or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices - Page 2

post #41 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

See trumptman's comments. By the way, your contention that domestic drilling will not help the situation we are in is utterly laughable.

Proof? Links? Evidence? Anything? Other than your beliefs and your wishing and your words.

I'm using EIA and USGS and MMS data for oil reserves, provable or otherwise.

McCain himself mentioned the EIA's 21 billion barrels of provable oil reserves, the EIA does an annual report on provable oil reserves, and it captures the then current price of crude oil in it's provable estimates.

If we were to rely 100% on domestic production, that 21 billion barrels would be gone in about THREE years. Their last report (2006) was published in November 2007, and in the 2006-7 time frame a barrel of oil was going for about $60-70/barrel, or roughly half of today's price per barrel.

Note also that in the 2000-3 timeframe a barrel of oil was going for $20-30/barrel. Note also that each year that a barrel of oil has gone up in price proven oil reserves in the U.S. have continued to drop.

[CENTER]
Quote:
Probable energy reserves: Estimated quantities of energy sources that, on the basis of geologic evidence that supports projections from proved reserves (see definition below), can reasonably be expected to exist and be recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions. Site information is insufficient to establish with confidence the location, quality, and grades of the energy source. Note: This term is equivalent to "Indicated Reserves" as defined in the resource/reserve classification contained in the U.S. Geological Survey Circular 831, 1980. Measured and indicated reserves, when combined, constitute demonstrated reserves.

Quote:
Proved energy reserves: Estimated quantities of energy sources that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions. The location, quantity, and grade of the energy source are usually considered to be well established in such reserves. Note: This term is equivalent to "Measured Reserves" as defined in the resource/reserve classification contained in the U.S. Geological Survey Circular 831, 1980. Measured and indicated reserves, when combined, constitute demonstrated reserves.

[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #42 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The Democrats have consistently opposed energy exploration in the name of environmentalism. They have opposed nuclear power, coal power, etc. They have supported "alternative fuels" like ethanol, helping to quadruple the price of corn, raise the price of milk, eggs, etc. They have gone after the "evil oil companies," who make less on a gallon of gas than the government does. They want to impose a windfall profits tax, which will do NOTHING to reduce gas prices...it will make them go higher. They have blocked construction of new refineries in the United States for 30 years.

Most Republicans favor adding supply to the market. Most favor building more refineries, turning to nuclear power, coal power, drilling ANWR and off the coasts, etc.

These are facts, and you cannot change them. Democrats are responsible for our current situation.

Edit: Speaking of exploiting the issue for political purposes, what are the Democrats doing? Back when gas was $2.80 a gallon, Pelosi said that the prices were the result of the Republican Congress. She had a "commonsense plan" to lower gas prices. What happened? Let me guess...Republican obstructionism? No. The answer is Democrats are beholden to the environmental lobby, who opposes adding supply that is readily available. Now that it's election time though, it's the Republican's fault...even though Democrats have been running Congress for 2 years. The whole thing is laughable. Democrats created this situation almost entirely on their own. Now they are the ones shifting the blame...not just to the GOP, but to the oil companies as well. Their "commonsense" plan includes passing a ridiculous windfall profits tax, ending subsidies, etc. What they don't understand is that corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. Those costs will be passed on the the customer. Do you really think that oil companies are going to lower gas prices to avoid a windfall profits tax? Of course not.

Am I the only one to notice that the price of a barrel of oil started to "skyrocket" after "we" invaded Iraq?

Oh, and in passing, this is one lifelong Democrat who has always supported nuclear power development here in the U.S. Always have, always will.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #43 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I never said you did. I said I was responding to such a claim. It was made by FormerLurker. That is why I said to keep up.

The thread isn't about increasing oil production now. It is about how Republicans are trying to exploit the oil issue. One of the reasons cited as proof of this is the fact that efforts begun now won't yield immediate results. The reality though is that never beginning anything regardless of timeframe always has the result that doing nothing will have. Addressing a problem now or with a solution that gives results five years from now is still better than nothing.

I suspect that drilling offshore will bring about much quicker results, but honestly just being open to exploring for energy on our own shores again would probably scare any speculators out of oil prices. Most reports have said that there isn't a true justification for the current prices and they are the result of needing a guarantee when there is so little margin of error in in the current supply. You don't alter the supply today but guaranteeing there will be more supply in the future will likely cause some to look else where for gains.

