On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:20:27 -0500, jakdedert
bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Mike Smith wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:02:03 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
>>
gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Sep 19, 2:13 am, Mike Smith
wt.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The envirowackos are nothing but useful idiots.
>>>>> Yeah, we *all* know that those wild claims that clean air, clean
>>>>> water, and all that other stuff are good for you is just a scare
>>>>> tactic used by the radical left.
>>>> Thanks for posting proof that BrentP is correct.
>>> Heh. Looks as if even the bottom end of the bell curve can afford
>>> computers these days.
>>
>> Heh heh heh ... You don't realize you've been bitch-slapped, do you...
>>
>>>>> Anyway, Armageddon is going to be here soon, so it's no use saving
>>>>> anything up for tomorrow anyway.
>>>> If we don't start drilling our own oil and don't start increasing our
>>>> refining capabilities, you are correct.
>>> Doofus, *everyone* -including the oil industry and John McCain- admits
>>> that we can't drill our way out of the oil crunch for several reasons:
>>
>>
>>> (A) there's a ten-year turnaround time before the first drop can flow
>>> into a gas tank,
>>
>> Fuckin lie.
>> We can have oil pumping in about 1.5 years.
>> Are you really this misinformed?
>
>Cite? Or are you really this gullible?
So you admit that you have absolutely no research skills and you want
me to hand-feed you the readily available information.
OK, but just this one time. I'm not going to hand feed you information
that you can look up with just a little effort on your part.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0620/p02s02-usgn.html
A lot of undeveloped leases may not have a lot of resources, counters
H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy
Analysis in Washington. He argues that expanding drilling in US waters
would add to the pool of oil from stable, reliable sources В– helping
curb speculation. He says opponents of drilling overestimate the time
frame for new development, and some projects have turned around in 18
months.
As for environmental impact, each year 47 million gallons of oil seep
out naturally into US ocean waters. That far exceeds the 870,000
gallons of petroleum leaked in offshore exploration and drilling,
according to the National Academies of Sciences.
>>
>>> (B) our own untapped reserves simply aren't large
>>> enough to make a dent in our national consumption anyway, and,
>>
>> Fuckin lie #2
>> Our untapped reserves are around 1.5 TRILLION barrels.
>>
>Cite, again. You (whoever you are) saying it on usenet hardly makes it
>true. OTOH, if it is, I'd like to see it on reliable authority.
Damn, dude... just how much information are you ignoring on a daily
basis?
Free clue: reliable authority is NOT kos/moveon/huffy.
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html
America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil
Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until
now has largely gone unnoticed.
and
http://www.americansolutions.com/General/?Page=1c1a10c1-15fd-4ad8-a426-b9a87f635...
The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green
River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River
Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in
place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale
resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of
oil and a lower bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy
planning purposes, it is enough to know that any amount in this range
is very high. For example, the midpoint in our estimate range, 800
billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi
Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million
barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that
demand, 800 billion barrels of recoverable resources would last for
more than 400 years.
(James T. Bartis, et. al., "Oil Shale Development in the United
States: Prospects and Policy Issues" (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation,
2005), p. ix.
http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf)
(emphasis added)
And
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/OilShale.html
>
>> Are you really this gullible?
>>
>Not at all...especially not gullible enough simply believe a usenet
>'expert' because he 'says so'.
>
>>> (C)
>>> demand is still growing, not just here but all over the world. So no
>>> matter *how* you cut it, increased demand and a constantly shrinking
>>> supply will mean rapidly increasing oil prices for as long as the
>>> reserves hold out, and when it's gone, it's gone.
>>
>> You do love your fantasies, don't you. But, in your defense, you did
>> get something right. Demand is growing and will continue to grow,
>> which means we need to get busy tapping into our own oil reserves and
>> building new refineries, right now.
>>
>Petroleum is such a valuable resource, it's a shame to see it simply
>burned up by the billions of gallons. Wouldn't you like for your
>grandchildren to have some of it left when they need it?
I realize liberals must see everything in a negative light, but what
makes you "think" {heh heh heh .. a liberal thinking... That's funny!}
there will be no oil in 50 years?
>
>>> Alternative energy sources are going to be the only possible answer,
>>> and the longer we avoid moving in that direction the worse it's going
>>> to be for us.
>>
>> Bullshit. The technology is not available now. Maybe in 30-50 years,
>> but not now. You really need to read more, and quit relying on the
>> kos/moveon/huffy kooks to get your info.
>>
>The only reason it's not available is because of cheap, subsidized oil.
> Take that away, and the country which decided to put a man on the moon
>in ten years--and did it--could likely develop that technology.
Bullshit... There is not a thread of evidence to back up your
bullshit, except for the famous "liberal-think" fantasy.
>
>>>> We do not need that anti-American socialist anywhere near our White House.
>>> (Hint: calling someone names doesn't advance your cause.)
>>
>> Accurately describing someone is hard for you to understand, isn't
>> it...
>>
>> That's OK, you appear to be a liberal, which means you are not very
>> intelligent.
>>
>You've not proven anything, except that you can sling insults.
>Unattributed assertions do not win arguments except among the
>ill-informed and uneducated.
You cannot think for yourself. You cannot do basic research for
yourself. You appear to have no reasoning skills.
You're a moron, aren't you.
Mike Smith
