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."
I'm saying that we should, you know, drill for the oil we know we have. We're not even doing that.
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.
It's just an example, and it's not the first time or last time it happened. The USGS has consistently underestimated oil reserves.
Originally Posted by franksargent
... about increasing domestic production and if it would reduce the price of gas at the pump. Guess what his answer was? Unlikely.
That's dumb. Of course it would decrease prices.
An error of 5-6 million barrels per day is not a small number, that's an error of 25+ percent.
IT DOESN'T MATTER, FRANK. And honestly, perhaps you and your genius could show me where I went wrong. I added up domestic oil production and imports. Where does the other 5m come from?
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.
Yes, and 15mpbd is just as accurate as 20mpbd, if we round up.
I mean shit...one can't make this stuff up!
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.
I did respond. Again though, you chose to move the goal posts as well as focus on semantics and minutiae. In your typical liberal way, you do so to the point of missing the overall point. Even if using your numbers, revenue went up dramatically. Alright, so maybe it's 40% intead of 50. Who cares. I even demonstrated that after inflation and large tax cuts, revenue went up significantly. The point was that revenue went up...a lot. But you don't care.
The truth is that you can't deal with factual objective data honestly.
See my post above, which I believe, supports your POV. Surprised?
Didn't read it. My Frank Filter was engaged.
Originally Posted by vinea
We are allowed to do except for some areas near the shore. We explored the GoM and found a new field there.
Those areas are perfectly safe to drill, and we need to do so. Our current fields are clearly not enough, not when we import 65% of our oil.
EIA estimates is that ANWR peaks at around 750K bpd.
I'm betting it's more, but even if that's true...it would be almost 10% of what we import.
Think that might have an impact.
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.
It doesn't have to drop. We have billions of barrels of oil, perhaps hundreds of billions of barrels. IT's more than enough to offset a lot of our foreign imports, at least until we can begin to ween ourselves from oil.
Originally Posted by jimmac
" 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?
jimmac, you must live in a fucking bizzaro world. You NEVER post data to support your opinions. See the discussion on Obama v. McCain. This pattern has been repeated dozens of times on various topics. Your responses vary from "no one's buying today" to "people want change" to ones that include words you don't understand how to us.
This is really it with liberals: No solution is acceptable. We can't have more oil. We can't use Ethanol because it hurts food prices. Coal is dirty. Nuclear power is dangerous.
The answer to you is to "conserve." You're perfect as an Obama voter, because you believe this: Americans must do with less. You think that we can conserve our way out of energy problems, but we cannot. The energy has to come from somewhere, Berg.
Otherwise you won't be able to type your inane liberal rantings on your nice Mac, while sitting in the comfort of air conditioning, munching your organic banana peels right before you smoke your bong and listen to Rage Against The Machine.