The truth Democrats do not want you to know about Oil.
Einstein
Todays politicians like to quote a 10 year rule.
They constantly say this line:
Environment Florida spokeswoman Holly Binns told the Media General
news group that offshore drilling has no immediate impact on prices.
"It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those
resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply,” Binns
said, advocating renewable energy sources.
---
Obama told reporters that offshore drilling wouldn't bring relief to
consumers for five years — other Democrats say 10 years — at the
soonest.
---
Back in 1995, when President Clinton vetoed legislation to permit
drilling in ANWR, environmentalists argued that it would do no good
for the U.S. to permit drilling in the Alaskan refuge because
Americans wouldn't see any oil for 10 years.
---
"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of
these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-
Wis., said during the bill mark-up session.
---
Randall Luthi, who heads the Interior Department's Minerals Management
Service that operates the federal offshore energy leasing program, is
a proponent of expanding offshore oil and gas production including in
some areas now off limits.
However, he says, "It will be 5 to 10 years or longer for actual
production" even if leases are made available today.
---
1989: “Well, let me just explain to you…if you approved drilling in
the Arctic slope today…it wouldn’t come online for 10 to 12 years.” —
Rep. George Miller (D-CA)
---
“You cannot get that oil out of ANWR quickly; it takes 10 to 15 years
of extensive drilling to do that.” — Rep. Phil Sharp (D-IN) Lemmesee
---
1995: “For one thing, [they] assume that oil prices will be more than
$30 a barrel in the year 2000. What are the chances of that? Right now
the price of West Texas intermediate crude is $19.00 a barrel.” —
Bruce Babbitt, Bill Clinton’s Interior Secretary.
---
2000: “[ANWR] would take 10 years to come on line and provide only a
few month’s worth of energy supply for this country.” — Rep. Earl
Blumenauer (D-OR)
---
2005: “It will open [ANWR] to oil and gas drilling all for the sake
of a 6-month supply of oil that will not even be available for 10
years.” — Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
---
2005: “Drilling in ANWR will do little to reduce our current
dependence on foreign oil because it will take more than 10 years,
yes, more than 10 years to process what little oil may be there.” Rep.
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
---
2008: "It is well known on both sides that it will take eight to 10
years before any oil could be produced in ANWR."— Senator Jeff
Bingaman (D-NM)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now lets start breaking down the many arguments.
1) Ten Years!
Prudoe Bay oil required a pipeline across alaska, the whole length of
it, and to make oil fields in a difficult environment far from any
existing infrastructure. It took 4 years to get it to full capacity.
Yes a mere 4 years.
There is oil throughout the United States which can be tapped rather
quickly. Once oil is found it costs about $500,000 to drill it up.
This represents a crew of roughly 10 people working 24 hours a day at
high income ranges. So this means probably less than 1/2 a year (It is
hard to get exact statistics, but the TV show about oil drilling is
pretty cool on the topic)
So therefore with an existing pipeline, with quick infrastructure
growth it's not to hard to tap the oil. I project 2 years to get ANWR
oil. They do not need to get oil to a far distance in this case, they
just need to connect to the existing oil pipes.
2) There is not enough oil
We import roughly 1.6 million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia per a
day. ANWR is said to have 10 billion barrels. That would mean 17 years
of not importing from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, after Canada, is our
biggest source of oil by appearances at this time.
However a simple note shows that Prudoe Bay was estimated to have only
2/3's of the Oil that has been drilled and is still known to exist.
Another simple note also applies. Why only drill ANWR? Why not
offshore, ANWR, the Bakken oil formation, and shale oil? The United
States has more oil than OPEC combined when we use just those four
sources. We do not even need to use any existing tapped oil sources to
beat those oil producers.
3) Environmental damages.
a) The only significant oil disaster from Alaska oil was Exxon Valdez.
Omitting that there has been no impact from the pipelines on the
different animals, no leaks, no issues what so ever. None, Nil, Nul,
Nilch, Nada, and Nothing. Exxon Valdez was a drunk captain of a ship
and a company not following shipping oil laws.
b) If Texas was never drilled for oil and was now being drilled with
strict limits on how many wells they could place, they would use
horizontal drilling to help increase the flow. This new drilling
technique allows us to use 1% of the land we used to use. Yes 1%!
4) No change in cost for the next few years:
Futures trading is about what the price will be 1 to 2 years out. An
imminent source in that range being available would collapse prices in
the future trading. People could not try to 'prop up prices' since
they would take a beating the size of King Kong to a 1st grader. It's
just not right, well ok... maybe in this case we can laugh at the
victims of such stupidity if they tried to prop the prices up.
5) It affects the world!
