On 2008-08-25, Wu Li <dancing @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Dr. Brian Leverich wrote:
>> On 2008-08-23, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> Wolf Leverich wrote:
>>>
>>>> In terms of drilling, there's virtually nothing we can do that
>>>> would much affect total world supply, and hence the global price
>>>> of oil.
>>> Incorrect. The US still has a very huge oil supply at well
>>> below current prices. AT present prices, we have the largest supply
>>> anywhere.
>>
>> Nope, correct. With regards to *drilling*, look at the
>> DoE estimates.
>>
>> If you disagree, what's your source?
>>
>> There are massive oil shale resources in Colorado and
>> Wyoming, as I noted below, but that's mining and not
>> drilling.
>
> Oil is oil, especially if it's recoverable and market prices - and it
is.
>
> Stop the ****ing obfuscation you eco-asswipe.
Er. You plan to take a drilling rig and go recover
shale oil? This could be fun to watch ...
>> ###
>>
>>>> The reason you aren't utterly wrong is because we (the US and
>>>> Canada) do have enough oil shale and tar reserves that we could
>>>> cap the price of oil at the recovery price of shale/tar, if
>>>> we're willing to pretty much destroy the southwestern corner of
>>>> America to produce oil for international consumption.
>>> For domestic consumption.
>>
>> You can't separate domestic and international consumption,
>> unless you intend to abrogate a whole host of international
>> trade agreements.
>
> Not necessarily true.
So how would you isolate the domestic market without running afoul
of our trade agreements?
###
>> Throwing away those agreements is with me -- I don't have much
>> use for "free trade" -- but most Republicans would think that
>> taking a protectionist stance was not a wise thing.
>
> You're no one to speak for "most Republicans", ****iwit.
Sure I am. I've prolly been a Republican longer than you've
been alive, and I've almost sure logged more time working on
Republican campaigns and as staff to Republican office-holders.
Besides that, I have this amazing ability to read the papers. ;)
>> ###
>>
>>>> BTW, if you want to blame someone for the short-term run-up
>>>> in oil prices, blame Republicans. What's going on right now,
>>>> for the folks extremely short on clues, is that the industry
>>>> is profit-taking in a major way while there's no meaningful
>>>> oversight or threat of excess profits taxation.
>>> The blame is on Democrats for not allowing more production.
>>
>> No, we can't produce enough through drilling to break OPEC.
>
> You don't have to.
>
> All that need happen is for excess supply to drive prices down.
Very good. You pass the pop quiz at the end of the
first week of Ec-101.
Now how much oil does it take to create "excess supply"
in a cartelized market? Answer: recisely the amount that's
required to break the discipline of cartel members.
###
>> If you can't produce enough to cause the cartel to lose
>> discipline, you can't affect pricing at all. Zilch.
>
> That is a flat ****ing LIE.
>
> EVERY announced new find and production increase serves to drive the
> current price down as the market is ALWAYS forward looking.
>
> STOP YOUR ****ING LYING, ASSWIPE!
Show us a graph that indicates oil prices track finds
in any meaningful sense at all. ;)
You can't.
Welcome to a cartelized market.
>> ###
>>
>>> The only answer is to elect Republicans.
>>>
>>> Doug McDonald
>>
>> The only answer is to conserve where it makes sense (as has
>> been observed, simply inflating our tires has more impact than
>> drilling ANWR)
>
> BULL****!
>
> That presumes that all 4 tires on MOST of the fleet are under-inflated.
>
> Hint - they're not, but your head is.
>
> You ****ing propagandist eco-weeny.
Have you ever noticed how small the expected contribution
of ANWR is to our total energy consumption?
###
>> and ****ft to non-cartelized energy sources.
>> We've got huge wind and solar resources available within our
>> borders, and that's where we ought to be directing our capital
>> streams.
>
> I hate to clue ya, but neither wind nor solar will impact most domestic
> trans****t based oil use, fool.
>
> Coal to liquids however could.
Wrong in several different senses.
First, wind and solar frees up natural gas currently used
for electrical generation for use as a trans****t fuel.
Second, pluggable hybrids can use that electricity as a
direct replacement for fossil fuels.
Third, pretty much any scheme you choose for doing exotic
technology like coal to liquids is going to require energy
as an input to the production process. Guess where that
energy could come from.
###
>> Re electing Republicans, sure, go vote for a guy who was
>> 895th out of 899 in his class at Annapolis
>
> So what?
>
> Neither Bush nor Kerry were great scholars and each has done quite
> well, quit grasping in desperation, you woethless chicken-****ing son of
> a *****.
Um, Bush has done well? This is some strange new definition
of "well" that I had not been previously aware of.
And Kerry certainly did a brilliant job of dealing with the
Swift Boat liars.
###
>> and has nasty enough
>> senior moments that at times he can't even recall how many houses
>> he owns.
>
> Perhaps because they are mostly condos and are in his WIFE's ****tfolio,
> fool.
I kinda unambiguously understand how many homes I have. Most people
can handle numbers like 4 or 7 or 12.
###
>> But based on recent experience, I'd say electing a
>> President with distinctly unimpressive intelligence is
>
> You're a vile piece of ****, drop ****ing dead.
Naw, I'm a rich, happy bastard. Smart one, too. I plan
on hanging around for awhile.
Cheers, Wolf.
|
