What Obama Really Believes

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by midwinter

I hate to break it to you, dude, but you're rolling. And the more you talk and don't say "Dear god, that was a completely deplorable thing for them to do and they should be ashamed of themselves for ever allowing that to go on the air, whether or not they're so stupid that they didn't see that it had obvious racial connotations," the more you're rolling.

So the more we disagree, more racist I am. Nice. Well we do disagree, and it doesn't make me racist in any sense. It wasn't deplorable. It was a fucking rhyme, mid. And I don't hear anyone outside of AI throwing a fit about it, so clearly it's not an issue for most people.

That is absolutely correct.

Thanks.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by SDW2001

So the more we disagree, more racist I am. Nice. Well we do disagree, and it doesn't make me racist in any sense. It wasn't deplorable. It was a fucking rhyme, mid. And I don't hear anyone outside of AI throwing a fit about it, so clearly it's not an issue for most people.

Roll, SDW, roll! You carry that water!

[addabox]

Originally Posted by groverat

what Obama Actually Believes...

- Fucking White Bitches Cures Your Aids.

- Anybody Rollin' On Less Than 22s Be A Mark-ass Punk Bitch.

- Nationalized Planned Economies Operate For The Overall Good Of The Proletariat.

- Mccain Can't Lift His Arms Because He's Actually A robot From The 1920s.

- Air Force One Has A Secret Room For Hotboxing. (fyi - This Is Why He's Running For President.)

- He Can Replace The President's Fitness Medal With The Choom Gang Bonghitter Award In Our Nation's Elementary Schools.

- If He Swears Into Office On A Koran, He Will Only Get Blessings From The Ja Almighty If He Hollows Out That Koran And Puts A Cd Copy Of Peter Tosh's "legalize It" In There.

- A System Of Healthcare That Helps Only The Healthy And The Wealthy Does Not Live Up To America's Promise.

- Baba Booey Baba Booey Howard Stern's Penis Baba Booey Baba Booey

This Is All True Although He Denies It Now He Is A Liar

[addabox]

OK, what is this weird shit where all caps comes out with just the first letter of everY word capitalized, and quoting someone also makes the first letter of every word capitalized?

GROVERAT MAYBE YOU HAVE SOME INSIGHT INTO THIS.

Oh great, now it decides to stick with all caps, in the post I try to ask about it.

Edit: I wonder if it only does that if you quote someone, so both the quote and the post get the first letter cap treatment...

[addabox]

Originally Posted by addabox

ok, What Is This Weird Shit Where All Caps Comes Out With Just The First Letter Of Ever Work Capitalized, And Quoting Someone Also Makes The First Letter Of Every Word Capitalized?

Groverat Maybe You Have Some Insight Into This.

Oh Great, Now It Decides To Stick With All Caps, In The Post I Try To Ask About It.

Edit: I Wonder If It Only Does That If You Quote Someone, So Both The Quote And The Post Get The First Letter Cap Treatment...

Is That The Case? Aha.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by addabox

This Is All True Although He Denies It Now He Is A Liar

he only said it because he was away from the teleprompter, with its insidious suggestion that he is being controlled by other, unseen, forces.

[midwinter]

it's if your only content is in caps.

[addabox]

Originally Posted by midwinter

he only said it because he was away from the teleprompter, with its insidious suggestion that he is being controlled by other, unseen, forces.

My Google research suggests that Louis Farrakhan owns a controlling interest in Bean Pie Media, a major supplier of teleprompters to Manchurian Solutions, LTD, the largest US provide of turnkey studio systems-- as used by Dan Rather.

Naturally, they've done everything possible to cover their tracks, but they never counted on me and my basement and my copy of Photoshop, the internet and 40 cases of Cheetohs and Dr. Pibb.

I should have something up on my blog by midnight-- hang onto your tinfoil hats people, this is going to get hot.

[addabox]

Originally Posted by midwinter

it's if your only content is in caps.

So, I CAN DROP OUT A SINGLE LETTER AND HAS CAPZ?

Excellent.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by e1618978

I know that you don't believe in CO2 greenhouse effects, and I have no interest in convincing you - but 100 years? Show me the math - I get 12 years (1 trillion barrels reserves/82 billion barrels per year), but we will never run out because it will get too expensive to use before we finish pumping all the oil out of the ground.

Frank: We have 12 years of oil left.

[franksargent]

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Frank: We have 12 years of oil left.

Address enumbers post with some actual data TYVM.

[e1618978]

Originally Posted by franksargent

Address enumbers post with some actual data TYVM.

More optimistic numbers - 2400 billion barrels reserve

http://environment.newscientist.com/...-reserves.html

I kind of doubt that this is true, since when OPEC was formed all the OPEC countries started lying and inflating their reserve numbers to get a bigger piece of the pie.