Excellent points. This is about oil exploration...which we're not even allowed to do. It's not about the proven reserves which Frank so dishonestly opines about.

The US uses about 15m bpd. Of that, about 10m bpd is imported. Imagine that resulting price decrease if we could provide another 1m barrels per day (or a 10% net reduction in imports).

Oh, and Frank: Why assume that we'll pull 5mbpd out of ANWR? That's half of Saudi Arabia's total production! Assuming that there is only 12bb of oil in ANWR (and that's a big if....if you're aware of how often we underestimate the reserves in our oil fields), we could pump say, 1mbpd. We could get at least another 1mbpd from new discoveries in the GoM and other offshore sites. That alone would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 20%....for about 50 years. That should be enough to eliminate the use of gasoline altogether, hmm?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #44 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Excellent points. This is about oil exploration...which we're not even allowed to do. It's not about the proven reserves which Frank so dishonestly opines about.

The US uses about 15m bpd. Of that, about 10m bpd is imported. Imagine that resulting price decrease if we could provide another 1m barrels per day (or a 10% net reduction in imports).

Oh, and Frank: Why assume that we'll pull 5mbpd out of ANWR? That's half of Saudi Arabia's total production! Assuming that there is only 12bb of oil in ANWR (and that's a big if....if you're aware of how often we underestimate the reserves in our oil fields), we could pump say, 1mbpd. We could get at least another 1mbpd from new discoveries in the GoM and other offshore sites. That alone would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 20%....for about 50 years. That should be enough to eliminate the use of gasoline altogether, hmm?

We refine about 15 million barrels, and import about 5+ million barrels of refined oil, or in total 20+ million barrels of oil per day.

As usual, the math is definitely over your head. The EIA makes a yearly report, it uses the then current price to define provable, oil prices go up, but the EIA estimate continues to go down.

In other words, there isn't any unknown major oil deposits to be found stateside.

What part of the above don't you understand, other than your wishful thinking that there is oil that will appear out of thin air?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #45 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Proof? Links? Evidence? Anything? Other than your beliefs and your wishing and your words.

I'm using EIA and USGS and MMS data for oil reserves, provable or otherwise.

McCain himself mentioned the EIA's 21 billion barrels of provable oil reserves, the EIA does an annual report on provable oil reserves, and it captures the then current price of crude oil in it's provable estimates.

If we were to rely 100% on domestic production, that 21 billion barrels would be gone in about THREE years. Their last report (2006) was published in November 2007, and in the 2006-7 time frame a barrel of oil was going for about $60-70/barrel, or roughly half of today's price per barrel.

Note also that in the 2000-3 timeframe a barrel of oil was going for $20-30/barrel. Note also that each year that a barrel of oil has gone up in price proven oil reserves in the U.S. have continued to drop.

[CENTER]

[/CENTER]

Jesus. No one is suggesting we rely on domestic oil production completely. And you're playing the same game with proven reserves. Do you honestly mean to suggest that we have only 21 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil?

By the way...please cite your actual source, which is Wikipedia.

Also, you're ignoring oil shale, from which we could recover enough oil to power the US for over a hundred years. You've done this because, according to Wiki, the reserves don't meet the definition of "provable" reserves.

And then there is this:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...cle3785978.ece

And...the USGS has consistently and massively underestimated oil reserves.

Quote:
In 1920, the United States Geological Survey officially estimated that the U.S. had just 6.7 billion barrels of oil left, including undiscovered oil fields. Eighty-two years later, the U.S. had produced 180 billion barrels of oil and still had 22 billion barrels of proven reserves. The USGS's 1920 estimate was off by a mere 2900%.

From here...not an unbiased source, but I believe the figures are accurate.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #46 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Am I the only one to notice that the price of a barrel of oil started to "skyrocket" after "we" invaded Iraq?

Oh, and in passing, this is one lifelong Democrat who has always supported nuclear power development here in the U.S. Always have, always will.

The price of oil has skyrocketed since the Fed/US dropped its interest rate to 2%. Why did they do this?

The blame for which can be levelled in 3 places. The Fed/Republicans/Speculators.

They dropped the interest rate because there was a credit crunch.

The blame for which can be levelled in 3 places. The Fed/Republicans/Speculators.

