On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:42:27 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

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.

It is indeed true that we could use this resource as a wholly internal
hedge against military or market forces.

In doing so we'd have reinvested in American labor, infrastructure and
security.

What a terrible bit of foresight that might prove to be!

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.

bill wrote:
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.

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.

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:59:55 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

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.

Not really.

Humans are here to breed and replicate.

If you believe we have any other purpose, rotsa ruck.

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.

On Mar 28, 10:15 am, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
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?

That you can't defend your position.

Billy Ray Imhotep wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:42:27 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

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.

You got the wrong post, I revised:
I see you have snipped to create a truth that has _no_ connection to the
real world. Typical.

It is indeed true that we could use this resource as a wholly internal
hedge against military or market forces.

It may be possible, but has nothing to do with the real world unless you
plan on war.

In doing so we'd have reinvested in American labor, infrastructure and
security.

What a terrible bit of foresight that might prove to be!

If you think so. It must be nice living in a dream world...

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:10:31 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

It may be possible, but has nothing to do with the real world unless you
plan on war.

Al Qaeda does, they've said so:

http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369910

On December 16, 2004, bin Laden released an audiotape making an
explicit connection between U.S. forces in Iraq and the region's oil
reserves;

in the audiotape, he praised the terrorists who attacked the
U.S. Consulate in Jeddah. Bin Laden said, "Targeting America in Iraq
in terms of economy and losses in life is a golden and unique
opportunity....

What a terrible bit of foresight that might prove to be!
If you think so. It must be nice living in a dream world...

You realy are decoupled from world events.

Grow up.

I won't do your math:

Billy Ray Imhotep wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:10:31 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> mumbled:

It may be possible, but has nothing to do with the real world unless you
plan on war.

Al Qaeda does, they've said so:

http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369910

On December 16, 2004, bin Laden released an audiotape making an
explicit connection between U.S. forces in Iraq and the region's oil
reserves;

You would have to be brain dead to not know we are in the region because
of oil. So what?

in the audiotape, he praised the terrorists who attacked the
U.S. Consulate in Jeddah. Bin Laden said, "Targeting America in Iraq
in terms of economy and losses in life is a golden and unique
opportunity....

Give me a break. Bin Laden is long dead.

What a terrible bit of foresight that might prove to be!
If you think so. It must be nice living in a dream world...

You realy are decoupled from world events.

Grow up.

Bawhawhawhawhaw!

Yer Pal Al wrote:

I won't do your math:

I think you are impressing Billy Ray. Go Al!

Enough, you're a kool aid drinker.

Billy Ray Imhotep wrote:

Enough, you're a kool aid drinker.

Now that is a perfect example of pot/kettle. Have a nice life.

Bye bye...