's pump prices low then you would be
forcing them to buy less crude on the world market thus creating the
shortages you are referring to. Sure, they could refine nothing but
their own oil and only have to charge a little over a buck a gallon to
make the same profit per unit that they currently do. But it wouldn't
last long at the pumps because they'd be around 2.1 million barrels
shy of what it takes to meet our daily demands. Chevron refines over
3 million barrels a day but they only pump around 1.7 million from
their own wells. Conoco refines nearly as much but only proiduces
around 774,000 barrels themselves. The rest they all have to buy at
currently $132 a barrel from Canada, Mexico and OPEC.
By stating that supply and demand is the cause for rising prices in no
way implies that there will be an instant shortage. It simply means
that demand is increasing and the supply is not. When demand
completely surpasses supply is when you will see shortages.
Regards
Starkiller

The Saudis told jr, the oil president, that they are supplying all the oil
that is demanded.
Nonetheless they increased production.

So, what happened? Did the magic of a free market take over?
Did the price drop?

Last closing price was $133.71....no drop.
Even more accelerating increases.

The reality? Cartel pricing or Oligopoly pricing?
Speculation?

There is no free market...that's a myth.

OPEC's worst nightmare may occur because of this.
OPEC never let the price get too high for fear their
customers would, over the long run, switch to alternate
sources of energy.

Once switched they will never go back. Pay attention
to the words "over the long run" because this can't
happen overnight. The first indicators have already
happened. Instead of the continuous rise in US
imports there was a slight decrease last I read.

[Starkiller]

Post by Sid9

Post by Starkiller
On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:59:01 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Helms

Post by Christopher Helms

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?

It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers. Excuse
me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?

Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?
Matt

"Gas is expensive because liberals won't let us drill in ANWR" is a
*major* Republican talking point. It's not even a minor fact. Needless
to say, that doesn't stop them from saying it over and over again
anyway. If this were a legitimate supply and demand issue there would
be gas lines and shortages all over the place. There would be talk of
rationing and mandated fuel standards for all domestically
manufactured vehicles. There is none of that despite a 450% increase
in the price of crude under Slappy The PetroChimps Exxon-friendly
"leadership" because there is no actual supply issue. This is a price
fixing scam. If it were anything else it would be almost literally the
end of the world as we know it and the white house and Congress would
be responding far differently than they have.

If companies like Exxon were to stop buying OPEC crude and only depend
on what they pump themselves at $17 to $30 a barrel(a high estimate)
you would be seeing those shortages. Exxon has to buy nearly half of
the crude it refines on the world market.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/05/news/companies/exxon_oil/index.htm
If you forced Exxon to keep it's pump prices low then you would be
forcing them to buy less crude on the world market thus creating the
shortages you are referring to. Sure, they could refine nothing but
their own oil and only have to charge a little over a buck a gallon to
make the same profit per unit that they currently do. But it wouldn't
last long at the pumps because they'd be around 2.1 million barrels
shy of what it takes to meet our daily demands. Chevron refines over
3 million barrels a day but they only pump around 1.7 million from
their own wells. Conoco refines nearly as much but only proiduces
around 774,000 barrels themselves. The rest they all have to buy at
currently $132 a barrel from Canada, Mexico and OPEC.
By stating that supply and demand is the cause for rising prices in no
way implies that there will be an instant shortage. It simply means
that demand is increasing and the supply is not. When demand
completely surpasses supply is when you will see shortages.
Regards
Starkiller

The Saudis told jr, the oil president, that they are supplying all the oil
that is demanded.
Nonetheless they increased production.
So, what happened? Did the magic of a free market take over?
Did the price drop?
Last closing price was $133.71....no drop.
Even more accelerating increases.
The reality? Cartel pricing or Oligopoly pricing?
Speculation?

Try reading the news sometimes:

"Oil's Wednesday rally was fed in part by a report from the Energy
Department's Energy Information Administration, which said crude
inventories fell by more than 5 million barrels last week. Analysts
had expected a modest increase."
http://tinyurl.com/6xu8wc

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices hit a fourth straight closing
record Wednesday - shooting over $133 a barrel - after the government
said crude and gasoline stockpiles decreased last week, surprising
analysts who were expecting an increase. "
http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/21/markets/oil_eia/index.htm?postversion=2008052115


Translation: SUPPLY FELL

Post by Sid9
There is no free market...that's a myth.
OPEC's worst nightmare may occur because of this.
OPEC never let the price get too high for fear their
customers would, over the long run, switch to alternate
sources of energy.
Once switched they will never go back. Pay attention
to the words "over the long run" because this can't
happen overnight. The first indicators have already
happened. Instead of the continuous rise in US
imports there was a slight decrease last I read.

Regards


Starkiller

[Eddie Haskell]

Post by Matt

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at
least
4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?

It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers. Excuse
me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?

Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.
Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.
Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?
Matt
"Gas is expensive because liberals won't let us drill in ANWR" is a
*major* Republican talking point. It's not even a minor fact.

That's NOT the argument. It's that we need to drill in ANWR and in a host or
other places along with more nuclear power and refineries. ANWR is just the
biggest known and the start, but we can't even get past the starting gate
because the democrats are beholden to the environmentalists and so spoon
feed your dumbass stupid talking points like it would take ten years and
wouldn't supply ALL our needs. THOSE are fucking talking points and they are
stupid as hell of the face of it. Goddamn shame for this nation that they
work on you fucking morons.

Post by Matt
Needless
to say, that doesn't stop them from saying it over and over again
anyway. If this were a legitimate supply and demand issue there would
be gas lines and shortages all over the place. There would be talk of
rationing and mandated fuel standards for all domestically
manufactured vehicles. There is none of that despite a 450% increase
in the price of crude under Slappy The PetroChimps Exxon-friendly
"leadership" because there is no actual supply issue. This is a price
fixing scam. If it were anything else it would be almost literally the
end of the world as we know it and the white house and Congress would
be responding far differently than they have.

The price of gasoline is set by speculators who can clearly see that the
demand is rising while the supply is not. It's like the stock market is a
precursor to economic conditions. A prediction by experts who have money on
the line.

Really Helms, you couldn't think your way out of wet paper sack.

-Eddie Haskell

[Joe Irvin]

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are
So you admit you rightards will outright lie to make a point.
It's about time one of you Goddamn liars came right out and said it.

"A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3
billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5%
probability) barrels"
Get that? "At LEAST 4.3 billion"? Now show us where your 3.5 billion
estimate is factual while his 10 to 15 estimate is a lie, ya goddamn liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
If it is all the same, I'd rather stick with USGS numbers. Check them

Pssst.. Hey, Einstein, whatzat say between those little parentheses thingies
in my post?

It says you used a 1998 survey. I chose to use more up to date
numbers. Excuse
me if I didn't make that clear, my apologies.

Post by Eddie Haskell

Post by Eddie Haskell
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
I'll save you the effort of digging through the document, its the sort
of thing only a geologist
Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (table 1).
Quantities of technically recoverable oil are not expected to be
uniformly distributed throughout the ANWR 1002 area. The undeformed
area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 3.4 and 10.2 billion
barrels of oil (BBO) (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of
6.4 BBO. The deformed area (fig. 2) is estimated to contain between 0
and 3.2 BBO (95- and 5-percent probability), with a mean of 1.2 BBO.
*****************
The numbers you are both citing are "somewhat" correct. While it IS
possible to take oil from a deformed area (meaning
that the strata are no longer lying level and may be punctuated by
other rock groups), it is a lot harder. So the realistic
numbers are 3.4 to 10.2, with a most likely result closer to the 3.4
billion barrel range (95% confidence). By the way,
check out the bar charts below that. It shows the amount of oil which
is not only TECHNICALLY feasible to remove, but
also the (estimated) prices for which that oil would be commercially
viable.
Oh, finally, the US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day (at
least by the last estimate, back in 2004). That means
that every 50 days, we use a billion barrels (20 million * 50 = 1000
million or 1 billion). That means that even if the BEST
case of 10 billionn barrels were there, you are looking at a 500 day
supply (more or less). That's about a year and a half.
Matt

So because no single well would supply all our needs for very long, no
drilling should be done? Is that your argument, or are you just throwing
that out there for the hell of it?

Nope, I'm not "throwing that out there" for much of anything. You were
arguing over numbers, I gave you some. I also pointed out that the
numbers
don't mean much when you use them in context.

Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure and potential damage
to
a fragile area, I hardly think that a year and a half of supply is
worth it,
but that's my personal opinion.

A lot of the infrastructure is already there. Probably at most it would be
adding to it. BTW this could have been done years ago. Remember the
pipeline ... the big argument was it effect on the moose (environment). Oil
companies are use to drilling in environmental unfriendly areas, ANWR is not
different.

Would you be for chasing every potential puddle of oil in the country,
rather
than spending that time (and money) developing alternatives?

This isn't potential, it real oil that we can use. We should (oil
companies) chase after potential puddles of oil while at the same time
trying to develop alternatives. We don't know how long it will take to get
these alternatives ... we will not even think about using nuclear energy, a
mistake in my opinion. The number of barrells of oil coming out of ANWR
would surely put downward pressure on the rising price of oil, IMO. Mr
Haskell make some good points.



Matt

[Starkiller]

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are, DNC toady. We need to be
increasing domestic production in ANWR and all across the country and
building nuke plants, but of course we can't because the democrats are
beholden to the environmentalists so they give you idiotic excuses to parrot
to cover their sorry self-serving asses. I'll never forget how the democrats
were claiming that ANWR would take 8 - 10 years so it wasn't worth it back
in 95 when Clinton vetoed it. That one is almost as stupid as the ANWR
wouldn't supply all our needs so it isn't worth it you toadies are parroting
today.
It's morons like you who parrot the party line instead of thinking for
yourselves who are responsible for high gas and the floundering economy, ya
fucking idiot.
-Eddie Haskell

Not to worry Ed. They have a plan. They're going to SUE OPEC.
ROFLMAO



Regards


Starkiller

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are, DNC toady. We need to be
increasing domestic production in ANWR and all across the country and
building nuke plants, but of course we can't because the democrats are
beholden to the environmentalists so they give you idiotic excuses to parrot
to cover their sorry self-serving asses. I'll never forget how the democrats
were claiming that ANWR would take 8 - 10 years so it wasn't worth it back
in 95 when Clinton vetoed it. That one is almost as stupid as the ANWR
wouldn't supply all our needs so it isn't worth it you toadies are parroting
today.
It's morons like you who parrot the party line instead of thinking for
yourselves who are responsible for high gas and the floundering economy, ya
fucking idiot.
-Eddie Haskell

Not to worry Ed.  They have a plan.  They're going to SUE OPEC.

According to the vote count, it appears to be the Repug's plan as
well, nitwit.

[Starkiller]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are, DNC toady. We need to be
increasing domestic production in ANWR and all across the country and
building nuke plants, but of course we can't because the democrats are
beholden to the environmentalists so they give you idiotic excuses to parrot
to cover their sorry self-serving asses. I'll never forget how the democrats
were claiming that ANWR would take 8 - 10 years so it wasn't worth it back
in 95 when Clinton vetoed it. That one is almost as stupid as the ANWR
wouldn't supply all our needs so it isn't worth it you toadies are parroting
today.
It's morons like you who parrot the party line instead of thinking for
yourselves who are responsible for high gas and the floundering economy, ya
fucking idiot.
-Eddie Haskell

Not to worry Ed.  They have a plan.  They're going to SUE OPEC.

According to the vote count, it appears to be the Repug's plan as
well, nitwit.

As I asked another fool that raised the same point. That makes the
democrats less stupid how?

84 representatives showed that they have at least some sense. 324
just proved themselves to be complete idiots. And they wonder why
they have a 13% approval rating.



Regards


Starkiller

[Eddie Haskell]

Post by Starkiller

Post by Eddie Haskell

ANWR has an estimated 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil. Prudhoe Bay
was estimated at 10 billion barrels and is still producing 700,000
barrels a day.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, as usual.
ANWR has an estimated 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Current production at Prudhoe is 400,000 barrels a day.
Instead of just making shit up, do some research, ya fucking idiot.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/archives/numbersgame.html
But of course you won't since it will debunk all your lies.

It doesn't make a shit what the exact numbers are, DNC toady. We need to be
increasing domestic production in ANWR and all across the country and
building nuke plants, but of course we can't because the democrats are
beholden to the environmentalists so they give you idiotic excuses to parrot
to cover their sorry self-serving asses. I'll never forget how the democrats
were claiming that ANWR would take 8 - 10 years so it wasn't worth it back
in 95 when Clinton vetoed it. That one is almost as stupid as the ANWR
wouldn't supply all our needs so it isn't worth it you toadies are parroting
today.
It's morons like you who parrot the party line instead of thinking for
yourselves who are responsible for high gas and the floundering economy, ya
fucking idiot.
-Eddie Haskell

Not to worry Ed. They have a plan. They're going to SUE OPEC.
ROFLMAO

Yeah, I heard about that one. What a goddamned national embarrassment they
are..

-Eddie Haskell