New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices - Page 4

Because at the current rate, today, it's ~86 MBPD, if there is truly say a hundred year supply of oil in the ground, say at a rate of 100 MBPD, than an increase in U.S. domestic supply of 1 MBPD would only account for 1% of consumption, ten years from now.

So I guess that additional 1% of supply will have some effect on lowering gas prices, by the same amount, 1%.

So that, instead of $10.00/gallon, that extra supply will lower that cost to $9.90/gallon. D'oh!

I did. You dimissed it because it was "too old." I then showed several other examples. So it does happen. And as I said, I think you know it. You're just playing games.

Let's assume we can believe the 1% number: You don't think a 1% difference in worldwide supply would matter? And it's not just about worldwide supply..it's about how much less oil we can import. It's 1% of world production, but far more in terms of US consumption. Also, that's just ANWR. What would drilling other sources produce? 3%? 5%? Perhaps you could explain how much supply would make a difference?

Those projections aren't worth shit.

You presented a single data point, from 1920, apparently. This data point is not cited in the biased link you provided. The biased link then goes on to compare that apparent 1920 data point to all subsequent oil obtained from the ground.

In 1920, we would need to know what areas of the U.S. the USGS had conducted oil reserve estimates for, and given that it was 1920, what technologies were used at the time, and how many exploratory wells had occured and where these exploratory wells were located.

I then supplied a link to the USGS dated April 2008 that has a Mean estimate of 48.5 BBO for onshore oil reserves;

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

So an F5 number would be several times higher than the Mean of 48.5 BBO, and vise versa for F95.

So for the 5th time, present some evidence that the USGS grossly overestimates or grossly underestimates oil reserves, in any time period.

Remember a single purported data point doesn't constitute proof, unless you can provide the associated assessment areas, and subsequent oil obtained from those assessment areas, and what technologies were assumed economically viable at the time of the USGS assessment(s).

You really do show everyone your ignorance with regard to the subject matter.

But keep digging that hole deeper and deeper, let us all know when you've struck black gold, as I'm having fun.

The basic point is that no change in U.S. oil production will change the then going global price for world crude oil at that time. It's called the "free market." Supply must increase at a greater rate than demand for the price of oil to drop. Given that easily obtained oil is a very fixed finite resource, no one in their right mind, would drain their own oil resource, just to reduce the price that they would subsequently obtain from such a foolish policy.

The U.S. isn't just going to open up a 1 MBPD spigot in a single day, it would take years (if not more than a decade) to go from our current ~5+ MBPD production to ~6+ MBPD. Meanwhile, in that time period our, current 5+ MBPD continues unabated, which would deplete current "proven" reserves in less than 12 years.

You need to wake up, come out of whatever dreams you having, with respect to future U.S. oil production.

Continue posting in the pure belief threads, any topic where objective data can be applied, you really shouldn't post in, as it becomes very easy to defeat your spurious, specious, and wishful thinking.

... disprove a thing. Where's your evidence? Other than your own words, that is.

Oh, other than that you don't have a clue on the subject material.

That much has been glaringly obvious for years now.

[CENTER]
SDW's Imaginationland[/CENTER]

SDW2001:


What projections are worth shit?

Good point.

Facts or projections from reliable sources are required.

You can't say shit on an airplane.

I did. And you dismissed it....again. Also Frank, why is that changes in technology and accuracy should be considered for measuring oil, but not global temperature?


I provided a link, and you dismissed it. I then provided examples of several other places on Earth where oil was underestimated. You dismissed those, then focused solely on the USGS. I mean, how can you actually be challenging that "we" have underestimated oil reserves in the past?
Moreover, is it fun to act like an idiot, and have other idiots agree with you?


That's utterly laughable.


You simply are incapable of comprehending the most basic of points: World supply will continue to increase, not just US supply.


Frank: We're going to run out of oil in twelve years.


I'll bet you whatever you'd like that we're not going to run out of oil in the US in 12 years. Really...name it.


Whatever, Frank. I have nothing to prove to a Government Employee like yourself.

... you don't present any useful information, unless you count "I don't think so." as a sound logical rational and reasoned argument. Hint: It isn't.

Let me just add that I don't think I've ever seen a more incoherent post in PO!

SDW takes home the cake on this one.

And for the 6th time, since your original claim was the USGS grossly underestimates oil reserves, based on a web site's biased juxtaposition of a "purported" 88 year old USGS estimate with an "purported" estimate made 88 years later. You information does not meet the minimum requirements of cited reference(s).

And don't present a straw man argument that is irrelevent to the current discussion.

n00b!

I'm waiting for the "I know you are but what am I?" or maybe "I'm rubber and you're glue"

It's just so hard to watch.

Oh yea? well... "shit on an airplane"

So there.

