Discussion:
WOW!! - HUGE OIL DISCOVERY IN GULF OF MEXICO!!
(too old to reply)
t***@aol.com
2006-09-05 23:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........

"WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) - A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp.
has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could
boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well
indicates it could be the biggest new domestic oil discovery since
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay a generation ago."
Adam Albright
2006-09-05 23:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........
We all know you're full of shit.

Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Once it is gone, it is gone forever. The oil you're talking about is
over five miles below the ocean, making it much harder to get and at
least 4-5 years away from turning into gasoline assuming they start
drilling today which of course they're not. Besides it is EXPENSIVE
oil that makes little sense to drill for unless of course the oil
price is kept artifically high, which geez, oh my God, exactly the
plan of the damn fucking major oil companies. Keep oil prices high to
make more profit and you fools will keep right on wanting to run
around in gas guzzling SUV's.

Damn stupid isn't even close when it comes to describing right wing
morons.
t***@aol.com
2006-09-06 00:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You Lefties
are Sure STOOPID.........
Matt
2006-09-06 00:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil.
No, we don't.
Post by t***@aol.com
...........Oil is an Organic Product of the Earth........
No, it isn't. You are an idiot.
Post by t***@aol.com
Every year the Earth Produces
MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You Lefties
are Sure STOOPID.........
Yeah, ok. THIS is your Republican party, folks.

Matt
t***@aol.com
2006-09-06 02:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Post by t***@aol.com
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil.
No, we don't.
Sure we DO, Dork.........
Post by Matt
Post by t***@aol.com
...........Oil is an Organic Product of the Earth........
No, it isn't. You are an idiot.
Oil IS an Organic Product of the Earth, Dork.........It ISN'T made from
Dead Dinosaurs, it's made from Decayed Vegetation..........Go back to
School, Stupid........
Post by Matt
Yeah, ok. THIS is your Republican party, folks.
Hardly, Dork........It's the American Petroleum
Institute............You MORON.........
Kevin Cunningham
2006-09-06 21:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Matt
Post by t***@aol.com
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil.
No, we don't.
Sure we DO, Dork.........
Post by Matt
Post by t***@aol.com
...........Oil is an Organic Product of the Earth........
No, it isn't. You are an idiot.
Oil IS an Organic Product of the Earth, Dork.........It ISN'T made from
Dead Dinosaurs, it's made from Decayed Vegetation..........Go back to
School, Stupid........
Post by Matt
Yeah, ok. THIS is your Republican party, folks.
Hardly, Dork........It's the American Petroleum
Institute............You MORON.........
Perhaps you'd like to explain how green stuff can grow 5 miles down in the
ocean? Or is it your nap time?

Every time I wonder "How dumb can you get" the Lonester comes along with
even more stupidity.
JakTheHammer
2006-09-06 21:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Perhaps you'd like to explain how green stuff can grow 5 miles down in the
ocean? Or is it your nap time?
Easy, DumbShit........IT'S THERE, ain't it?...........
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Every time I wonder "How dumb can you get" the Lonester comes along with
even more stupidity.
Will you ever Grow Up and Quit being a DumbAss?............
f***@hotmail.com
2006-09-07 04:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Matt
Post by t***@aol.com
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil.
No, we don't.
Sure we DO, Dork.........
Post by Matt
Post by t***@aol.com
...........Oil is an Organic Product of the Earth........
No, it isn't. You are an idiot.
Oil IS an Organic Product of the Earth, Dork.........It ISN'T made from
Dead Dinosaurs, it's made from Decayed Vegetation..........Go back to
School, Stupid........
Post by Matt
Yeah, ok. THIS is your Republican party, folks.
Hardly, Dork........It's the American Petroleum
Institute............You MORON.........
Perhaps you'd like to explain how green stuff can grow 5 miles down in the
ocean? Or is it your nap time?
Maybe what's growing isn't green.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Stu Gotz
2006-09-06 02:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
MORE and MORE OIl...........
Every year, your numb skull produces more grease, rumpranger...
dk
2006-09-06 02:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You Lefties
are Sure STOOPID.........
Ouch... this is painful. Go read and educate yourself. The second
link gives link to data from oil companies. Read both sides. Even the
most optimistic see oil as finite (takes millions of years for carbon
to turn to oil).