Why was there a credit crunch? Because the interest rate was too low for too long, Financial markets were deregulated and too many people had access to too much money.

The blame for which can be levelled in 3 places. The Fed/Republicans/Speculators.

Why was the interest rate too low for too long?

The blame for which can be levelled in 3 places. The Fed/Republicans/Speculators.

Because people had to be bought to support an illegal war and the economy had just crashed following the dot.com bust

The blame for which can be levelled in 3 places. The Fed/Republicans/Speculators.

So there it is. The Fed/Republicans/Speculators. The primary cause of all the problems in the world.

This worldwide economic disaster could be averted tomorrow, if the fed increased the interest rate to 5%. Problem solved.

The dollar restores its value, oil futures crash, inflation ceases, food production returns to normal. Crisis averted.

But you all cry....my mortgage, my home, me,me,me...

TOUGH SHIT You are going to lose it anyway, if you havn't already - because the world is headed for far worse times than the depression of the 1920's if things stay as they are.

Face it, you should never have bought it - because you fundamentally could not afford it in the first place. You were greedy, listened to the wrong people who would only ever tell lies for their own gain.

Having a low interest rate is not helping you meet your commitments, it is adding to the problem and prolonging the suffering.

There is no oil shortage, there is no solution by drilling ANWR.

This crisis has been caused by nothing more than intentional manipulation.

The blame for which can be levelled in 3 places. The Fed/Republicans/Speculators.

MARCH ON WASHINGTON AND THE FED AND DEMAND INTEREST RATES BE RAISED TO 5%
post #47 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Jesus. No one is suggesting we rely on domestic oil production completely. And you're playing the same game with proven reserves. Do you honestly mean to suggest that we have only 21 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil?

By the way...please cite your actual source, which is Wikipedia.

Also, you're ignoring oil shale, from which we could recover enough oil to power the US for over a hundred years. You've done this because, according to Wiki, the reserves don't meet the definition of "provable" reserves.

And then there is this:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...cle3785978.ece

And...the USGS has consistently and massively underestimated oil reserves.



From here...not an unbiased source, but I believe the figures are accurate.

As usual, you don't have a clue, and you never provide links to your "make believe" worldview.

Here is the EIA page I used to correct your previous error;

U.S. Weekly Product Supplied

06/06/2008: 20.243 million barrels per day

Wikipedia gets it's numbers from the EIA, I have vetted them myself via the EIA website, do you have a problem with that?

n00b!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #48 of 297
I think the Democrats should create a coordinated plan to blame the Indians, Chinese, Saudis and Republicans for high oil prices.

But they would never try to spin people into a xenophobic/nationalistic/racist ("There are billions of Indians and Chinese stealing 'our' jobs and bidding up oil prices. Those are American jobs! We can't be dependent on foreign oil or foreign goods. We need American fuel and American goods!") and sexist/classist ("And it is those (rich, fat, white, male) Republicans, with their crazy ideas about free trade, that let them do it!") frenzy.

Never.
post #49 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Jesus. No one is suggesting we rely on domestic oil production completely. And you're playing the same game with proven reserves. Do you honestly mean to suggest that we have only 21 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil?

By the way...please cite your actual source, which is Wikipedia.

Also, you're ignoring oil shale, from which we could recover enough oil to power the US for over a hundred years. You've done this because, according to Wiki, the reserves don't meet the definition of "provable" reserves.

And then there is this:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...cle3785978.ece

And...the USGS has consistently and massively underestimated oil reserves.



From here...not an unbiased source, but I believe the figures are accurate.

OMFG, the USGS back in 1920, like 88 years ago, was off by, OMFG a simply insane amount. I would of course would need a USGS link to confirm this lie, and that the USGS never made subsequent estimates, of course, TYVM! And it would need to contain the entire timeline of USGS estimates from 1920 to the present day. Your source doesn't even have a single cited reference. That figures of course in the big old blog-o-smear.

This is what your argument boils down to: When Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas (a lie mind you), the USGS estimated that there were zero oil reserves, OMFG the USGS was off by an infinite percent, and the USGS has always been off by an infinite percent.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #50 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Boo hoo.

It's a simple fact that the reason that we are so dependent on Middle East oil is one thing: the Democratic Party. Their environmentalist wing has successfully prevented us from getting the oil we have right here, making us ever more at the mercy of people who WILL go get their oil when we cannot go get ours.


