Eddie Haskell wrote:
> "Major Debacle" <Major_Debacle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> message news:zUbgk.18041$Ri.16002@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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.
>
> Pssst.. See where it says "approved instead?"
The net effect was that, as a political favor, Bush opposed drilling
near the coastline of the state where his brother was governor, and the
country as a whole be damned.
"We can drill anywhere but where it might damage the political fortunes
of muh family... heh heh heh"
> Further, that was in 2001 and Bush just lifted the executive ban.
>
> Democrats won't and oppose offshore drilling like I said.
>
> But I guess reaching back to 2001 where Bush approved offshore just not
16
> miles offshore is 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?
>
> No, but dems are. I'm for nuke power. Remember?
>
> I guess you got confused again.
>
>>>> 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 need to read your own post. See were it says "approved instead?"
Bush
> opened up offshore drilling, just not the part that was 16 miles from
the
> coast.
>
> I also liked this part:
>
> "Also, the energy bill Bush originally proposed contained a provision
that
> would have called for the Department of the Interior to inventory oil
and
> gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf including areas in the
Gulf.
> That inventory provision was stripped from the bill in Congress after
> representatives of Florida and some other coastal states objected,
saying it
> would eventually lead to pressure for more drilling. The bill --
currently
> stalled in the Senate -- still contains a provision giving the Interior
> Department authority to grant easements, or rights-of-way, for offshore
> activities that sup****t exploration, development, production,
trans****tation
> or storage of oil and gas"
>
> That means that we really don't know how much oil we have, as we haven't
> explored everywhere.
>
> So there goes your whole argument.
>
> Up in smoke..
>
> KA-BOOM!
>
> -Eddie haskell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Output from Prudhoe Bay peaked in 1998 at 2 million barrels per day.
It's been
declining ever since. Every year, less and less oil is pumped
from the Prudhoe Bay oil field. Today, less than 700,000 barrels a day
are being pumped south.
Total production from 1977 through 2005 was 13 billion barrels. As of
August 2006, BP estimated that only 2 billion recoverable barrels remain.
Prudhoe Bay is running dry.
|