hthttp://www.postcarbon.org/informed/peakenergy
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
JakTheHammer
2006-09-06 03:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Even the most optimistic see oil as finite (takes millions of years for carbon to turn to oil).
That's nice.......I NEVER said Oil wasn't a Finite Resource........And
during the "Gas Shortage" of the 70's, there were University Labs that
produced Oil from Tree Vegetation in less than "Millions Of
Years"..........Plus, the Earth is STILL Producing Oil and Every Year
We Find MORE Oil..........Oil will be with us for a LONG
Time.......Better get used to it...........
robw
2006-09-06 03:36:49 UTC
Permalink
If there's this amazing source of oil, surely some of it would be here in
the U.S., right?

So why did your president , just yesterday, say that we need to be less
dependant on foreign oil and seek other forms of energy?
Post by JakTheHammer
Even the most optimistic see oil as finite (takes millions of years for
carbon to turn to oil).
Post by JakTheHammer
That's nice.......I NEVER said Oil wasn't a Finite Resource........And
during the "Gas Shortage" of the 70's, there were University Labs that
produced Oil from Tree Vegetation in less than "Millions Of
Years"..........Plus, the Earth is STILL Producing Oil and Every Year
We Find MORE Oil..........Oil will be with us for a LONG
Time.......Better get used to it...........
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
2006-09-06 05:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by robw
If there's this amazing source of oil, surely some of it would be here in
the U.S., right?
They just found perhaps six billion barrels.
Post by robw
So why did your president , just yesterday, say that we need to be less
dependant on foreign oil and seek other forms of energy?
Because that's true.
--
"I hate you and I despise you! Now give me back my tail.", Marilyn
Monroe, "Bus Stop"
robw
2006-09-07 00:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Energy officials have already pointed out that this "discovery" is far down
the road of being useful enough to turn into fuel. They also pointed out it
won't put much of a dent in our needs.




"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
If there's this amazing source of oil, surely some of it would be here in
the U.S., right?
They just found perhaps six billion barrels.
Post by robw
So why did your president , just yesterday, say that we need to be less
dependant on foreign oil and seek other forms of energy?
Because that's true.
--
"I hate you and I despise you! Now give me back my tail.", Marilyn
Monroe, "Bus Stop"
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
2006-09-06 05:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by dk
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You Lefties
are Sure STOOPID.........
Ouch... this is painful. Go read and educate yourself. The second
link gives link to data from oil companies. Read both sides. Even the
most optimistic see oil as finite (takes millions of years for carbon
to turn to oil).
But how much is there? Have we found the main traps or are there other
places, perhaps very deep, that hold oil? It would seem like oil and
natural gas could more easily be trapped if they were in fact deeper.
--
"I hate you and I despise you! Now give me back my tail.", Marilyn
Monroe, "Bus Stop"
snakehawk
2006-09-10 20:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by dk
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You Lefties
are Sure STOOPID.........
Ouch... this is painful. Go read and educate yourself. The second
link gives link to data from oil companies. Read both sides. Even the
most optimistic see oil as finite (takes millions of years for carbon
to turn to oil).
hthttp://www.postcarbon.org/informed/peakenergy
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
Maybe, but that means that every year more carbon turns to oil. It
didn't all start and stop at some specific time in the past. It's a
continuing transformation. And the millions of little pockets of
carbon flow to large pockets and keeps right on flowing. Ask any oil
man and he'll tell you that they are finding that many of those old
abandoned and shut down wells are now rejuvenated after a few years of
idleness. They're filling up again. For all we know, we may never run
out of oil.
JakTheHammer
2006-09-10 21:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by snakehawk
Post by dk
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You Lefties
are Sure STOOPID.........
Ouch... this is painful. Go read and educate yourself. The second
link gives link to data from oil companies. Read both sides. Even the
most optimistic see oil as finite (takes millions of years for carbon
to turn to oil).
hthttp://www.postcarbon.org/informed/peakenergy
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
Maybe, but that means that every year more carbon turns to oil. It
didn't all start and stop at some specific time in the past. It's a
continuing transformation. And the millions of little pockets of
carbon flow to large pockets and keeps right on flowing. Ask any oil
man and he'll tell you that they are finding that many of those old
abandoned and shut down wells are now rejuvenated after a few years of
idleness. They're filling up again. For all we know, we may never run
out of oil.
Careful........You'll Piss Off the Lefties when you State
FACTS.........According to Lefties, we have to find MORE OIL than there
is in the Entire Middle East BEFORE they MIGHT Admit we're gonna have
Oil for a LONG TIME..........It's all Political, you know...........
robw
2006-09-10 22:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Energy experts have said this "finding" will not come to fruition for at
least five years and won't make us any less dependant on foreign oil.

