On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:01:57 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
publi...@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

So, I'll repeat:
"What kind of 'fact' is this? ANWR will make little difference in the
bigger picture. Reserves are estimated at 100 days of world demand.

1.) We don't have to supply the world with it.

2.) We could internally contract to deliver it primarily to our
military and strategic salt dome reserves.

On Mar 28, 12:21 pm, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Mar 28, 9:11 am, bill <ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 28, 11:32 am, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 27, 3:40 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:

Yer Pal Al wrote:

[read my link and try to figure out what I'm talking about]

This one?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/ar...

What is your point?

Whatever BS link you post and say, "You do the math." With the hopes
that I'll discover something that you cannot.

No dude, he's hoping that you'll do the math because he already has.
in most cases many times.  He's hoping that you'll learn what he
already knows.

He's absolutely wrong or can't you read for yourself?:

http://www.ejge.com/2005/Ppr0503/Ppr0503.htm

"An Evaluation of the Role of Fabric on Stiffness and Shear Strength
of Bringelly Shale"  why did you post this?  what does this have to do
with ANYTHING?

http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/MAGAZINE_DETAIL.asp?ART_ID=1542&MONT...

This is a good piece. The only thing is, it neglects infrastructure
construction time and production *rates*.  A fine example of this is
the oil shale article you posted before about the shell oil process.
How *long* does the construction of 20 gwe worth of power plants cost,
regardless of method?  How long will it take to drill the required
holes for injection of the heat and the refrigeration?  In short, when
can we expect to see even 1 mb/d of production?

http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/SWP/pdfs/monitoring_coal_bed_meth...

Already being used, no help there.

Yer Pal Al wrote:

He's absolutely wrong or can't you read for yourself?:

http://www.ejge.com/2005/Ppr0503/Ppr0503.htm

What does this have to do with energy? Do yo bother to read what you post?

http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/MAGAZINE_DETAIL.asp?ART_ID=1542&MONT....

What is meaningful in this link?

http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/SWP/pdfs/monitoring_coal_bed_meth...

In fact, I've had this paper available for a couple of years on my website:

http://lakeweb.com/money/tsr010.pdf

So, what is your point?

Yer Pal Al wrote:
On Mar 28, 10:18 am, bill <ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:21 pm, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/MAGAZINE_DETAIL.asp?ART_ID=1542&MONT....

This is a good piece. The only thing is, it neglects infrastructure
construction time and production *rates*.  A fine example of this is
the oil shale article you posted before about the shell oil process.
How *long* does the construction of 20 gwe worth of power plants cost,
regardless of method?  How long will it take to drill the required
holes for injection of the heat and the refrigeration?  In short, when
can we expect to see even 1 mb/d of production?

http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/SWP/pdfs/monitoring_coal_bed_meth...

Already being used, no help there.

You totally ignore the relevant points.

What points? You say there is a point but never point it out...

So, I'll repeat:
"What kind of 'fact' is this? ANWR will make little difference in the
bigger picture. Reserves are estimated at 100 days of world demand.
1.) We don't have to supply the world with it.

2.) We could internally contract to deliver it primarily to our
military and strategic salt dome reserves.

Right, however, oil is STILL fungible and tradeable. That means that
regardless of how you funnel it, the impact on the world market is the
same.

I consider that it should be measured NOT by how long it would supply
the world, but in fact, what fraction of 1 years decline it will
offset. It can reasonably be expected to produce 1mb/d, so
essentially, it can replace the declines to date in cantarrel field.
On the other hand, it can replace 10% of us imports for decades, and
that is nothing to sneeze at.

My biggest issue here is actually "what is the reason to NOT drill?".
I can find no reasonably acceptable answer to this.

I'm sure it will get drilled. To be fair, it will produce at 5% of U.S.
demand. I don't know enough about it but there doesn't look to be that
much impact on the area.

But what is interesting is the soccer mom types that want to 'save' the
world and still make their commutes. A complete disconnect.

Best, Dan.

On Mar 27, 3:40 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
Yer Pal Al wrote:

[read my link and try to figure out what I'm talking about]
This one?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/ar...

What is your point?

Whatever BS link you post and say, "You do the math." With the hopes
that I'll discover something that you cannot.

On Mar 28, 11:32 am, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 27, 3:40 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:

Yer Pal Al wrote:

[read my link and try to figure out what I'm talking about]

This one?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/ar...

What is your point?

Whatever BS link you post and say, "You do the math." With the hopes
that I'll discover something that you cannot.