U.S., Congress, Committee on International Relations, Special Subcommittee on Investigations, Oil Fields as Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study, Report Prepared by the Congressional Research Service, 94th Cong., 1st sess., August 21, 1975, (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1975), Parts I and II, pp. 1-39.


Quote:
The possible use of U.S. military force to occupy foreign oil fields in exigency first surfaced as a serious issue in January 1975. This paper provides perspective, so that the Congress if need be could participate most meaningfully in deliberations to determine the desirability and feasibility of any such action.

Analysis indicates that sustained sanctions by all or most of OPEC's members would disrupt America's fundamental lifestyle and degrade U.S. security, although survival would never be at stake. By way of contrast, the vital interests of our major allies could quickly be compromised.

Any decision to ease agonies at home and (if need be) assist allies would be conditioned by political, economic, social, legal, and moral factors, but if nonmilitary facets were entirely favorable, successful operations would be assured only if this country could satisfy all aspects of a five-part mission:
  • Seize required oil installations intact.
  • Secure them for weeks, months, or years.
  • Restore wrecked assets rapidly.
  • Operate all installations without the owner's assistance.
  • Guarantee safe overseas passage for supplies and petroleum products.

American abilities to cope with steps one through four would be suspect if sabotage were the only serious threat. U.S. parachute assault forces are too few to cover all objectives quickly. Amphibious forces are too slow. Skilled teams could wreak havoc before we arrived.

Presuming sufficient assets remained intact to serve U.S. interests, long-term security would remain a challenge. Two to four divisions plus substantial support would be tied down for a protracted period.

Shortages in specialized manpower and materials would make damaged facilities hard to repair or replace. Indeed, drafting U.S. civilian workers to supplant foreign counterparts might be mandatory.

Direct intervention by Soviet air/ground forces, a distinct possibility considering the strategic nuclear standoff, might make our mission impossible if we hit in the Middle East. Other areas would be mainly immune from such perils, but Soviet submarines would pose a serious problem if they struck in force--U.S. escort vessels are insufficient to msure safe passage for tankers and supply ships in any area, except the Caribbean.

In short, success would largeiy depend on two prerequisites:
  • Slight damage to key installations.
  • Soviet abstinence from armed intervention.

Since neither essential could be assured, military operations to rescue the United States (much less its key allies) from an airtight oil embargo would combine high costs with high risks. U.S. strategic reserves would be stripped. Prospects would be poor, and plights of far-reaching political, economic, social, psychological, and perhaps military consequence the penalty for failure.

Under the Ford administration....



Oh look! The assholes that got us where we are today! This "feasibility study"?

Renamed "Spreading Democracy in the Middle East".
post #51 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Am I the only one to notice that the price of a barrel of oil started to "skyrocket" after "we" invaded Iraq?

Yep... because it is the kind of thing that makes sense in frankworld. You need to get some perspective in terms like "skyrocket"- it took a whole year after we liberated Iraq to increase the price ten dollars a barrel. We now do that same $10 in a week. Congrats on pushing the talking point, though... one cookie for you.

I can just as easily point out that oil has nearly tripled since the Democrats took control of congress... where oil had previously doubled from the Iraq invasion to 2006. DOE.

But hey... never mind all the rhetoric from democrat environmentalists advocating more expensive energy for ecological reasons.
Never mind that at all. There are a good number of Democrats that, despite their election year rhetoric, love these gas prices. Albert. Gore. Jr.

The fact of the matter is that this oil thing has everything to do with the falling dollar and the FED... not with supply or demand. This is what happens when a bunch of people "to help the poor" institute banking policies that "help the poor" by extending credit to people who otherwise should not get it. Oops... "unintended consequences" again. We're sorry. For some perspective, maybe we could get some feedback from the Countrywide Six...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #52 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

As usual, you don't have a clue, and you never provide links to your "make believe" worldview.

Here is the EIA page I used to correct your previous error;

U.S. Weekly Product Supplied

06/06/2008: 20.243 million barrels per day

Wikipedia gets it's numbers from the EIA, I have vetted them myself via the EIA website, do you have a problem with that?

n00b!

First of all, I'd like to point out what a total as*h*le you've been to everyone around here. As we speak, you're insulting me and opining that ShawnJ has "no critical thinking skills." In this vein, I'd like to extend a giant middle finger in your direction for this comment:

Quote:
As usual, the math is definitely over your head.