Sorry that facts confuse you.

And before you even ask for a cite, Google Philly.com, and read the reports.

Sleep tight, nitwit.
Post by JakTheHammer
Post by snakehawk
Post by dk
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You Lefties
are Sure STOOPID.........
Ouch... this is painful. Go read and educate yourself. The second
link gives link to data from oil companies. Read both sides. Even the
most optimistic see oil as finite (takes millions of years for carbon
to turn to oil).
hthttp://www.postcarbon.org/informed/peakenergy
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
Maybe, but that means that every year more carbon turns to oil. It
didn't all start and stop at some specific time in the past. It's a
continuing transformation. And the millions of little pockets of
carbon flow to large pockets and keeps right on flowing. Ask any oil
man and he'll tell you that they are finding that many of those old
abandoned and shut down wells are now rejuvenated after a few years of
idleness. They're filling up again. For all we know, we may never run
out of oil.
Careful........You'll Piss Off the Lefties when you State
FACTS.........According to Lefties, we have to find MORE OIL than there
is in the Entire Middle East BEFORE they MIGHT Admit we're gonna have
Oil for a LONG TIME..........It's all Political, you know...........
t***@aol.com
2006-09-10 22:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Poor Little Retard.........Take your Meds, Moron........
Post by robw
Energy experts have said this "finding" will not come to fruition for at
least five years and won't make us any less dependant on foreign oil.
Sorry that facts confuse you.
And before you even ask for a cite, Google Philly.com, and read the reports.
Sleep tight, nitwit.
Post by JakTheHammer
Post by snakehawk
Post by dk
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil
is
Post by JakTheHammer
Post by snakehawk
Post by dk
Post by t***@aol.com
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You
Lefties
Post by JakTheHammer
Post by snakehawk
Post by dk
Post by t***@aol.com
are Sure STOOPID.........
Ouch... this is painful. Go read and educate yourself. The second
link gives link to data from oil companies. Read both sides. Even
the
Post by JakTheHammer
Post by snakehawk
Post by dk
most optimistic see oil as finite (takes millions of years for carbon
to turn to oil).
hthttp://www.postcarbon.org/informed/peakenergy
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
Maybe, but that means that every year more carbon turns to oil. It
didn't all start and stop at some specific time in the past. It's a
continuing transformation. And the millions of little pockets of
carbon flow to large pockets and keeps right on flowing. Ask any oil
man and he'll tell you that they are finding that many of those old
abandoned and shut down wells are now rejuvenated after a few years of
idleness. They're filling up again. For all we know, we may never run
out of oil.
Careful........You'll Piss Off the Lefties when you State
FACTS.........According to Lefties, we have to find MORE OIL than there
is in the Entire Middle East BEFORE they MIGHT Admit we're gonna have
Oil for a LONG TIME..........It's all Political, you know...........
robw
2006-09-10 23:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Sorry you can't deal with facts, Gramps.

But I do know it's Sunday, and you won't know what to say until Rush comes
on tomorrow.