Al-Husseini thinks that the real number is more like 900 billion barrels.

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

But lets use the 2400 billion barrel number, because it is the most optimistic one I have found.

I was wrong about the consumption figure - the anticipated oil consumption over the next few decades is more like 50 billion barrels/year, not 83.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html

So even with the most optimistic numbers, we have 48 years of supply - not 100, and we probably have more like 18 with more realistic reserve numbers. I can't get 100 years no matter what - of course the price will skyrocket over that time period, and we will still have oil in the ground 100 years from now because people will stop using oil (either from dying or moving to alternatives).

[midwinter]

Do those numbers take into account the exponential rise in China's oil consumption?

[franksargent]

Originally Posted by e1618978

More optimistic numbers - 2400 billion barrels reserve

http://environment.newscientist.com/...-reserves.html

I kind of doubt that this is true, since when OPEC was formed all the OPEC countries started lying and inflating their reserve numbers to get a bigger piece of the pie.

Al-Husseini thinks that the real number is more like 900 billion barrels.

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

But lets use the 2400 billion barrel number, because it is the most optimistic one I have found.

I was wrong about the consumption figure - the anticipated oil consumption over the next few decades is more like 50 billion barrels/year, not 83.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html

So even with the most optimistic numbers, we have 48 years of supply - not 100, and we probably have more like 18 with more realistic reserve numbers. I can't get 100 years no matter what - of course the price will skyrocket over that time period, and we will still have oil in the ground 100 years from now because people will stop using oil (either from dying or moving to alternatives).

... current (and likely) higher future prices. More oil will be recoverable as long as there is demand and the price remains at current levels (but I expect prices to continue to rise).

What I would contest is the current (and likely) future consumption;



Both these figures show world consumption already exceeds 80 MBPD, with current high prices we know that what is in the ground and profitable at $2.00/gallon, is less than what is in the ground and profitable at $4.00/gallon, is less than what is in the ground and profitable at $8.00/gallon, is less than what is in the ground and profitable at $16.00/gallon, ... So at 100 MBPD that's 36.5 BBPY, your number suggests 137 MBPD to get to 50 BBPY.

And no, I don't think oil reserves are 1:1 proportional to crude oil pricing, I think the ratio is significantly less than 1:1.

One thing odd about the EIA is their 2008 Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (Revised Early Release) (full report available June 25, 2008) Next Release Date: December 2008

Go to their Year-by-Year Reference Case Tables and open up their Excel spreadsheet.

The highest $/barrel (imported crude oil) in Table 1 is $72.77/barrel (2008, this year), followed by $68.32/barrel (in 2009, next year), the average price for imported crude oil between 2008 and 2030 is $56.50/barrel (all prices in 2006 dollars).

Now, I don't know about you, but oil has been in the $130 to $140 per barrel price range lately, I think that when the EIA releases their revised 2008 outlook (later this week), it might not look like anything currently on that webpage.

EDIT:

[e1618978]

Originally Posted by midwinter

Do those numbers take into account the exponential rise in China's oil consumption?

Well, once the price rises high enough it won't be exponential anymore. That is the tricky bit - supply and demand set the price, but...

supply is uncertain (most people don't believe that the stated reserves are 100% real oil, and also as franskagent said more oil becomes exploitable as the price rises)

and demand is only inelastic until you have to start making choices (like "buy oil or buy food?").

China has a history of doing whatever it can to use its inexpensive labor pool to replace expensive components. When you look at a Chinese made tube amp you can tell right away it was made in China - if they can save 25 cents in parts by adding an hour labor they do it. Look at this - made by hand via an amazing level of skill, and it sells for $16. The thing should be in a museum or something it is so good - I envy the dexterity of whoever made it.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Stepped-Attenuat...QQcmdZViewItem

So they are exponentially using oil, and will soon have to cut back - but they will just pile on extra human labor to compensate. The Chinese totally kick ass.

[@_@ Artman]

Originally Posted by e1618978

The Chinese totally kick ass.

Indeed. World Cement Production (and China is Certainly Using It)



Annual production of cement by country in billions of metric tons. Click to expand. Source: USGS 2006 report (PDF) and the USGS 2008 report (PDF).

Former brother-in-law works for a local cement contractor and about two years ago his company couldn't get concrete for large projects. I believe it's subsided, but China is a good example of progress gone wild. Now just wait until India catches up.

[franksargent]

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Indeed. World Cement Production (and China is Certainly Using It)



Annual production of cement by country in billions of metric tons. Click to expand. Source: USGS 2006 report (PDF) and the USGS 2008 report (PDF).