Well if you wish to think that, then ok go ahead. But I ask you
this... Why does ANY NATION ON EARTH EXCLUDING THE UNITED STATES drill
instantly the moment they find oil? Why is China drilling offshore
AMERICAN oil and America wont? Why are we sending billions to Saudi
Arabia and other OPEC thugs when we could instead undercut them and
laugh? Why not keep the money in a more responsible nation at that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republican Precinct Committeeman
Debate me, and I respond with enthusiasm, flame me and be ridiculed,
troll me and starve.
President Barack? Just say NObama!
Tartarus
> 2) There is not enough oil
> We import roughly 1.6 million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia per a
> day. ANWR is said to have 10 billion barrels. That would mean 17 years
> of not importing from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, after Canada, is our
> biggest source of oil by appearances at this time.
If we drilled in ANWR, the oil would not belong to the US. It would
belong to the oil companies, who would sell it on the open market at
the current price.
All it would do is increase the total supply an estimated maximum of
1.2%.
That estimate is from the US govmt. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf
Suppose the price of gas stayed constant at $4.00 until the ANWR oil
came to full production. Then, assuming linearity, we might expect a
reduction of 1.2% in the price, bringing it down to $3.95.
I maintain that we should prepare the areas for drilling, but not sell
on the open market. Reserve that oil and gas for emergencies, such as
a real war or a massive energy project to *really* reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, such as nuclear plants, wind and solar.
Tartarus
Thom
consumers would see little savings at the pump.
"Einstein" <mich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2213bc1d-be24-4f47...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Einstein
reduce the prices. Just there is an agenda to keep you from realizing
it. Do the math yourself, do the research. It's government getting
rich on our gas costs at this moment.
And to the first poster, did I say just ANWR? No I did not. But I
noted it's close to a oil pipeline, can be done economically, and with
little environmental impact if any at all. I also noted that such
fields have been under-noted in size as well. Historically all fields
have out-performed estimates except a very small percentage. While
individual oil wells have not had luck, this does not stand for
fields.
ANWR is one piece of a many parted puzzle. Put it together to find
savings for our economy, savings for ourselves, and less OPEC greed.
SgtMinor
<snip>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Now lets start breaking down the many arguments.
>
>
> 1) Ten Years!
> Prudoe Bay oil required a pipeline across alaska, the whole length of
> it, and to make oil fields in a difficult environment far from any
> existing infrastructure. It took 4 years to get it to full capacity.
> Yes a mere 4 years.
"WASHINGTON — Opening America's coastal waters to oil drilling, as John
McCain urged in an address Tuesday, is unlikely to provide Americans
with more oil for at least seven to 10 years.
That's the estimate from the American Petroleum Institute, the oil
industry trade group."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/41379.html
Those darn Democrats again!
>
> There is oil throughout the United States which can be tapped rather
> quickly. Once oil is found it costs about $500,000 to drill it up.
> This represents a crew of roughly 10 people working 24 hours a day at
> high income ranges. So this means probably less than 1/2 a year (It is
> hard to get exact statistics, but the TV show about oil drilling is
> pretty cool on the topic)
>
> So therefore with an existing pipeline, with quick infrastructure
> growth it's not to hard to tap the oil. I project 2 years to get ANWR
> oil. They do not need to get oil to a far distance in this case, they
> just need to connect to the existing oil pipes.
"Once oil is found." How long does that take? How much does that cost?
And once you think you've found oil, what do you do next? Here's an
overview: http://www.geomore.com/5%20steps%20to%20drill.htm
Also, from allexperts.com:
"Question:
could you let me know what the typical elements and cost would be for
shallow onshore oil wells of about 2000 feet depth in Tulsa Oklahoma."
"Answer
You will need to secure a lease, secure a title opinion from an
attorney. You will need to settle surface damages with the landowner.
You will need to have the location surveyed for a permit. You will need
to get a permit from the state to drill, You will need a bid from a
contractor to prepare the location for drilling. You will need to get
bids from drilling contractors to drill the well. You will need to get
bids on whatever you decided to furnish to the drilling contractor in
the way of mud, water, fuel, Etc., unless it is a turnkey bid. You will
need bids from the logging companies to do the surveys after the well is
drilled. You will need bids for pipe for the conductor pipe, the surface
casing and the long string. You will need bids for the tubing, packers,
and subs for the completion string. You will need bids from cementing
contractors for cementing the pipe in the ground or plugging the dry
hole. You will need bids for the wellhead, valves and gauges. You will
need bids from the casing crews to run your longstring. You will need
bids for the tanks, seperators, heater treaters, meters and gauges for
the surface equipment. You will need bids from contractors to install
the surface equipment. You will need bids for pipe to run flow lines
from the well to the pipeline. You will need bids from contractors to
tie in the flow line to the pipeline and set the meters. You will need
bids to clean up the location, build all weather roads to the location
build cattle gaps or gates to protect the landowners property or
livestock. Add up all of the costs and that is what it takes to drill a
typical well. There is no such thing as a typical well anywhere. The
costs of the overhead and geological work should be included in your
estimate somewhere, as these costs are real. Every price is subject to
the market availability on any given day. You had better figure in a
contingency for problems that develop such as a blowout (you can get
blowout insurance) stuck drill pipe, fishing jobs when stuff breaks off
and falls in the well bore, Etc. Since you are not established as a
company, all services will be paid in cash upon delivery. You will
probably need a consulting geologist and engineer on the project at
about $1000 per day each. Piece of cake."
