Wolf Leverich wrote:
> 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 ...
Er, you deny that the Dems in Colorado are obstructing oil shale
development?
**** you, you piece of ****.
>
>>> ###
>>>
>>>>> 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?
National security.
>
> ###
>
>>> 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,
BULL ****ING ****!
You may have registered thusly, but you are a complete and total FRAUD!
>
>>> ###
>>>
>>>>> 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.
Very stupid, you just got your ass handed to you.
> 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.
It takes new fields in Brazil, oil shale in Colorado, and the Bakken
shale.
And recently the President's announcements that the drilling ban was
rescinded.
Deal.
> ###
>
>>> 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 ****ing MORON!
Have you seen what's happened since the Brazilian finds???
> You can't.
I already have, as slicker.
> Welcome to a cartelized market.
That it is, and one still responsive to NEW finds.
>>> ###
>>>
>>>> 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?
Have you ever been honest one day in your life?
Cars don't require regular "tune ups" and tire pressure vs. ANWR is as
stupid a canard as has ever been played, you ****ing piece of ****!
> ###
>
>>> 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.
No - right - spot on right you lying ****ing eco-whore.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/60minutes/main1343604.shtml
(CBS) America's dependence on foreign oil — President Bush called it "an
addiction" in his State of the Union address — has become a threat to
the country’s economy and security.
While the president spent much of last week promoting energy
alternatives of the future, like hybrid cars and fuels made from wood
chips, the governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, says there's something
we can have up and running in the next five years.
What he has in mind is using the coal, billions of tons of it, under the
high plains of his home state. The governor tells correspondent Lesley
Stahl he wants to use an existing process to turn that coal into a
synthetic liquid fuel, or synfuel.
The plan is controversial, but Gov. Schweitzer — half Renaissance man,
half rodeo cowboy — seems ready for the challenge. In fact, he sounds
like he’s ready to take on the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why wouldn’t we create an economic engine that will take us into the
next century, and let those sheiks and dictators and rats and crooks
from all over the world boil in their own oil?" Schweitzer said at a
press conference.
Schweitzer has called them rats and crooks and hasn't held back on bit.
"Hugo Chavez, the Saudi royal family, the leaders of Iran," he said.
"How about the countries that end with 'stan'? Nigeria? You tell me.
Sheiks, rats, crooks, dictators, sure."
He's a governor with his own foreign policy and no one is calling Brian
Schweitzer a wuss. He says flat out that his plan will change the world,
and that the key to the country’s energy future is buried in the grassy
plains of eastern Montana.
"Probably about half of eastern Montana has coal underneath it,"
Schweitzer explains.
Montana is already mining a small fraction of its coal.
But unlike the deep shaft mining done in West Virginia, Montana coal is
surface mined and there hasn’t been a fatal accident in 15 years. The
governor took 60 Minutes down into one of those huge pits.
"We are surrounded by energy," Schweitzer said. "There's no going down
into a mine. It's a road. They drive right out of here."
"But, let me ask you something. Coal has such a bad reputation" Stahl
said. "It's dirty. I can feel it. I'm gonna be filthy. I can smell it.
It's awful, awful, awful. How many of these would you have to dig out to
produce enough of what you're talking about to make it make sense?"
"If we got to 20 of these kinds of pits, we could produce a serious
amount of energy for the future of this country," the governor said.
It’s not enough to completely break our addiction to foreign oil, but a
start. Most coal today is used for electricity but the governor’s plan
is to turn Montana’s billions of tons of untapped coal into a liquid
diesel fuel for our cars.
Schweitzer wants to take coal that’s been pressurized into a gas, and
then use something called the Fischer-Tropsch process to convert that
gas into a clean diesel fuel, similar to what is made at a demonstration
plant in Oklahoma.
The governor handed Stahl a jar of this synthetic fuel, which looked and
smelled clean. "Chanel No. 37," Schweitzer said, laughing. "It is
diesel. You can pour that in your diesel car or truck right now."
> First, wind and solar frees up natural gas currently used
> for electrical generation for use as a trans****t fuel.
It takes too long to fuel up with and produces less energy than a coal
to liquid fuel.
But it may have merit for urban fleet use.
> Second, pluggable hybrids can use that electricity as a
> direct replacement for fossil fuels.
And that recharging occurs at night when the wind is diminished and the
sun is gone, fool.
> 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.
Have you even heard of SASOL?
You ****ing idiot!
> ###
>
>>> 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?
Won re-election didn't he?
> This is some strange new definition
> of "well" that I had not been previously aware of.
Two term Governor AND President.
> And Kerry certainly did a brilliant job of dealing with the
> Swift Boat liars.
I saw no liars - save for you - **** licker.
> ###
>
>>> 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.
I can handle your lack of real ****tfolio just fine, luser.
> ###
>
>>> 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.
Not buying it, and no one else is either, ****wit.
|