Useless puppet.
Post by t***@aol.com
Poor Little Retard.........Take your Meds, Moron........
Post by robw
Energy experts have said this "finding" will not come to fruition for at
least five years and won't make us any less dependant on foreign oil.
Sorry that facts confuse you.
And before you even ask for a cite, Google Philly.com, and read the reports.
Sleep tight, nitwit.
Post by JakTheHammer
Post by snakehawk
Post by dk
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE
Oil............Oil
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by robw
is
Post by JakTheHammer
Post by snakehawk
Post by dk
Post by t***@aol.com
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You
Lefties
Post by JakTheHammer
Post by snakehawk
Post by dk
Post by t***@aol.com
are Sure STOOPID.........
Ouch... this is painful. Go read and educate yourself. The second
link gives link to data from oil companies. Read both sides.
Even
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by robw
the
Post by JakTheHammer
Post by snakehawk
Post by dk
most optimistic see oil as finite (takes millions of years for carbon
to turn to oil).
hthttp://www.postcarbon.org/informed/peakenergy
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
Maybe, but that means that every year more carbon turns to oil. It
didn't all start and stop at some specific time in the past. It's a
continuing transformation. And the millions of little pockets of
carbon flow to large pockets and keeps right on flowing. Ask any oil
man and he'll tell you that they are finding that many of those old
abandoned and shut down wells are now rejuvenated after a few years of
idleness. They're filling up again. For all we know, we may never run
out of oil.
Careful........You'll Piss Off the Lefties when you State
FACTS.........According to Lefties, we have to find MORE OIL than there
is in the Entire Middle East BEFORE they MIGHT Admit we're gonna have
Oil for a LONG TIME..........It's all Political, you know...........
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
2006-09-10 22:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by robw
Energy experts have said this "finding" will not come to fruition for at
least five years and won't make us any less dependant on foreign oil.
How can you claim it won't make America less dependent on foreign oil
than it otherwise would be? That doesn't make sense.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
robw
2006-09-10 23:42:21 UTC
Permalink
I didn't.

The energy experts did.

Sorry.


"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Energy experts have said this "finding" will not come to fruition for at
least five years and won't make us any less dependant on foreign oil.
How can you claim it won't make America less dependent on foreign oil
than it otherwise would be? That doesn't make sense.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
2006-09-10 23:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by robw
I didn't.
The energy experts did.
Sorry.
They did not.
Post by robw
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Energy experts have said this "finding" will not come to fruition for at
least five years and won't make us any less dependant on foreign oil.
How can you claim it won't make America less dependent on foreign oil
than it otherwise would be? That doesn't make sense.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
robw
2006-09-10 23:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Read the papers.


"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
I didn't.
The energy experts did.
Sorry.
They did not.
Post by robw
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Energy experts have said this "finding" will not come to fruition for at
least five years and won't make us any less dependant on foreign oil.
How can you claim it won't make America less dependent on foreign oil
than it otherwise would be? That doesn't make sense.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
robw
2006-09-10 23:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Read the papers.

They did.


"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
I didn't.
The energy experts did.
Sorry.
They did not.
Post by robw
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Energy experts have said this "finding" will not come to fruition for at
least five years and won't make us any less dependant on foreign oil.
How can you claim it won't make America less dependent on foreign oil
than it otherwise would be? That doesn't make sense.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
2006-09-11 00:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by robw
Read the papers.
They did.
You are obviously twisting whatever it was they said. More American oil
on the market helps America's foreign oil dependency issues. This can't
not be true.
Post by robw
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
I didn't.
The energy experts did.
Sorry.
They did not.
Post by robw
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Energy experts have said this "finding" will not come to fruition
for at
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
least five years and won't make us any less dependant on foreign
oil.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
How can you claim it won't make America less dependent on foreign oil
than it otherwise would be? That doesn't make sense.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
robw
2006-09-11 01:03:52 UTC
Permalink
they said it wouldn't be enough/