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Oil-Gas-3147/oil-well-drilling-completion-1.htm
>
>
>
> 2) There is not enough oil
> We import roughly 1.6 million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia per a
> day. ANWR is said to have 10 billion barrels. That would mean 17 years
> of not importing from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, after Canada, is our
> biggest source of oil by appearances at this time.
Oil is fungeable. Just because the US stops buying Saudi Oil doesn't
mean Saudi oil doesn't get sold. It will be zero skin off any Saudi nose.
Our total daily imports are about 9.6 million barrels of oil. If your
ANWR numbers are correct there is only enough oil there to offset about
3 years of imports.
>
> However a simple note shows that Prudoe Bay was estimated to have only
> 2/3's of the Oil that has been drilled and is still known to exist.
> Another simple note also applies. Why only drill ANWR? Why not
> offshore, ANWR, the Bakken oil formation, and shale oil? The United
> States has more oil than OPEC combined when we use just those four
> sources. We do not even need to use any existing tapped oil sources to
> beat those oil producers.
Prudhoe Bay estimates were made 40 years ago and improved technologies
allowed the oil companies to get to more oil. A lot has changed since
the mid sixties.
>
>
> 3) Environmental damages.
> a) The only significant oil disaster from Alaska oil was Exxon Valdez.
> Omitting that there has been no impact from the pipelines on the
> different animals, no leaks, no issues what so ever. None, Nil, Nul,
> Nilch, Nada, and Nothing. Exxon Valdez was a drunk captain of a ship
> and a company not following shipping oil laws.
This, from the Christian Science Monitor: "Some 500 spills a year occur
in the Prudhoe Bay oil fields and along the 800-mile, three-decade-old
pipeline system."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0809/p02s01-usgn.html
Or: "Each year, the oil industry spills tens of thousands of gallons of
crude oil and other hazardous materials on the North Slope. In fact,
every day there is on average at least one spill either in the oil
fields or at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. From 1996 to 2004, there were
some 4,530 spills of more than 1.9 million gallons of diesel fuel, oil,
acid, biocide, ethylene glycol, drilling fluid and other materials. In
the Arctic, the environmental damage from oil spills is more severe and
lasts longer than in more temperate climates. Diesel fuel, for instance
-- the most frequently spilled substance on the North Slope -- is
acutely toxic to plants. Even after decades have passed, tundra
vegetation has been unable to recover from diesel spills."
http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts2.asp
>
> b) If Texas was never drilled for oil and was now being drilled with
> strict limits on how many wells they could place, they would use
> horizontal drilling to help increase the flow. This new drilling
> technique allows us to use 1% of the land we used to use. Yes 1%!
From the above cited nrdc.org article: "Toxic spills and air pollution
from permanent, year-round operations are destroying Alaska's fragile
North Slope.
Once part of the largest intact wilderness area in the United States,
Alaska's North Slope now hosts one of the world's largest industrial
complexes, spanning some 1,000 square miles of once-pristine Arctic
tundra. Prudhoe Bay and 26 other oilfields include the following:
* 28 oil production plants, gas processing facilities, and seawater
treatment and power plants
* 38 gravel mines
* 223 production and exploratory gravel drill pads
* 500 miles of roads
* 1,800 miles of pipelines
* 4,800 exploration and production wells
All of this activity is taking place in an exceptionally fragile region.
Because of the very short summer growing season, extreme cold at other
times of the year, and nutrient-poor soils and permafrost, vegetation
grows very slowly in the North Slope. Any physical disturbance --
bulldozer tracks, seismic oil exploration, spills of oil and other toxic
substances -- can scar the land for decades. The National Academy of
Sciences concluded it is unlikely that the most disturbed habitat will
ever be restored and the damage to more than 9,000 acres by oilfield
roads and gravel pads is likely to remain for centuries."
>
>
> 4) No change in cost for the next few years:
> Futures trading is about what the price will be 1 to 2 years out. An
> imminent source in that range being available would collapse prices in
> the future trading. People could not try to 'prop up prices' since
> they would take a beating the size of King Kong to a 1st grader. It's
> just not right, well ok... maybe in this case we can laugh at the
> victims of such stupidity if they tried to prop the prices up.