You mean the type of arguments that only SDW can make, no data, no links, no references, no analysis.

To which I say: No problem (as in, SDW does not represent any form of challenge in a quantitative debate).

You forgot the part where he doesn't like and dismisses yours!

Uh, yea.. that was exactly what I was referring to.

You know what's going to funny? Fast forward 10 years from now when global warming has taken its toll on the planet, coastal cities are starting to flood, guess who's going to get the blame from Republicans? That's right. Democrats.

But that doesn't make logical sense, you say? Of course it doesn't.

Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near

... here: Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near

NBC Nightly News reports frankly that we're running out of oil.

But but but...my government told me it was just because of "market speculators" and I can go back to sleep...

Hey! Really good author. I haven't read that one but I have read " Stand On Zanzbar ".

This thread was so much more fun to read with FrankSargent on my ignore list. I encourage everyone to try it...

Awwwwwww!

You see I agree with Frank.

I think we should keep all of this discussion in one thread, somehow a lot of this topic has been discussed in the What Obama Really Believes thread. Both threads were started on the same date, this one several hours later.

Or maybe we'll just keep posting in both threads, I have no control over who posts where, with respect to USofA energy policy. Heck, maybe we need a new thread devoted to USofA energy policy?

Anyway, in the other thread, I added up the USofA's proven oil reserves, ~21.5 BBL and the current USGS estimate of onshore "recoverable" oil reserves of 48.5 BBL, for a total of 70 BBL.

I now have been through another Department of the Interior website, the Mineral Management Service (or MMS), and have found their most recent assessments for offshore "recoverable" oil reserves, see Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Assessment 2006 or just see Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Nations Outer Continental Shelf, 2006 (PDF file).

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Note that most of the GOM UTRR are in the central and western GOM where offshore drilling is not currently banned.

So now adding ~86 BBO to the previous total of 70 BBO gives a total of 156 BBO, which at the current production rate of ~ 5 MBPD (1.825 BBPY) will last ~85 years.

Or if we ramp up domestic oil production by 1 MBPDPY (0.365 BBPYPY) then we will reach 100% of our oil energy needs, assuming our consumption remains at ~21 MBPD (7.665 BBPY), in 16 years. This will remove _~76 BBO from the 156 BBO leaving 80 BBO. The remaining 80 BBO will be used up in ~10 additional years if production remains at 21 MBPD, or ~20 years using a uniform ramp down to zero.

So to reach oil energy independence would take 16 years plus 10 additional years for a total of 26 years to total depletion, or 36 years to total depletion using a uniform ramp down to zero.

Of course if all the retiring baby boomers get RV's with an SUV in tow, than this 156 BBO will be gone in just, oh I don't know, 10 years? \

... A Reassuring Lie line. BTW, no one noticed that you were gone, for my sake try to keep it that way.

... so very hard to watch...

Frank: We're going to run out of oil in 12 years.

Your "analysis" is utter bullshit. You're a condescending, arrogant government employee with too much time on your hands. Speaking of which, you spend a lot of time raping the taxpayer by trolling on AI. Tell us Frank, since you don't "hide behind" your screen name, where exactly do you work? Go ahead. Don't be scared.

I work in the private sector now, doing contract work for the USACE ERDC. But I'm also in semi-retirement, and my current contract work is winding down, the project I'm working on ends this year.

See my recent post above, where I've added the offshore numbers to my "quick and dirty" analysis. Which I think is better than just carping;

Frank: We're going to run out of oil in 12 years.

n00b!

[CENTER]
Where in this picture is SDW? Hint: He's full of cracks.[/CENTER]

jimmac, I don't think you've made a single coherent point since you've been posting here. You make wild assertions and predictions, then celebrate on the rare occasion that random chance hands you a victory. Hell, you practically have your own language.

"No one's buying today"

"People are mad at Dubya"

"McCain is no better"

"Obama would probably favor programs for the poor and less fortunate"

"Foreshadowing of things to come"

"We've been through this"

"Things aren't as good as they should be"


You can't use the English language. You apparently don't understand how the "reply-quote" button works. Really...what is it you do here?

Excellent question.

Blahddy, blah, blah, blah! You're fond of picking on everything except the subject at hand aren't you. People who do that don't have an argument left and they know they're losing.

Pot. Kettle. jimmac.

I haven't been the one talking about other subjects like spelling now have I?

Its quite amusing, in virtually every thread SDW is having it handed to him, and has pretty much gone for personal ad-homs and spellings....And we still have what, 5 months to go. Keep it up chaps, the downward spiral has begun, and the marbles are rolling away one by one.

Hopefully, we can push him to mental breakdown by Christmas.

Well here's some depressing news on the subject of oil.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/26/mark...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Oil hits $140 for the first time

I wouldn't worry, the oil crash is coming



just make sure you dont have any financial investments that are tied to oil.