Former brother-in-law works for a local cement contractor and about two years ago his company couldn't get concrete for large projects. I believe it's subsided, but China is a good example of progress gone wild. Now just wait until India catches up.

When you mentioned cement, I immediately thought of reinforced concrete. Which requites steel rebar. Of course there is also steel framed buildings, ship building, etceteras.

Sure enough China leads the pack in Iron and Steel and Iron Ore production.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by e1618978

More optimistic numbers - 2400 billion barrels reserve

http://environment.newscientist.com/...-reserves.html

I kind of doubt that this is true, since when OPEC was formed all the OPEC countries started lying and inflating their reserve numbers to get a bigger piece of the pie.

Prove that. I think it's the exact opposite. Their interest is to understate their reserves, because it keeps the perception of tighter supply.

Al-Husseini thinks that the real number is more like 900 billion barrels.

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

But lets use the 2400 billion barrel number, because it is the most optimistic one I have found.

I was wrong about the consumption figure - the anticipated oil consumption over the next few decades is more like 50 billion barrels/year, not 83.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html

So even with the most optimistic numbers, we have 48 years of supply - not 100, and we probably have more like 18 with more realistic reserve numbers. I can't get 100 years no matter what - of course the price will skyrocket over that time period, and we will still have oil in the ground 100 years from now because people will stop using oil (either from dying or moving to alternatives).

That's 48 years of production using currently proven resources. There are many resources that are categorized as "unproven" for various reasons. The point is that we don't have "12 years of oil left." Jesus.

But guess what Frank will do? He'll now claim that 48 years is the real number, and that I was 100% off in my estimate. He'll then ignore that his estimate was 400% off. Just watch.

[franksargent]

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Prove that. I think it's the exact opposite. Their interest is to understate their reserves, because it keeps the perception of tighter supply.

Prove it? That's the point, that no one except those sitting on top of that oil can prove it. The conventional wisdom is that the Middle East oil producing nations publicly overstate their proven oil reserves.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That's 48 years of production using currently proven resources. There are many resources that are categorized as "unproven" for various reasons. The point is that we don't have "12 years of oil left." Jesus.

But guess what Frank will do? He'll now claim that 48 years is the real number, and that I was 100% off in my estimate. He'll then ignore that his estimate was 400% off. Just watch.

Wrong. Estimated reserves in order Proven reserves are 1,136.7 BBL, and I doubt this proven estimate is 400% too low!

But for the sake of argument let's assume it's a low estimate by 300%, that means oil taken from the ground will be 3X "proven " reserves, or 3,400 BBL, so at a rate of 36.5 BBPY (~100 MBPD) that's a 93 year supply. Divide 93 years by three and we currently have a 31 year supply at 100 MBPD of "proven" reserves. In other words, we probably have less than a 50 year supply of "easy" or relatively "cheap" oil.

But how difficult will it be to extract all this oil and what type of oil will this be? We're not talking about light sweet crude oil or West Texas Intermediate (WTI). It will be much more expensive to extract and refine than the majority of oil extracted to date or proven in the ground. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we are extracting the most easily obtainable oil and the least costly to refine.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by franksargent

Prove it? That's the point, that no one except those sitting on top of that oil can prove it. The conventional wisdom is that the Middle East oil producing nations publicly overstate their proven oil reserves.



Wrong. Estimated reserves in order Proven reserves are 1,136.7 BBL, and I doubt this proven estimate is 400% too low!

But for the sake of argument let's assume it's a low estimate by 300%, that means oil taken from the ground will be 3X "proven " reserves, or 3,400 BBL, so at a rate of 36.5 BBPY (~100 MBPD) that's a 93 year supply. Divide 93 years by three and we currently have a 31 year supply at 100 MBPD of "proven" reserves. In other words, we probably have less than a 50 year supply of "easy" or relatively "cheap" oil.

But how difficult will it be to extract all this oil and what type of oil will this be? We're not talking about light sweet crude oil or West Texas Intermediate (WTI). It will be much more expensive to extract and refine than the majority of oil extracted to date or proven in the ground. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we are extracting the most easily obtainable oil and the least costly to refine.

Perhaps you'd like to explain your prior statement then...that we have 12 years of oil left. Are you changing your opinion now?

[midwinter]

No that I want to wade into this, but by "X years of oil," haven't Frank and e#s simply meant "X years of oil we can get at through current cheap methods"?

[franksargent]

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Perhaps you'd like to explain your prior statement then...that we have 12 years of oil left. Are you changing your opinion now?

The USofA has ~12 years of "proven" reserves or ~21 BBL at the current rate of extraction of 5+ MBPD, now I've also posted the current USGS estimate of ~48.5 BBL, which doesn't include "proven" oil reserves (at least that's my interpretation until shown otherwise).