As some may remember, you went through some rather complex calculations (needlessly so) in one of the GW threads. You did this to impress the board with your stunning intellect. I openly admitted that some of the math was over my head, but that I saw the general point you were making. You then turn around and exercise your option to be an utter [insert term of your choosing] by using that statement against me. in this thread. Well, that's fine. Some of us have no problem admitting our limitations, whatever they may be. And certain others? Well they like to think they are the smartest people in the room...and act like fucking assholes all the while. Not you in particular of course...just "certain others."

And by the way, this isn't about my "world view." It's about how much oil we have left. As usual, you focus on semantics. I say 15mbd and you say 20. Who fucking cares? We're dealing with approximate numbers here, Frank. Oh, and my data was from the fucking EIA.

I took the domestic production and imports and....gasp....added them.

Quote:
U.S. Crude Oil Production [LEFT]5,102,000 barrels/day[/LEFT]


U.S. Crude Oil Imports
[LEFT]10,118,000 barrels/day



[/LEFT]


It was a quick and dirty estimate. So it's 20mbpd. It doesn't matter. The point is we could pump another few million barrels a day and reduce prices significantly. And we could do it without shale oil or new discoveries.

Your position, by contrast, is that it doesn't matter what we do. For all your links and stats and insults, that's your position.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #53 of 297
SDW2001:

Are you honestly saying we should base energy policy on unproven oil reserves?

"Let's jump off a cliff and hope we evolve wings before landing."

Quote:
And...the USGS has consistently and massively underestimated oil reserves.

And then you post an article about underestimation in 1920.

Your desperation is embarrassing. It's like seeing flop-sweat accumulate, just on the Internet.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #54 of 297
... of Total Mean Oil Resources (Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Resources) dated April 2008.

It suggests a mean total of 48.5 BBO (Billions of Barrels of Oil).

USGS 2007-2008 Assessment Updates

Quote:
The main objective of the National Assessment of Oil and Gas Project is to assess the potential for undiscovered oil and natural gas resources of the onshore United States.
.
.
.
The maps illustrate the mean values for undiscovered conventional, continuous, and coal-bed gas resources. The tables include the F95 and F5 values of the distributions of undiscovered resources in addition to the mean value.

See also;

About the Energy Resources Program

For example;

[CENTER]
Quote:
The Minerals Management Service (MMS), a bureau in the U.S. Department of the Interior, is the Federal agency that manages the nation's natural gas, oil and other mineral resources on the outer continental shelf (OCS).

[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #55 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

First of all, I'd like to point out what a total as*h*le you've been to everyone around here. As we speak, you're insulting me and opining that ShawnJ has "no critical thinking skills." In this vein, I'd like to extend a giant middle finger in your direction

Completely.

It is not within franks capacity to have a reasoned, non-asshole discussion about any topic... without retreating into personal insults of other posters, attempting to "impress us" with his "brilliance" and then demanding "facts" (!) when he is losing an opinion-based argument. Oh, and "Alex Jones," and "hiding behind a screen name" and "I'm smarter than all of you" is such a help. I really wish frank would have held to his word and kept me on his ignore list... it saved so much time having arguments with an his angst-ridden teenage mentality.

Pay heed SDW, my sig should be warning enough. Never fuck with a self-righteous and pompous Sith.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #56 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

First of all, I'd like to point out what a total as*h*le you've been to everyone around here. As we speak, you're insulting me and opining that ShawnJ has "no critical thinking skills." In this vein, I'd like to extend a giant middle finger in your direction for this comment:

As some may remember, you went through some rather complex calculations (needlessly so) in one of the GW threads. You did this to impress the board with your stunning intellect. I openly admitted that some of the math was over my head, but that I saw the general point you were making. You then turn around and exercise your option to be an utter [insert term of your choosing] by using that statement against me. in this thread. Well, that's fine. Some of us have no problem admitting our limitations, whatever they may be. And certain others? Well they like to think they are the smartest people in the room...and act like fucking assholes all the while. Not you in particular of course...just "certain others."

And by the way, this isn't about my "world view." It's about how much oil we have left. As usual, you focus on semantics. I say 15mbd and you say 20. Who fucking cares? We're dealing with approximate numbers here, Frank. Oh, and my data was from the fucking EIA.

I took the domestic production and imports and....gasp....added them.