>
>
> 5) It affects the world!
> Well if you wish to think that, then ok go ahead. But I ask you
> this... Why does ANY NATION ON EARTH EXCLUDING THE UNITED STATES drill
> instantly the moment they find oil? Why is China drilling offshore
> AMERICAN oil and America wont? Why are we sending billions to Saudi
> Arabia and other OPEC thugs when we could instead undercut them and
> laugh? Why not keep the money in a more responsible nation at that?
Whatever little bit of oil we can manage to extract will be gobbled up
by world markets. For all the hyperactivity that some people want us to
engage in, we'll be lucky if we save a dime at the pump.
It's time to start developing alternatives while we still have a chance.
lorad
> Reducing 17% of our imports for 17 years would actually do a lot to
> reduce the prices. Just there is an agenda to keep you from realizing
> it. Do the math yourself, do the research. It's government getting
> rich on our gas costs at this moment.
>
>
> And to the first poster, did I say just ANWR? No I did not. But I
> noted it's close to a oil pipeline, can be done economically, and with
> little environmental impact if any at all. I also noted that such
> fields have been under-noted in size as well. Historically all fields
> have out-performed estimates except a very small percentage. While
> individual oil wells have not had luck, this does not stand for
> fields.
>
> ANWR is one piece of a many parted puzzle. Put it together to find
> savings for our economy, savings for ourselves, and less OPEC greed.
Oil is outdated and inimical to US security and its economy
(environment too)
Replenishable ethanol from biomass and algae is the way to go.
Bye bye dinosaur juice from terrorist nations.
OneTwoThree
"Tartarus" <tart...@rome.com> wrote in message
news:96090241-3c19-40d4...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 10:59 am, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2) There is not enough oil
>> We import roughly 1.6 million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia per a
>> day. ANWR is said to have 10 billion barrels. That would mean 17 years
>> of not importing from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, after Canada, is our
>> biggest source of oil by appearances at this time.
>
> If we drilled in ANWR, the oil would not belong to the US. It would
> belong to the oil companies, who would sell it on the open market at
> the current price.
the federal govt and the state of Alaska are paid a royalty for each barrel
pumped, silly boy. you could look it up
>
> All it would do is increase the total supply an estimated maximum of
> 1.2%.
or most likely there would be found a whole lot more. this was true of
Prudhoe Bay in the 70's. your leftbot talking points are nothing but a
smokescreen.
>
> That estimate is from the US govmt.
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf
>
> Suppose the price of gas stayed constant at $4.00 until the ANWR oil
> came to full production. Then, assuming linearity, we might expect a
> reduction of 1.2% in the price, bringing it down to $3.95.
this is what's known as "voodoo economics" who says? where do these figures
come from. recall that one (not the only one but one) component of price is
the expectation of scarcity
>
> I maintain that we should prepare the areas for drilling, but not sell
> on the open market. Reserve that oil and gas for emergencies, such as
> a real war or a massive energy project to *really* reduce our
> dependence on foreign oil, such as nuclear plants, wind and solar.
Strategic Longer Term Goals:
1) energy independence
2) significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions
3) eventual migration to renewable resources for 50-80% of our energy
needs
Things that must happen to achieve this:
1) nuclear energy, to meet increased demand AND to allow for eventual
elimination of electricity produced by natural gas, coal, and oil fired
plants
2) exploitation of our natural gas reserves (offshore drilling a necessity)
with most natural gas going to transportation requirements such as auto,
public transportation, etc
3) exploitation of domestic oil fields both offshore, and inland in places
like the Dakotas
(http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html)
4) exploitation of the oil shale under the Rockies, which is becoming
feasible at somewhere between 30-50 per equivalent barrel, according to a
number of different sources which can be Googled
5) all new construction build with a) high energy efficient materials,
including insulation and environmentally friendly materials and b) solar
energy panels and roofing materials which are now cost effective.
6) And yes, solar and wind farms where it makes sense. As in the southwest
and west for solar, and all over for wind.
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
>
> Tartarus
you on board? are you one of those leftbots who always says "no we cant" ?
instead of taking a page from your hero Obama's book "Yes we can! "
OneTwoThree
"lorad" <lora...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:ff93d3c5-2faa-403b...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
------------------------
it takes a plan.. what is YOUR plan?
remember to take into account the installed base.
.
OneTwoThree
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:vuu1849lumg4r6m9a...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:21:45 -0700, "OneTwoThree"
> <you...@notverysmart.ru> wrote:
>
>>> If we drilled in ANWR, the oil would not belong to the US. It would
>>> belong to the oil companies, who would sell it on the open market at
>>> the current price.