So let's say the USofA has 48.5 + 21.5 = 70 BBL of recoverable oil at $75/barrel, and that we increase domestic production from 5 MBPD (or 1.825 BBPY) to 10 MBPD (or 3.65 BBPY) in 10 years, then uniformly ramp down to zero. That means that 70 BBL will last ~33 years.

Or at the current production rate of 5 MBPD that's a 38 year supply, if it ramps down uniformly to zero double that number to a 77 year supply of ever decreasing production (-5/75 MBPDPY).

So ramping to 10 MBPD reduces domestic supply by ~ 5 years (from 38 to 33 years). Or reduces supply by 44 years (from 77 years to 33 years).

So in that scenario were still importing 50+% of our total consumption of ~21 MBPD, at let's say $100/barrel.

But maybe the imports are at $200/barrel. and domestic is at $100/barrel, who knows?

The basic point is that the USofA doesn't have a whole lot of oil reserves at current USofA consumption rates, no matter how you do the math.

So here's what I find amazing, does one make a liberal assumption as to USofA recoverable oil, or does one make a conservative assumption as to USofA recoverable oil?

Any engineer worth their salt will always make the conservative assumption(s).

So, in essence, I'm the conservative in this argument, based on sound numbers, and you are the liberal in this argument, based on unsound (sic pie in the sky) numbers.

[franksargent]

Originally Posted by midwinter

No that I want to wade into this, but by "X years of oil," haven't Frank and e#s simply meant "X years of oil we can get at through current cheap methods"?

But I will say this, we should at least be drilling pilot wells (or using the current state-of-the-art (SOTA) in remote sensing technologies) in areas currently banned to better assess our own offshore oil reserves, I'd have to dig through the MMS website to determine potential offshore reserves given today's technologies.

But my suspicions are that currently, the private sector has more advanced remote sensing techniques than does our own government. But I could be very wrong on that one, so don't quote me on that one. I say this because you would think our government would seek the best leasing prices, thus it is in the public's best interest that we the public understand what's beneath our own feet, before we go about "giving it away" to the private sector.

The premise is that the oil industry already knows where the cheapest offshore oil might be, and that these areas are largely in currently banned locations. Thus the "special interests" have their MO for going after these potential sites, while the various state's and federal government are in a NIMBY state of mind, using tourism as a conventional "excuse." Doesn't "tourism" require consumables? Oh no, I'm experiencing a severe case of cognitive dissonance right now.

My understanding is that the most desirable oil is low sulfur and has enough over pressure, such that, for example, in offshore drilling you don't need to stick the "pump" at the bottom of 6,000 ft of ocean, and/or possibly have to have intermediate stages below the ocean surface.

See Oil Classification and Extraction of petroleum.

[e1618978]

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Perhaps you'd like to explain your prior statement then...that we have 12 years of oil left. Are you changing your opinion now?

It was my prior statement, and I miscalculated - the real number was 18 years as I posted in a correction earlier. And it absolutely is in the OPEC countries interest to overestimate their reserve numbers (well, it WAS in their interest - now that we have passed peak oil OPEC is worthless to them because they will be pumping at 100% from now on).

http://www.oilempire.us/quota-war.html

[franksargent]

Originally Posted by e1618978

It was my prior statement, and I miscalculated - the real number was 18 years as I posted in a correction earlier. And it absolutely is in the OPEC countries interest to overestimate their reserve numbers (well, it WAS in their interest - now that we have passed peak oil OPEC is worthless to them because they will be pumping at 100% from now on).

http://www.oilempire.us/quota-war.html

e#'s SDW is bickering with the numbers that I'm using, see A moment of cognitive dissonance or a reality check? post in the New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices thread.

12 years at the current production rate of 5+ MBPD is the time remaining for current proven reserves of ~21.5 BBO.

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by franksargent

e#'s SDW is bickering with the numbers that I'm using, see A moment of cognitive dissonance or a reality check? post in the New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices thread.

12 years at the current production rate of 5+ MBPD is the time remaining for current proven reserves of ~21.5 BBO.

Now you're linking to your own posts, federal employee.

[franksargent]

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Now you're linking to your own posts, federal employee.

Where in this picture is SDW? Hint he's full of cracks.

[jimmac]

And the trend for Obama continues.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...hift-to-obama/

CNN's Electoral Map: Two states shift to Obama

There are so many Obama threads this seemed the best place to put this.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by jimmac

And the trend for Obama continues.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...hift-to-obama/

CNN's Electoral Map: Two states shift to Obama

There are so many Obama threads this seemed the best place to put this.

He's going to get nearly 350 electoral votes.