[/I][/LEFT]


It was a quick and dirty estimate. So it's 20mbpd. It doesn't matter. The point is we could pump another few million barrels a day and reduce prices significantly. And we could do it without shale oil or new discoveries.

Your position, by contrast, is that it doesn't matter what we do. For all your links and stats and insults, that's your position.

... about increasing domestic production and if it would reduce the price of gas at the pump. Guess what his answer was? Unlikely.

An error of 5-6 million barrels per day is not a small number, that's an error of 25+ percent.

Oh, ans since you've gone off on a tangent, you never responded to my Q.E.D. GAT post, I was itching to provide a rigorous proof that temperature measurements made 158 years ago are just as good as today's, when rounded to the nearest whole degree. See Binomial distribution, and use the AVERAGE, STDEVP, MEDIAN, RAND, and ROUND functions in an Excel spreadsheet, it's really quite easy.

Oh, I also recall your claim for Ronald Reagan doubling revenues, which needed 10 FY's for that claim to be true, you sort of disappeared when I proved you wrong on that one also.

The truth is that you can't deal with factual objective data honestly.

See my post above, which I believe, supports your POV. Surprised?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #57 of 297
Ibl...
post #58 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Completely.

It is not within franks capacity to have a reasoned, non-asshole discussion about any topic... without retreating into personal insults of other posters, attempting to "impress us" with his "brilliance" and then demanding "facts" (!) when he is losing an opinion-based argument. Oh, and "Alex Jones," and "hiding behind a screen name" and "I'm smarter than all of you" is such a help. I really wish frank would have held to his word and kept me on his ignore list... it saved so much time having arguments with an his angst-ridden teenage mentality.

Pay heed SDW, my sig should be warning enough. Never fuck with a self-righteous and pompous Sith.

Since it's subjective by definition to begin with.

In fact, I don't post in most of these subjective threads for that very same reason. Unless, of course, I have some facts to support a position objectively.

You words speak volumes about you own ego. Or lack thereof.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #59 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

...Since it's subjective by definition to begin with...
You words speak volumes about you own ego. Or lack thereof.

Search me... that is exactly what I told you when you scream for "facts" to back up rhetorical "opinion." Remember all of your soapbox speeches about "just the facts" and all that silliness... Now you're telling me exactly what I told you, uh, "TYVM."

My ego is just fine... it does not need to act like an asshole to get a point across. What an insult... "your lack of ego".
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #60 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Search me... that is exactly what I told you when you scream for "facts" to back up rhetorical "opinion." Remember all of your soapbox speeches about "just the facts" and all that silliness... Now you're telling me exactly what I told you, uh, "TYVM."

My ego is just fine... it does not need to act like an asshole to get a point across. What an insult... "your lack of ego".

... take the debate down several notches, at the onset. And in the middle. And towards the end.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #61 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... take the debate down several notches, at the onset. And in the middle. And towards the end.

I don't think talking the issues "takes things down several notches" - I'd rather direct you to the fact that your personal insults and pseudo-"gotchas" do not contribute to any real exchange of ideas. Just ask around, frank... when you get in the middle of some argument, you help it descend full speed into "your not as smart as I am" or "XXXX is over your head" or whatever little juvenile little snark you have for the day.

"Hiding behind a screen name"
"Facts!"
"Alex Jones"

Occasionally, you contribute some good non-Wikipedia data that actually furthers the discussion. Unfortunately, you have not mastered the mature art of talking to issue and not at people personally. It's what you usually do when someone does not agree with your worldview.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #62 of 297
I personally don't care if they drill more. As long as the people it would affect (i.e., people living near the coasts where the drilling would occur) approve, it's fine with me.

But anyone who thinks it would reduce gas prices, let alone have any significant impact on our reliance on oil, is crazy.
post #63 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

But anyone who thinks it would reduce gas prices, let alone have any significant impact on our reliance on oil, is crazy.

You don't think that expanding supply would lower prices?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #64 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Excellent points. This is about oil exploration...which we're not even allowed to do.

We are allowed to do except for some areas near the shore. We explored the GoM and found a new field there.

Quote:
Oh, and Frank: Why assume that we'll pull 5mbpd out of ANWR?

EIA estimates is that ANWR peaks at around 750K bpd.