>>
>>the federal govt and the state of Alaska are paid a royalty for each
>>barrel
>>pumped, silly boy. you could look it up
>
I give up. I know that each and every citizen of alaska (who has been a
resident at least one year) gets a check for about a thousand dollars. The
government of Alaska gets its fair share too.
you apparently have a lot of time on your hands. why dont you do some
research and get back to us?
>
dillan
The most optimistic estimate for getting those oil barrels to the open
market is 7 year. That includes surveying, drilling, building
pipelines, etc.
Right now US consume about 20 million barrels a day. The whole world
requires 80 million barrels a day.
By the time these oil wells come online, the world would need about
100 to 110 million barrels a day. (China and/Or India will have
surpassed US)
These oil wells can produce about 5-7 million barrels a day.
Optimistically US can match the Saudi production rate of 9 million
barrels day.
Do you think adding 9 million barrels to 110 million barrel market
would reduce the price significantly?
Where is the refining capacity?
Also, some oil wells in Europe are reducing capacity, so the rate of
oil being pumped to the market will reduce in the future..
What will happen in 30 or so years when we run out of oil?
Think you stupid republicans.. think!.. this is not just an election
talking points... you are dealing with the lives 300 million people.
The only way we can secure energy independence is to stop using oil..
and have sustainable energy.
On Jul 19, 4:03 pm, "OneTwoThree" <you...@notverysmart.ru> wrote:
> <Nick...@Click.com> wrote in message
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
OneTwoThree
dear top posting MORON:
first of all, where does this "7 year" figure come from? is this what you
leftbots have been told to say now that so many are questioning the previous
"10 year" time to production fable you were parroting a few days ago?
1) The Alaskan pipeline was completed in less than four years and was
pumping a lot of oil from the time it was opened.
2) unlike you leftbots and the idiot congresspeople you worship, I and many
like me have been calling for a strategic energy plan that a) phases out CO2
producing electricity generation plants b) eliminates oil as a fuel for
transportation and c) allows us to become energy independent in 10-15 years.
What have you got? just surrender, that's all.
so shut the fuck up with your leftbot idiocy. you folks have NO plan, NO
clue, and NO future.
"dillan" <dfer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:56991ad0-e3de-497b...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
dillan
The 7 year estimate comes from the people who are much smarter than
you (which is apparently everyone).
What a moron you are... do you think it's just the pipe line that
needs to be built..? So we build the pipe line from Anwar to the
mainland and it will be magically filled with oil..?.. idiot !!
Fist of all, there needs to be a geographical survey, then there needs
to be environmental assessment plans and documents describing the
technologies used and the environmental impact.
Then if it's off shore, an oil rig need to be built based on the
weather of that area,
If it's ANWAR, then there has to be plan to deliver drilling equipment
to that area an an environmental plan needs to be developed. Also,
some parts of the arctic tundra can only be reached via ice roads, so
there is a small window.
7 years is the most optimistic estimate..
You can sell this BS to your under-educated right-wing nut jobs.
People with an 3 digit IQ will not buy any of this crap.
If you want to be energy independent, vote Democrat. Repukes have
screwed up the US for 7 year. McSame intends to make it worse..
McSame's energy independent plan and his gas tax plans are just
designed to morons like you, who believe things without research.
Morons who let others think for them. Morons like McSame and Bush, and
now.. YOU..
On Jul 20, 3:21 pm, "OneTwoThree" <you...@notverysmart.ru> wrote:
> dear top posting MORON:
>
> first of all, where does this "7 year" figure come from? is this what you
> leftbots have been told to say now that so many are questioning the previous
> "10 year" time to production fable you were parroting a few days ago?
>
> 1) The Alaskan pipeline was completed in less than four years and was
> pumping a lot of oil from the time it was opened.
>
> 2) unlike you leftbots and the idiot congresspeople you worship, I and many
> like me have been calling for a strategic energy plan that a) phases out CO2
> producing electricity generation plants b) eliminates oil as a fuel for
> transportation and c) allows us to become energy independent in 10-15 years.
>
> What have you got? just surrender, that's all.
>
> so shut the fuck up with your leftbot idiocy. you folks have NO plan, NO
> clue, and NO future.
>
> "dillan" <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote in message
dillan
Dear Right Wing Nut-Job
The 7 year figure comes from people are are much smarter than you.
People who knows the logistics of drilling..
You are a complete idiot.. just because you build a pipeline it
doesn't get filled up with oil magically. You have to drill it first.
Before you drill it.. you have to find it. Which usually takes years.
Once you find it, you have to do an environmental assessment. Which
means you have to study the wild life that will be impacted, etc etc.