No dude, he's hoping that you'll do the math because he already has.

He's absolutely wrong or can't you read for yourself?:

http://www.ejge.com/2005/Ppr0503/Ppr0503.htm

http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/MAGAZINE_DETAIL.asp?ART_ID=1542&MONTH_YEAR=Sep-2001

http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/SWP/pdfs/monitoring_coal_bed_methane_production.pdf

So, I'll repeat:
"What kind of 'fact' is this? ANWR will make little difference in the
bigger picture. Reserves are estimated at 100 days of world demand.

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:11:50 -0700 (PDT), bill
ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> mumbled:

On Mar 28, 11:32 am, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 27, 3:40 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:

Yer Pal Al wrote:
[read my link and try to figure out what I'm talking about]
This one?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/ar...
What is your point?
Whatever BS link you post and say, "You do the math." With the hopes
that I'll discover something that you cannot.
No dude, he's hoping that you'll do the math because he already has.


Of course he won't cut to the chase and summarize...

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:01:57 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

So, I'll repeat:
"What kind of 'fact' is this? ANWR will make little difference in the
bigger picture. Reserves are estimated at 100 days of world demand.

1.) We don't have to supply the world with it.

2.) We could internally contract to deliver it primarily to our
military and strategic salt dome reserves.

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:01:57 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

So, I'll repeat:
"What kind of 'fact' is this? ANWR will make little difference in the
bigger picture. Reserves are estimated at 100 days of world demand.

1.) We don't have to supply the world with it.

2.) We could internally contract to deliver it primarily to our
military and strategic salt dome reserves.

Billy Ray Imhotep wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:01:57 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

So, I'll repeat:
"What kind of 'fact' is this? ANWR will make little difference in the
bigger picture. Reserves are estimated at 100 days of world demand.

1.) We don't have to supply the world with it.

2.) We could internally contract to deliver it primarily to our
military and strategic salt dome reserves.

I see you have snipped to create a truth that has connection to the real
world. Typical.

Billy Ray Imhotep wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:11:50 -0700 (PDT), bill
ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> mumbled:

On Mar 28, 11:32 am, Yer Pal Al <Caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 27, 3:40 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:

Yer Pal Al wrote:
[read my link and try to figure out what I'm talking about]
This one?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/ar...
What is your point?
Whatever BS link you post and say, "You do the math." With the hopes
that I'll discover something that you cannot.
No dude, he's hoping that you'll do the math because he already has.


Of course he won't cut to the chase and summarize...

Sure, again...

The world demands 85mb/d of liquids today. To keep economies healthy
will require demand to grow to well over 100 mb/d in twenty years. It is
rather clear that oil production is peaking now. In fact, conventionals
have peaked. Overall production is flat because GTL infrastructure in
the ME is growing at break neck speed.

We have no meaningful new production to replace aging fields. These
fields are now and will start seeing declines in production. In twenty
years conventional production could be down by as much as 15-20 mb/d.
That makes for a gap measured in tens of millions of barrels a day.

Alternatives can only put a band aid on this deadly condition. To wit,
after decades of exploiting sand oil production is up to 1 mb/d. They
talk about 2 mb/d but we have already peaked in the production of
natural gas in North America. It ain't gona happen. After decades of
isolation South Africa produces some 1.5 mb/d from CTL.

There is no next alternative that can be expected to keep this
civilization on the coarse we have been on. This energy driven world is
barely a human lifetime along.

And why do folks link Yer Pal Al throw fits? They are in denail becuase
they don't want to see things change. Well, how self important and self
destructive.

My blog:
http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/

On Mar 28, 1:22 pm, Billy Ray Imhotep <s...@coph.agus> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:01:57 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
publi...@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

So, I'll repeat:
"What kind of 'fact' is this? ANWR will make little difference in the
bigger picture. Reserves are estimated at 100 days of world demand.
1.) We don't have to supply the world with it.

2.) We could internally contract to deliver it primarily to our
military and strategic salt dome reserves.

Right, however, oil is STILL fungible and tradeable. That means that
regardless of how you funnel it, the impact on the world market is the
same.

I consider that it should be measured NOT by how long it would supply
the world, but in fact, what fraction of 1 years decline it will
offset. It can reasonably be expected to produce 1mb/d, so
essentially, it can replace the declines to date in cantarrel field.
On the other hand, it can replace 10% of us imports for decades, and
that is nothing to sneeze at.

My biggest issue here is actually "what is the reason to NOT drill?".
I can find no reasonably acceptable answer to this.