Quote:
We could get at least another 1mbpd from new discoveries in the GoM and other offshore sites. That alone would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 20%....for about 50 years. That should be enough to eliminate the use of gasoline altogether, hmm?

US production will continue to drop and there was already an assumption that new fields would be found to replace current fields that are depleted in the timeframe.
post #65 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I don't think talking the issues "takes things down several notches" - I'd rather direct you to the fact that your personal insults and pseudo-"gotchas" do not contribute to any real exchange of ideas. Just ask around, frank... when you get in the middle of some argument, you help it descend full speed into "your not as smart as I am" or "XXXX is over your head" or whatever little juvenile little snark you have for the day.

"Hiding behind a screen name"
"Facts!"
"Alex Jones"

Occasionally, you contribute some good non-Wikipedia data that actually furthers the discussion. Unfortunately, you have not mastered the mature art of talking to issue and not at people personally. It's what you usually do when someone does not agree with your worldview.

... you appear to be a bitter person, for some odd reason, and your lack of maturity is more glaring than mine, because you see, mine is done with purpose, when most of a thread topic is inane and meaningless.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #66 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... you appear to be a bitter person, for some odd reason, and your lack of maturity is more glaring than mine, because you see, mine is done with purpose, when most of a thread topic is inane and meaningless.

Brilliant... the "I'm being an immature, insulting, asshole on purpose" defense.

Grow up dude. You're more than old enough and supposedly degreed enough for it. Acting like a developmentally-stuck teenager and insulting people all the time is no mark of maturity... and it comes through in almost everything you post here.

Just for one day, frank, see if you can go 24 hours without making a personal attack on someone who disagrees with you. I have not seen it yet.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #67 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Brilliant... the "I'm being an immature, insulting, asshole on purpose" defense.

Grow up dude. You're more than old enough and supposedly degreed enough for it. Acting like a developmentally-stuck teenager and insulting people all the time is no mark of maturity... and it comes through in almost everything you post here.

Just for one day, frank, see if you can go 24 hours without making a personal attack on someone who disagrees with you. I have not seen it yet.

I'm just acting like you. Take a look in the mirror dude. Oh, and in the past I suggested that you put me on your ignore list.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #68 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

We are allowed to do except for some areas near the shore. We explored the GoM and found a new field there.



EIA estimates is that ANWR peaks at around 750K bpd.



US production will continue to drop and there was already an assumption that new fields would be found to replace current fields that are depleted in the timeframe.

When imports are ~15 million barrels per day, and consumption is ~21 million barrels a day, 15/21 = 71% is from foreign sources. Replacing 1 million barrels a day of foreign oil with domestic oil reduces our foreign demand by 1/15 = 6.7% not 20%. Or if 2 mbpd then 13.3% not 20%. And where does SDW get;

Quote:
That should be enough to eliminate the use of gasoline altogether, hmm?

And SDW show me where I made this statement;

[CENTER]
Quote:
Why assume that we'll pull 5mbpd out of ANWR?

[/CENTER]

Kind of incoherent, if you ask me.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #69 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You don't think that expanding supply would lower prices?

I don't think that lifting the ban on offshore drilling would lower prices, no. But it's not what I think, it's what all the economic (but maybe not Republican politicians') analyses conclude. Under current conditions, demand is increasing faster than supply can ever match. And there's already plenty of places in the US and in the oceans surrounding the US that are open to drilling that the oil companies aren't using.
post #70 of 297
In other news... House Democrats are now advocating NATIONALIZING the refineries. Way to go, Dems!

Direct from the Hugo Chavez playbook...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #71 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

In other news... House Democrats are now advocating NATIONALIZING the refineries. Way to go, Dems!

Interesting If True.

Link?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #72 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

In other news... House Democrats are now advocating NATIONALIZING the refineries. Way to go, Dems!

Direct from the Hugo Chavez playbook...

You know, I didn't believe you...but here's a link.

This is incredibly stupid. This is what happens when we become dependent on somebody else for oil. We've been through this time and again. Now all hell is breaking loose. Our politicians are also dependent on our own oil companies also. Misguiding them even more.

You know I'll take politicians for what their worth (or not), but it doesn't matter which side of the aisle they sit on, they're all mostly complete idiots.

Because the the right-wing offshore drilling is a scam too.
post #73 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Because the the right-wing offshore drilling is a scam too.

Nice link. I've been thinking very similar thoughts, and just finished composing the following......

