Thank An Enviromentalist / Democrat

In article >, Dan J.S. wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>>> If you like the price of fuel today, thank an environmentalist and the
>>> democrats that support them for:
>>>
>>> 1) failure to drill ANWR
>>
>> Drop in the bucket.
>>
>
> Drop in the bucket? No one knows how much oil is there. Some oil companies
> think there is a lot, and are willing to risk billions on the venture. I say
> drill there, while coming out with advances in hydrogen or other renewable
> technologies.

There are already known reserves in the americas that give us two saudi
arabias worth of oil. I doubt ANWR is that big. I've seen no indication
that it is.

In article >, Pooh Bear wrote:

>> lawsuits are more likely for nukes.
>
> Can you explain what the lawsuits would be about ?

NIMBY.

>> Nukes take a lot of money just to
>> break ground. patching up the coal plant and expanding it is
>> comparitively cheap with a much better ROI.

> You're probably right.
> In Europe I expect to see plenty of new nuclear generation though.

That's europe. In the USA people who are affraid sue and politically
block anything 'new'. Odds are new coal plants would end up in the
courts too, but they'll have an easier time and they can always just
expand the existing ones without too much trouble.

A particular piece of enviromental nonsense is about how bush jr allowed
the power companies to poison the air. Under Clinton a
law/regulation/whatever was put in place that required power companies
to replace all their equipment in an old generating station when one
component failed or something along those lines, a group replacement.
This was to force newer cleaner equipment. Instead, the power companies
just kept patching together whatever hunk of **** they were running
because the expeniture to replace everything all at once was too great.
Shrub changed it so that it was legal to replace each component
individually as it broke. This made him guilty of poisoning the air.

Now what's cleaner? Replacing worn out equipment piece by piece when the
money is available, getting incronmentally cleaner as each new piece is
put in, or just patching up whatever worn out 1930s component that is
there? And that was just with safe old coal. A nuke... forget about it.

Anyway... that's just a window on how things work in this country.

(Brent P) wrote:
>
>There are already known reserves in the americas that give us two saudi
>arabias worth of oil. I doubt ANWR is that big. I've seen no indication
>that it is.

You must know something that nobody else does! ;-)

The Saudis are estimated to have roughly 260 billion barrels of
*known* crude reserves. That is 1/4th of the total known
reserves in the world. Moreover, approximately 2/3rds of that
is light or sweet crude, which is much easier to refine than,
for example, the crude from Alaska.

The US does not actually import much oil from Saudi Arabia, but
because the Saudis are the largest exporter (and have some of
the lowest production costs), they do have a signficicant effect
on US imports far beyond the size of our imports from them.

Whatever, the predicted potential for ANWR is about 7 billion
barrels of economically recoverable oil. All of Prudhoe Bay was
only just over 20 billion barrels. US reserves are just larger
than a drop in the bucket compared to the Saudi reserves.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:29:26 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

(Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>There are already known reserves in the americas that give us two saudi
>>arabias worth of oil. I doubt ANWR is that big. I've seen no indication
>>that it is.
>
>You must know something that nobody else does! ;-)

Everybody but you knows it. Its in the oil shale. Duh. Nobody can be this
ignorant and have read all this stuff you quote all the time.

The estimate is he

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/..._MG414.sum.pdf

and reads:

"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."

They then give a particularly pessimistic assessment of our abilities to bring
this energy source to fruition, but I choose to believe that American industry,
of challenged, would surprise these otherwise deep thinkers.


>The Saudis are estimated to have roughly 260 billion barrels of
>*known* crude reserves. That is 1/4th of the total known
>reserves in the world. Moreover, approximately 2/3rds of that
>is light or sweet crude, which is much easier to refine than,
>for example, the crude from Alaska.
>
>The US does not actually import much oil from Saudi Arabia, but
>because the Saudis are the largest exporter (and have some of
>the lowest production costs), they do have a signficicant effect
>on US imports far beyond the size of our imports from them.
>
>Whatever, the predicted potential for ANWR is about 7 billion
>barrels of economically recoverable oil. All of Prudhoe Bay was
>only just over 20 billion barrels. US reserves are just larger
>than a drop in the bucket compared to the Saudi reserves.

Dave Head > wrote:
>
>They then give a particularly pessimistic assessment of our abilities to bring
>this energy source to fruition, but I choose to believe that American industry,
>of challenged, would surprise these otherwise deep thinkers.

So what everyone actually knows, is that it isn't what you claim it is...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

> :
> Dave **** Head wrote:

Typical liberal: can't make your arguement or force your opinion on
someone, resort to name calling.

Don't bother replying.

** P * L * O * N * K **

"DTJ" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:55:16 -0700, "Floyd Rogers"
> > wrote:
>
>>Actually, it's the deregulation of the power industry backed by republican
>>business interests (note Enron) that caused inadequate investment in
>
> You liberals are amazingly blind. Enron gave 3 times as much money to
> the dems as the repubs.

Don't know if I can agree with you on that one.
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/alertv6_31.asp


"Enron has already contributed nearly $173,000 to candidates and parties so
far this year, almost 90 percent to Republicans. Since the 1989-90 election
cycle, Enron has made nearly $5.8 million in campaign contributions, 73
percent to Republicans. "

Bernard

In article >, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>There are already known reserves in the americas that give us two saudi
>>arabias worth of oil. I doubt ANWR is that big. I've seen no indication
>>that it is.
>
> You must know something that nobody else does! ;-)

No, I just keep up with the news and posted it already to
rec.autos.driving.

> The Saudis are estimated to have roughly 260 billion barrels of
> *known* crude reserves. That is 1/4th of the total known
> reserves in the world. Moreover, approximately 2/3rds of that
> is light or sweet crude, which is much easier to refine than,
> for example, the crude from Alaska.

From one of my posts on the subject:

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: (Brent P)
Subject: <rolleyes> Here we go again....
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 07:42:23 -0500

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=52622
<...>
Venezuela's proven oil reserves currently are estimated at about 77.2
billion barrels, but if undeveloped deposits of extra-heavy crude are
factored in, the number would jump to 270 billion barrels.

That alone would vault Venezuela past Saudi Arabia, which has 262
billion barrels in reserves, but Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez told 'The
Guardian' that the government wants OPEC to recognize the country's
total reserves as close to 312 billion barrels.
<...>
While Venezuela is home to the largest proven oil reserves in the
Western hemisphere, most of its oil consists of extra-heavy crude that is too
expensive to pump out and refine -- unless market prices are at least $40
per barrel.
<...>

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1225184.shtml

<...>
There are 175 billion barrels of proven oil reserves here. That.s second
to Saudi Arabia.s 260 billion but it.s only what companies can get with
today.s technology. The estimate of how many more barrels of oil are
buried deeper underground is staggering.
<...>
But then $40 a barrel happened and the oil sands not only made sense,
they made billions for the people digging them.
<...>

I just picked those off of google, I've seen even higher estimates for
alberta's oil sands. But even at 175 billion barrels in Alberta and 312
billion in Venezuela there are 487 billion barrels of proven reserves
that are profitable at US$40 a barrel in the americas from those two
sources alone. That's not even touching other sources in production now,
not touching ANWR either... We are swimming in oil, it only takes the
will to use it.

I don't know who your "scientists" are, but they haven't been paying
attention and are still only coming up with what can be extracted with
Uncle Jed's shotgun. Yes, that oil is likely peaking in production...
great, now oil costs more than US $40 a barrel, so now we are swimming in
available, economically viable oil.


> Whatever, the predicted potential for ANWR is about 7 billion
> barrels of economically recoverable oil. All of Prudhoe Bay was
> only just over 20 billion barrels. US reserves are just larger
> than a drop in the bucket compared to the Saudi reserves.

7 billion compared to a 175 and 270 together.

7 is 1.5% of 445. That's a drop in the bucket. Now if we add in the
other oil in the americas, ANWR's percentage gets even smaller. Like I
stated, a drop in the bucket.

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

> Everybody but you knows it. Its in the oil shale. Duh. Nobody can be this
> ignorant and have read all this stuff you quote all the time.

Actually, I am not counting the shale because I don't know if it is
profitable at todays prices. Only that which I know to be profitable at
US $40 a barrel, well under todays prices.

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 09:11:08 -0700, "bernard farquart"
> wrote:

>"DTJ" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:55:16 -0700, "Floyd Rogers"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, it's the deregulation of the power industry backed by republican
>>>business interests (note Enron) that caused inadequate investment in
>>
>> You liberals are amazingly blind. Enron gave 3 times as much money to
>> the dems as the repubs.
>
>Don't know if I can agree with you on that one.
>http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/alertv6_31.asp
>
>
>"Enron has already contributed nearly $173,000 to candidates and parties so
>far this year, almost 90 percent to Republicans. Since the 1989-90 election
>cycle, Enron has made nearly $5.8 million in campaign contributions, 73
>percent to Republicans. "

Interesting. I don't know if that source is reliable, but I do know
that the media, including liberals like nytimes, confirmed that they
gave more to dems. Although I am never surprised when they lie,
usually they lie the other way.

*************************
Dave