Then if it's off shore, you have to build an off-shore oil rig which
can sustain the sever weather in that area. If it's on land, you still
have to build pumping stations, storage silos, etc.
Just because the right-wing morons don't have the 3 digit IQ that's
required to understand these things, it doesn't mean magically oil
will be pumped in 4 years.
You still haven't addressed any of the other issues I have mentioned
in my previous post.
Repukes are such undereducated morons. They let other people think for
them.
Get an education you right wing morons !!
On Jul 20, 3:21 pm, "OneTwoThree" <you...@notverysmart.ru> wrote:
> dear top posting MORON:
>
> first of all, where does this "7 year" figure come from? is this what you
> leftbots have been told to say now that so many are questioning the previous
> "10 year" time to production fable you were parroting a few days ago?
>
> 1) The Alaskan pipeline was completed in less than four years and was
> pumping a lot of oil from the time it was opened.
>
> 2) unlike you leftbots and the idiot congresspeople you worship, I and many
> like me have been calling for a strategic energy plan that a) phases out CO2
> producing electricity generation plants b) eliminates oil as a fuel for
> transportation and c) allows us to become energy independent in 10-15 years.
>
> What have you got? just surrender, that's all.
>
> so shut the fuck up with your leftbot idiocy. you folks have NO plan, NO
> clue, and NO future.
>
> "dillan" <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote in message
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
NOT TO WORRY YOU DUMBASS NAZI, THE OIL THAT THE PILE OF SHIT NAZI NEOCON
RETARDS GOT FROM STARTING DRILLING WHEN THOSE NEOCON SHITHEADS OWNED BOTH
THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS FROM 2001-2006 WILL START FLOWING ANYDAY NOW
BOMB THE WHITE HOUSE, KILL A NEOCON TODAY
Tartarus
> "Tartarus" <tarta...@rome.com> wrote in message
>
> news:96090241-3c19-40d4...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 16, 10:59 am, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> 2) There is not enough oil
> >> We import roughly 1.6 million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia per a
> >> day. ANWR is said to have 10 billion barrels. That would mean 17 years
> >> of not importing from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, after Canada, is our
> >> biggest source of oil by appearances at this time.
>
> > If we drilled in ANWR, the oil would not belong to the US. It would
> > belong to the oil companies, who would sell it on the open market at
> > the current price.
>
> the federal govt and the state of Alaska are paid a royalty for each barrel
> pumped, silly boy. you could look it up
How does that get us more oil? The oil is still sold on the open
market. It belongs to the oil companies, and the lease payments are
partially distributed to Alaska residents.
My point stands.
> > All it would do is increase the total supply an estimated maximum of
> > 1.2%.
>
> or most likely there would be found a whole lot more. this was true of
> Prudhoe Bay in the 70's. your leftbot talking points are nothing but a
> smokescreen.
I have been a conservative my whole adult life. Your insult just makes
you look like an idiot.
> > That estimate is from the US govmt.
> >http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf
>
> > Suppose the price of gas stayed constant at $4.00 until the ANWR oil
> > came to full production. Then, assuming linearity, we might expect a
> > reduction of 1.2% in the price, bringing it down to $3.95.
>
> this is what's known as "voodoo economics" who says?
No, it's not. To a first approximation, all economics is linear. If
the market was driven purely by supply and demand (it is not) this is
exactly how the price would be figured. This is how you would see it
in a freshman economics class.
> where do these figures
> come from.
The 1.2% is from the same government report quoted above.
> recall that one (not the only one but one) component of price is
> the expectation of scarcity
Hey, if you want to make a more complicated calculation, I guarantee I
can follow it. Be my guest.
> > I maintain that we should prepare the areas for drilling, but not sell
> > on the open market. Reserve that oil and gas for emergencies, such as
> > a real war or a massive energy project to *really* reduce our
> > dependence on foreign oil, such as nuclear plants, wind and solar.
>
> Strategic Longer Term Goals:
>
> 1) energy independence
good goal
> 2) significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions
good goal
> 3) eventual migration to renewable resources for 50-80% of our energy
> needs
good goal, but we may be able to do better
> Things that must happen to achieve this:
>
> 1) nuclear energy, to meet increased demand AND to allow for eventual
> elimination of electricity produced by natural gas, coal, and oil fired
> plants
Absolutely vital to any plan
> 2) exploitation of our natural gas reserves (offshore drilling a necessity)
> with most natural gas going to transportation requirements such as auto,
> public transportation, etc
I don't agree. We need to reserve natural gas for heating and
electrical generation.
> 3) exploitation of domestic oil fields both offshore, and inland in places
> like the Dakotas
> (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html)
Not without a real energy plan. Otherwise it will be used to maintain
the status quo.
> 4) exploitation of the oil shale under the Rockies, which is becoming
> feasible at somewhere between 30-50 per equivalent barrel, according to a
> number of different sources which can be Googled
Sure, but not without an energy plan, for the same reason as above.
> 5) all new construction build with a) high energy efficient materials,
> including insulation and environmentally friendly materials and b) solar
> energy panels and roofing materials which are now cost effective.
good plan
> 6) And yes, solar and wind farms where it makes sense. As in the southwest
> and west for solar, and all over for wind.
Indeed.
> http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
As you can see, I agree with most of Pickens' plan.
> you on board? are you one of those leftbots who always says "no we cant" ?
> instead of taking a page from your hero Obama's book "Yes we can! "
Man, you just made yourself look like an idiot again. Look before you
leap.
Tartarus
nobody
wrote:
>My first post just vanished.. so I'm going to try again..
>
>Dear Right Wing Nut-Job
>
And oddly, he called the poster a "Left Wing Nut-Job" in the first
post and a "Right Wing Nut-Job" in the second.
dillan
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:59:41 -0700 (PDT), dillan <dferna...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >My first post just vanished.. so I'm going to try again..
>
> >Dear Right Wing Nut-Job
>
> And oddly, he called the poster a "Left Wing Nut-Job" in the first
> post and a "Right Wing Nut-Job" in the second.
The "left-wing" part was a typo... I thought the post vanished because
I didn't see it, so when it came in. I removed it and tried again.
Siobhan Medeiros
> dear top posting MORON:
>
> first of all, where does this "7 year" figure come from? is this what you
> leftbots have been told to say now that so many are questioning the previous
> "10 year" time to production fable you were parroting a few days ago?
>
> 1) The Alaskan pipeline was completed in less than four years and was
> pumping a lot of oil from the time it was opened.
No, idiot, it wasn't pumping a drop of oil, it was just moving it.
There is a difference between a pipeline and a derrick.
The pipeline was just built to service pumps that were already in
operation.
>
> 2) unlike you leftbots and the idiot congresspeople you worship, I and many
> like me have been calling for a strategic energy plan that a) phases out CO2
> producing electricity generation plants b) eliminates oil as a fuel for
> transportation and c) allows us to become energy independent in 10-15 years.
> 3
Oh, you've been "calling" for it. Oh goody. Tell me, do you have an
idea for how to get there?
> What have you got? just surrender, that's all.
>
No, actually Carter was not only "calling" for all this back in the
seventies, he launched government research into finding alternatives.
Too bad Reagan shut all that down on behalf of his oil buddies,
otherwise you might be running 80% of your vehicles on ethanol like
that major world power, Brazil.
> so shut the fuck up with your leftbot idiocy. you folks have NO plan, NO
> clue, and NO future.
We have a plan. Step 1; throw all Republicans out of office and
consign them to the trash heap of history.
>
> "dillan" <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote in message
OneTwoThree
?Dear stupid left-wing nutjob,
ha ha
?The 7 year estimate comes from the people who are much smarter than
?you (which is apparently everyone).
so WHERE ARE THE CITES? Kos and Huffington Post dont count as credible
sources, no matter what they tell you to believe....
...
OneTwoThree
My first post just vanished.. so I'm going to try again..
>Dear Right Wing Nut-Job
says the left wing hatebot
>People who knows the logistics of drilling..
so WHERE ARE THE CITES? Kos and Huffington Post dont count as credible
sources, no matter what they tell you to believe....
>You are a complete idiot.. just because you build a pipeline it
>doesn't get filled up with oil magically. You have to drill it first.
>Before you drill it.. you have to find it. Which usually takes years.
so how come the Alaska pipeline was pumping oil at high capacity the day it
opened, which was less than four years after the day work started?
> Where is the refining capacity?
> Also, some oil wells in Europe are reducing capacity, so the rate of
> oil being pumped to the market will reduce in the future..
> What will happen in 30 or so years when we run out of oil?
> Think you stupid republicans.. think!.. this is not just an election
> talking points... you are dealing with the lives 300 million people.
> The only way we can secure energy independence is to stop using oil..
> and have sustainable energy.
so whats YOUR plan?
OneTwoThree
"Siobhan Medeiros" <sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ca14dc0e-a261-49b2...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 20, 12:21 pm, "OneTwoThree" <you...@notverysmart.ru> wrote:
>> dear top posting MORON:
>>
>> first of all, where does this "7 year" figure come from? is this what you
>> leftbots have been told to say now that so many are questioning the
>> previous
>> "10 year" time to production fable you were parroting a few days ago?
>>
>> 1) The Alaskan pipeline was completed in less than four years and was
>> pumping a lot of oil from the time it was opened.
>
> No, idiot, it wasn't pumping a drop of oil, it was just moving it.
> There is a difference between a pipeline and a derrick.