I must say..... it's been fun to watch the massive assault of oil reserve and production facts being deflected by the mighty fact-proof shields of The Usual Suspects, along with a barrage of personal digs running in both directions.

But I'd like to move back to the original point of how the Republicans are mounting a huge coordinated assault around this issue.

It looks to me like Republicans are trying to reframe the entire 2008 election around domestic oil drilling.

This is the issue they are going to try to hammer the Democrats with - over, and over. They know the Democratic party is going to fight this, and that's exactly what they want them to do. They couldn't give less of a damn if drilling is actually approved.

That way, they can shift the blame for high gas prices away from the devalued dollar, ongoing Middle East instability, rampant speculation, and rising worldwide demand, which are the actual causes.

The real beauty of it all is that they are actually trying to benefit from a crisis of their own making. It's positively..... ROVIAN!

Whether or not it works on moderates and independents nationwide, they're throwing California right out the window, and pushing Florida hard towards it.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #74 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

In other news... House Democrats are now advocating NATIONALIZING the refineries. Way to go, Dems!

Direct from the Hugo Chavez playbook...

And we've been told they aren't Socialists (or Marxists or Communists).

post #75 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Yep... because it is the kind of thing that makes sense in frankworld. You need to get some perspective in terms like "skyrocket"- it took a whole year after we liberated Iraq to increase the price ten dollars a barrel. We now do that same $10 in a week. Congrats on pushing the talking point, though... one cookie for you.

I can just as easily point out that oil has nearly tripled since the Democrats took control of congress... where oil had previously doubled from the Iraq invasion to 2006. DOE.

But hey... never mind all the rhetoric from democrat environmentalists advocating more expensive energy for ecological reasons.
Never mind that at all. There are a good number of Democrats that, despite their election year rhetoric, love these gas prices. Albert. Gore. Jr.

The fact of the matter is that this oil thing has everything to do with the falling dollar and the FED... not with supply or demand. This is what happens when a bunch of people "to help the poor" institute banking policies that "help the poor" by extending credit to people who otherwise should not get it. Oops... "unintended consequences" again. We're sorry. For some perspective, maybe we could get some feedback from the Countrywide Six...


" I can just as easily point out that oil has nearly tripled since the Democrats took control of congress... where oil had previously doubled from the Iraq invasion to 2006. "


Yes you could but you'd be reaching.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #76 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I don't think talking the issues "takes things down several notches" - I'd rather direct you to the fact that your personal insults and pseudo-"gotchas" do not contribute to any real exchange of ideas. Just ask around, frank... when you get in the middle of some argument, you help it descend full speed into "your not as smart as I am" or "XXXX is over your head" or whatever little juvenile little snark you have for the day.

"Hiding behind a screen name"
"Facts!"
"Alex Jones"

Occasionally, you contribute some good non-Wikipedia data that actually furthers the discussion. Unfortunately, you have not mastered the mature art of talking to issue and not at people personally. It's what you usually do when someone does not agree with your worldview.

" I'd rather direct you to the fact that your personal insults and pseudo-"gotchas" do not contribute to any real exchange of ideas. "



Well I seem to remember it wasn't SDW who first decided ( instead of an exchange of ideas ) to correct my spelling instead of replying to my arguments.

Why do you think you ended up on my ignore list for awhile?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #77 of 297
Now McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/...nukKgjSD.s0NUE

Think he'd like one across the street from his mansion?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #78 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Now McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/...nukKgjSD.s0NUE

Think he'd like one across the street from his mansion?

Al Gore could use a nuclear power plant across from his mansion.

Quote:
According to a press release from the Nashville-based think tank, in the past year Mr. Gores home, located in Nashvilles upscale Belle Meade area, consumed 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity in 2007, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

post #79 of 297
Plug in car plus nuke plant would reduce green house gas and make the air a whole lot clear we too.
post #80 of 297
Thread Starter 
Quote:
According to a press release from the Nashville-based think tank, in the past year Mr. Gore’s home, located in Nashville’s upscale Belle Meade area, consumed 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity in 2007, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

Think Tank Press Release Writer #1: Do you think anyone would really notice if we compared Gore's yearly usage with the average monthly usage?

Think Tank Press Release Writer #2: Absolutely NOT..... and it would give us a much bigger number to be outraged about - completely brilliant, my man!
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices