Eddie Haskell wrote:
> "Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:b4219758-3bf8-4934-9f40-7b78bd8d18d1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Jul 16, 11:39 am, "Eddie Haskell" <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:ac8dc20c-4d0f-4c88-b513-72c603ee9988@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Jul 16, 8:15 am, "Eddie Haskell" <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>
news:8141c0cd-a178-40b1-bb28-64fe1ca2ed83@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Jul 16, 7:34 am, "Eddie Haskell" <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> "z" <gzuck...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>
news:b5660c72-5986-4529-9ea9-4462784b4a9f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On Jul 16, 12:20 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> ..that you hope and pray for and so refuse to allow increased
>>>>> domestic
>>>>> energy production.
>>>>> -Eddie Haskell- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> we own 3% of the world's oil. we use 25% of the world's oil. are you
>>>>> really thinking that if we could only get at all of that 3%,
>>>>> everything would work out? you guys really take bush's hatred of
>>>>> "fuzzy math" to heart.
>>>> Aside from the fact that I don't buy your numbers for a minute, the
>>>> percentage of what we own has nothing to do with the percentage we
use
>>>> that
>>>> is produced.
>>> You ought to buy his figures, though.
>>> For reserves, see:http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
>>> US oil reserves: 21.4 billion barrels
>>> Total world reserves: 1,292.6 billion barrels.
>>> US % of total reserves: 21.4/1292.6= 1.655%
>>> Gee, that is worse than what Z said.
>>> How about consumption?
>>>
See:http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2008/06/30/oil-consumption-by-cou...
>>> US % of total world oil consumption: 25.9%
>>> Google is my friend, even if it isn't yours <g>
>>> [snip]
>>> -------------------------------------
>>> I see you are as dumb as "Z" and think that the percentage that we
have
>>> has
>>> something to do with the percentage of what we consume that is
produced.
>>> I see you are running away from your contention that Z's figures were
>>> wrong.
>> I didn't say they were wrong. I said that I didn't buy his numbers.
>
>> You do realize that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, unless you
>> think your disbelief will somehow magically change how much oil the US
>> has, or consumes.
>
> What does not trusting him to state accurate numbers have to do with how
> much oil the US has? Moreover, what does a comparison of our percentage
of
> reserves with our percentage of world consumption have to do with how
much
> oil we have?
>
>>> Hell, I didn't even address the rest of your post. I just
>>> pointed out that Z was optimistic when he said that the US has 3% of
>>> the proven oil reserves. The actual number is 1.65%.
>>> And, of course, we can't produce more than we have. I agree we could
>>> produce *some* more oil,
>> Not with democrats controlling congress.
>
>> Ahh, argument by assertion. I know that is the best you've got, but do
>> try to do better.
>
> I understand. Can't disagree with the fact that democrats oppose
off-shore
> drilling so you project.
Credit where credit is due, Eddie:
"The Bush administration in 2001 backed off a proposal to allow drilling
in the Gulf of Mexico in an area that came as close as 16 miles to
beaches in Florida's panhandle. What the Bush administration approved
instead keeps drilling at least 100 miles from the coast."
http://www.factcheck.org/article183.html
I guess that's the best you've got.
>
>>> but we also have to look at the environmental
>>> implications of that production. Finally, even T. Boone Pickens (oil
>>> billionaire) agrees that we aren't going to drill our way out of this
>>> crisis, and we need to look at alternate sources of energy and at
>>> conservation.
>> Nuclear is our best bet, but democrats won't let us do that either.
>
>> I believe there is a great deal of fear of nuclear among the
>> population.
>
> To the degree that they are, we can thank left-wing fear-mongering.
>
> http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:9338
Are you *that* easily frightened, Eddie?
>> Just look how the people of Nevada are reacting to the
>> proposal to locate the high-level radioactive waste in their state,
>> even if it will be miles underground.
>
> People would be naturally more opposed to having nuclear waste dumped in
> their back yard than having a nuke plant there.
>
>> So, I don't think it is just
>> Democrats who are against nuclear power.
>
> The anti-nuclear power movement that shut down the industry was
decidedly
> left-wing. No doubt about that. So is anti-drilling.
Again, lest you stumble on through life shrouded in delusion:
"The Bush administration in 2001 backed off a proposal to allow drilling
in the Gulf of Mexico in an area that came as close as 16 miles to
beaches in Florida's panhandle. What the Bush administration approved
instead keeps drilling at least 100 miles from the coast."
http://www.factcheck.org/article183.html
> Now here we are..
Thank Bush for that.
>> You also ignore the rest of
>> my points for some reason. Why is that?
>
> What other points?
>
> -Eddie Haskell
|