>
> The pipeline was just built to service pumps that were already in
> operation.
>
>
>>
>> 2) unlike you leftbots and the idiot congresspeople you worship, I and
>> many
>> like me have been calling for a strategic energy plan that a) phases out
>> CO2
>> producing electricity generation plants b) eliminates oil as a fuel for
>> transportation and c) allows us to become energy independent in 10-15
>> years.
>> 3
>
> Oh, you've been "calling" for it. Oh goody. Tell me, do you have an
> idea for how to get there?
actually, I have published my comprehensive plan many times on this and
other newsgroups, you idiot. go do a little research before you start
shooting off your hatebot mouth.
>
>> What have you got? just surrender, that's all.
>>
>
> No, actually Carter was not only "calling" for all this back in the
> seventies, he launched government research into finding alternatives.
> Too bad Reagan shut all that down on behalf of his oil buddies,
> otherwise you might be running 80% of your vehicles on ethanol like
> that major world power, Brazil.
so what do you think we should do NOW?
>
>> so shut the fuck up with your leftbot idiocy. you folks have NO plan, NO
>> clue, and NO future.
>
> We have a plan. Step 1; throw all Republicans out of office and
> consign them to the trash heap of history.
yeah, that'll solve the energy crisis, because once Obama and the dems
control everything they will drill and build nukes and finally rid us of our
dependence on foreign oil......
there will also be peace on earth and goodwill towards men.
and the mental diseases that afflict you and all your hate spewing leftbot
compadres will magically be cured.
Siobhan Medeiros
> "Siobhan Medeiros" <sbm2...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
Surrrreeeee..
>
>
> >> What have you got? just surrender, that's all.
>
> > No, actually Carter was not only "calling" for all this back in the
> > seventies, he launched government research into finding alternatives.
> > Too bad Reagan shut all that down on behalf of his oil buddies,
> > otherwise you might be running 80% of your vehicles on ethanol like
> > that major world power, Brazil.
>
> so what do you think we should do NOW?
Bring back Carter's initiatives. More biofuel research. More nuclear
plants. Wind power.
>
>
>
> >> so shut the fuck up with your leftbot idiocy. you folks have NO plan, NO
> >> clue, and NO future.
>
> > We have a plan. Step 1; throw all Republicans out of office and
> > consign them to the trash heap of history.
>
> yeah, that'll solve the energy crisis,
Guess what, there is no quick fix.
> because once Obama and the dems
> control everything they will drill
Probably not. It'll take 6-7 years to get ANWR producing.
>and build nukes and finally rid us of our
> dependence on foreign oil......
>
> there will also be peace on earth and goodwill towards men.
>
> and the mental diseases that afflict you and all your hate spewing leftbot
> compadres will magically be cured.
Yeah, let's just ignore it was your Republican buddies who landed us
in this mess in the first place.
dillan
> "dillan" <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:37107872-0ea2-421e...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> My first post just vanished.. so I'm going to try again..
>
> >Dear Right Wing Nut-Job
>
> says the left wing hatebot
America based on an allegiance to a party,
> >People who knows the logistics of drilling..
>
> so WHERE ARE THE CITES? Kos and Huffington Post dont count as credible
> sources, no matter what they tell you to believe....
how stupid do you have to be to ignore scientific facts just because
the publisher is somebody you don't like?
Grow up dude..
> >You are a complete idiot.. just because you build a pipeline it
> >doesn't get filled up with oil magically. You have to drill it first.
> >Before you drill it.. you have to find it. Which usually takes years.
>
> so how come the Alaska pipeline was pumping oil at high capacity the day it
> opened, which was less than four years after the day work started?
..Because the drilling and the other work has been done in advance.
The whole thing took waay more than the time it took to build the
pipeline.
> > Where is the refining capacity?
> > Also, some oil wells in Europe are reducing capacity, so the rate of
> > oil being pumped to the market will reduce in the future..
> > What will happen in 30 or so years when we run out of oil?
> > Think you stupid republicans.. think!.. this is not just an election
> > talking points... you are dealing with the lives 300 million people.
> > The only way we can secure energy independence is to stop using oil..
> > and have sustainable energy.
>
> so whats YOUR plan?
>
this is our plan..
First, you push for high fuel efficiency cars. This will reduce the
consumption significantly to keep the oil prices low.
You also, give a $1000 tax credit to the middle class to offset the
fule costs.
In the intermediate term, push for geo thermal heating and cooling.
This will further reduce the gas consumption.
Simultaneously, and in the long term, you push for wind and solar
energy.
It will take more than 10 years, but after that initial pain, we don't
have to worry about every having an energy crisis or price hikes based
to supply. This solution will work for all american except for the
greedy republicans and idiots like you who believe them.