"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Read the papers.
They did.
You are obviously twisting whatever it was they said. More American oil
on the market helps America's foreign oil dependency issues. This can't
not be true.
Post by robw
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
I didn't.
The energy experts did.
Sorry.
They did not.
Post by robw
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Energy experts have said this "finding" will not come to fruition
for at
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
least five years and won't make us any less dependant on foreign
oil.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
How can you claim it won't make America less dependent on foreign oil
than it otherwise would be? That doesn't make sense.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
2006-09-11 01:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by robw
they said it wouldn't be enough/
Enough to do what? Any is a enough to help.
Post by robw
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Read the papers.
They did.
You are obviously twisting whatever it was they said. More American oil
on the market helps America's foreign oil dependency issues. This can't
not be true.
Post by robw
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
I didn't.
The energy experts did.
Sorry.
They did not.
Post by robw
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Energy experts have said this "finding" will not come to
fruition
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
for at
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
least five years and won't make us any less dependant on foreign
oil.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
How can you claim it won't make America less dependent on foreign
oil
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
than it otherwise would be? That doesn't make sense.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
Stu Gotz
2006-09-11 00:41:41 UTC
Permalink
"Bull Blonde ('I'm a neocon airhead, so be nice')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
I didn't.
The energy experts did.
Sorry.
They did not.
Hey Blondie: Have a first grader read the following to you, from the
Houston Chronicle:

"...The new Gulf deposits won't even come online until 2012 at the earliest,
experts predict. At the current U.S. consumption level the estimated
capacity of the field would be exhausted in less than five years. Philip
Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, derided the hype over
the Gulf find and called it "a drop in the bucket" for solving U.S. energy
needs.
President George W. Bush was correct in referring to this country's
dependence on oil as an addiction. The discovery of a new supply close to
home could allow complacency to creep in where conservation and innovation
are essential to safeguarding the nation's energy future.

If the new Gulf oil is used as a providential gift that buys time for the
creation of a national policy to reduce American dependence on petroleum, it
will have served a good purpose. If used as a justification for the
continued wasteful and unsustainable binge at the gas pumps, it will only
put off by a few years an inevitable day of reckoning for every American."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4174152.html
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
2006-09-11 01:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stu Gotz
"Bull Blonde ('I'm a neocon airhead, so be nice')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
I didn't.
The energy experts did.
Sorry.
They did not.
Hey Blondie: Have a first grader read the following to you, from the
That in no ways substantiates what Rob is saying. Of course it won't
solve the foreign oil dependency issues that America faces. Any amount,
however, will do its share to ameliorate them.
Post by Stu Gotz
"...The new Gulf deposits won't even come online until 2012 at the earliest,
experts predict. At the current U.S. consumption level the estimated
capacity of the field would be exhausted in less than five years. Philip
Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, derided the hype over
the Gulf find and called it "a drop in the bucket" for solving U.S. energy
needs.
President George W. Bush was correct in referring to this country's
dependence on oil as an addiction. The discovery of a new supply close to
home could allow complacency to creep in where conservation and innovation
are essential to safeguarding the nation's energy future.
If the new Gulf oil is used as a providential gift that buys time for the
creation of a national policy to reduce American dependence on petroleum, it
will have served a good purpose. If used as a justification for the
continued wasteful and unsustainable binge at the gas pumps, it will only
put off by a few years an inevitable day of reckoning for every American."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4174152.html
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-10 22:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by robw
Energy experts have said this "finding" will not come to fruition for at
least five years and won't make us any less dependant on foreign oil.
Sorry that facts confuse you.
And before you even ask for a cite, Google Philly.com, and read the reports.
You need to research and read, rather than regurgitating what you see
on CNN. Next time you google, put in 'abiotic theory crude oil' and
read what you get. You will hear from both sides. Read them both, and
make a decision based on logic and reason, not your false notion of
how things ought to be. Note that although man HAS created methane from
inorganic substances inside a lab, no man has ever created crude oil
in a lab to prove the fossil fuel theory is tenable.

There are huge oilfields now in use, that were supposed to be empty ten
years ago. There are oil fields that are absolutely, and positively,
refilling, when the experts say they ought to be emptying.

There is oil 3, 4, and 5 miles beneath the earths surface, and you
cannot possibly think that oil comes from dinosaurs and trees at that
depth. There is more oil under the surface than man could possibly use,
and it is being replenished by the natural forces of the planet.

The idiotic president of the USA, Jimbo Carter, in the 70's, declared
on national TV that we would be out of crude oil by the early
1990's... Oooops. Then we were told all crude oil would be completely
gone by 2003... Ooooops. We now have more oil reserves, and are
finding more and more, than we ever have in history. Its NOT running
out. They are lying to us

DUH to you when Exxon says we are running out, and raises their price
accordingly, and you believe them. Wake up dude, they are screwing
with you.

Oil is NOT a fossil fuel, it is a byproduct of the planet earth. If
Exxon REALLY believes that oil comes from dinosaurs and ancient
forests, why were they looking 5 miles below the floor of the Gulf of
Mexico. hey think there are dinosaur fossils and dead trees below that
much solid granite and other rock? Use your head.

The second largest oil fields on earth are 3 and 4 miles deep, in the
Ukraine. Dinosaurs are not found 3.5 miles under the earth.

Methane, Natural Gas, and Oil are NOT fossil fuels. Don't believe me,
ask youself how come comets contain methane, the source of natural gas?
You gonna claim that there were once dinosaurs and ancient forests on
comets?

Oil is more plentiful in the earth than copper. Geez, its time for
people to start thinking, reading, and using the facts, rather than
just web surfing to find a page that backs up their preconceived
notions. Wikipedia is not the endall source of truth and fact.

Oil is NOT a fossil fuel. Its everywhere, and it always will be.
robw
2006-09-06 03:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Hey, I have an idea.....since oil "grows" and you're pretty close to being
Jed Clampet, why not see if "shooting possum" in your backyard scares up
some of that there growin' oil.

Moron.
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You Lefties
are Sure STOOPID.........
t***@aol.com
2006-09-06 06:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Sure, Little Retard........Just Stick your Possum-Azz out
here............Moron.........
Post by robw
Hey, I have an idea.....since oil "grows" and you're pretty close to being
Jed Clampet, why not see if "shooting possum" in your backyard scares up
some of that there growin' oil.
Moron.
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You Lefties
are Sure STOOPID.........
Amerigo Vespucci
2006-09-06 08:39:11 UTC
Permalink
<***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
: Sure, Little Retard........Just Stick your Possum-Azz out
: here............Moron.........

Hey calling him a possum is an insult to possums.He's a weasel.



:
: robw wrote:
: > Hey, I have an idea.....since oil "grows" and you're pretty close to
being
: > Jed Clampet, why not see if "shooting possum" in your backyard scares up
: > some of that there growin' oil.
: >
: > Moron.
: >
: >
: > <***@aol.com> wrote in message
: > news:***@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
: > > Adam HalfWit wrote:
: > > >
: > > > Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
: > >
: > > Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
: > > an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
: > > MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You Lefties
: > > are Sure STOOPID.........
: > >
:
robw
2006-09-07 00:11:04 UTC
Permalink
And you're a moron.
Post by Amerigo Vespucci
: Sure, Little Retard........Just Stick your Possum-Azz out
: here............Moron.........
Hey calling him a possum is an insult to possums.He's a weasel.
: > Hey, I have an idea.....since oil "grows" and you're pretty close to
being
: > Jed Clampet, why not see if "shooting possum" in your backyard scares up
: > some of that there growin' oil.
: >
: > Moron.
: >
: >
: > > >
: > > > Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
: > >
: > > Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
: > > an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
: > > MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You Lefties
: > > are Sure STOOPID.........
: > >
robw
2006-09-07 00:09:25 UTC
Permalink
What's the matter? Jethro better at being a double naught spy than you?
Post by t***@aol.com
Sure, Little Retard........Just Stick your Possum-Azz out
here............Moron.........
Post by robw
Hey, I have an idea.....since oil "grows" and you're pretty close to being
Jed Clampet, why not see if "shooting possum" in your backyard scares up
some of that there growin' oil.
Moron.
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You Lefties
are Sure STOOPID.........
Roger
2006-09-06 12:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
"organic product of the earth" is an OXYMORON, moron.
Post by t***@aol.com
MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You Lefties
are Sure STOOPID.........
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
2006-09-06 14:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
"organic product of the earth" is an OXYMORON, moron.
Crude oil consists almost entirely of organic molecules.
--
"And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty
heart, 'til the Devil whispered behind the leaves 'It's pretty, but is
it Art?'."
Adam Albright
2006-09-06 14:53:29 UTC
Permalink
On 6 Sep 2006 16:44:23 +0200, "Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of
Post by Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Post by Roger
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
"organic product of the earth" is an OXYMORON, moron.
Crude oil consists almost entirely of organic molecules.
Oil results under the right conditions of decay of both animals and
plants.

http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/chemistry/fossils/p3.html
Roger
2006-09-06 22:52:49 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Post by Roger
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
"organic product of the earth" is an OXYMORON, moron.
Crude oil consists almost entirely of organic molecules.
Which "the earth" cannot produce.
w***@ireland.com
2006-09-06 16:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
MORE and MORE OIl...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You Lefties
are Sure STOOPID.........
Must be them Republican dinosaurs that keep dying.

WB Yeats
g***@bayou.com
2006-09-10 21:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Really?........Every year we find MORE and MORE Oil............Oil is
an Organic Product of the Earth........Every year the Earth Produces
MORE and MORE OIl
The question is how much is produced each year, and how much us used
each year.

If oil has been produce for over 50 million years and in two hundred
years we have used almost half of it, how long will the rest last?
Post by t***@aol.com
...........Get INFORMED, Dummy...........You Lefties
are Sure STOOPID.........
JakTheHammer
2006-09-10 21:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@bayou.com
If oil has been produce for over 50 million years and in two hundred
years we have used almost half of it, how long will the rest last?
Since we have NO IDEA how much Oil is in the Earth and we keep finding
MORE every year, it should last FOREVER............
robw
2006-09-10 22:26:47 UTC
Permalink
No, it won't.
Post by JakTheHammer
Post by g***@bayou.com
If oil has been produce for over 50 million years and in two hundred
years we have used almost half of it, how long will the rest last?
Since we have NO IDEA how much Oil is in the Earth and we keep finding
MORE every year, it should last FOREVER............
rl27
2006-09-06 02:09:50 UTC
Permalink
First off I agree with you completely, and what I am recalling is based off
a series of lectures I attended in college around 1990 given by various
departments including economics on the Energy industry and current
research.
Post by Adam Albright
We all know you're full of shit.
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Unfortunately the amount of oil left is currently unknown, although I
remember a study being mentioned that estimated there was around 500 years
left of oil left on earth at current and expected consumption increases. In
fact it was mentioned that the most often reported forcasts of oil
production, and those that are officially approved were heavily biased to
assume very little new oil discoveries. Which makes since due to the
research being mostly speculation, although the models are probably very
accurate.

Which again is unfortunate in that it will probably be another 200 to 500
years before an alternative source of fuel is developed, depending on how
screwed up the planet gets or oil runs out which ever comes first. There
is just too much money in oil.
Post by Adam Albright
Once it is gone, it is gone forever. The oil you're talking about is
over five miles below the ocean, making it much harder to get and at
least 4-5 years away from turning into gasoline assuming they start
drilling today which of course they're not.
Actually I don't believe it is as expensive as the oil companies want us to
believe. Again based of an economics study around 1990 the cost of some at
the time new methods for removing oil from shale and other rock formations
should have opened up lots of oil drilling.

If I remember right the amount of oil under the Great Lakes alone is
expected to be enough for the entire U.S and Canada during for at least 50
years. Venezualla also has a larger oil capacity than the entire Middle
East, and again its harder to retrieve but not impossible. Thankfully at
the moment no one is really pushing to retrieve the Great Lakes oil.
Gregory Morrow
2006-09-06 08:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by rl27
First off I agree with you completely, and what I am recalling is based off
a series of lectures I attended in college around 1990 given by various
departments including economics on the Energy industry and current
research.
Post by Adam Albright
We all know you're full of shit.
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Unfortunately the amount of oil left is currently unknown, although I
remember a study being mentioned that estimated there was around 500 years
left of oil left on earth at current and expected consumption increases. In
fact it was mentioned that the most often reported forcasts of oil
production, and those that are officially approved were heavily biased to
assume very little new oil discoveries. Which makes since due to the
research being mostly speculation, although the models are probably very
accurate.
Which again is unfortunate in that it will probably be another 200 to 500
years before an alternative source of fuel is developed, depending on how
screwed up the planet gets or oil runs out which ever comes first. There
is just too much money in oil.
Post by Adam Albright
Once it is gone, it is gone forever. The oil you're talking about is
over five miles below the ocean, making it much harder to get and at
least 4-5 years away from turning into gasoline assuming they start
drilling today which of course they're not.
Actually I don't believe it is as expensive as the oil companies want us to
believe. Again based of an economics study around 1990 the cost of some at
the time new methods for removing oil from shale and other rock formations
should have opened up lots of oil drilling.
If I remember right the amount of oil under the Great Lakes alone is
expected to be enough for the entire U.S and Canada during for at least 50
years. Venezualla also has a larger oil capacity than the entire Middle
East, and again its harder to retrieve but not impossible. Thankfully at
the moment no one is really pushing to retrieve the Great Lakes oil.
Don't forget our VAST coal and shale oil and oil tar sand deposits in
North America. The state of Illinois ALONE has more energy reserves
(in the form of coal) than all of Saudi Arabia...gasoline, etc. can be
derived from this, and there is a lot of research going on about how to
effeciently and safely extract gasoline from oil (the technology was
invented by the Germans back in the 20's; curing WWII the Germans
relied heavily on this "synthetic fuel" source)...

Looking at the long term there is really no "energy shortage", human
need and ingenuity will ensure a steady flow of energy for centuries to
come. The chicken littles clucking about how we are running out of
energy were the same ones back in the 70's (remember Paul Ehrlich's
book _The Population Bomb_ and those Club of Rome reports?) clucking
about the imminent collapse of civilisation due to the lack of
resources and pollution. In fact more people are living a better life
today than ever (obesity frex is now a world - wide phenomenon...that's
due to a more and better food supply) and we've done a good job of
cleaning up the environment (at least in the developed world)...
--
Best
Greg
rl27
2006-09-07 22:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Morrow
Don't forget our VAST coal and shale oil and oil tar sand deposits in
North America. The state of Illinois ALONE has more energy reserves
(in the form of coal) than all of Saudi Arabia...gasoline, etc. can be
derived from this, and there is a lot of research going on about how
to effeciently and safely extract gasoline from oil (the technology
was invented by the Germans back in the 20's; curing WWII the Germans
relied heavily on this "synthetic fuel" source)...
Actually what I was talking about was future oil discoveries. I believe
the studies considered this oil.
Post by Gregory Morrow
Looking at the long term there is really no "energy shortage", human
need and ingenuity will ensure a steady flow of energy for centuries
to come.
Only if some outside agency doesn't interfere. However ingenuity isn't
always a given. Look at the automobile. Other than improvements in
manufacturing and materials, until recently there hasn't been much of a
change from when the automobile was invented in the late 19th century.

Even the gas-electric hybrid existed in the first decade of the 20th
century, and fuel cell cars also were investigated. About the main
difference now verses then is that a significant portion is now
manufactured by computer controlled robots and contains a lot of computer
systems inside.
Post by Gregory Morrow
The chicken littles clucking about how we are running out of
energy were the same ones back in the 70's (remember Paul Ehrlich's
I agree we will eventually have replacements, but how long will it take and
how much resistance will the oil industry put up.
Post by Gregory Morrow
today than ever (obesity frex is now a world - wide
phenomenon...that's due to a more and better food supply)
Actually obesity has little to do with food supply and more to do with how
much fats and sugars are consumed and how much exercise a person gets.
Post by Gregory Morrow
and we've done a good job of cleaning up the environment (at least in
the developed world)...
I'll have to disagree with you there. Ohio, where I live, is one of the
worst states in regards to air quality. At a Case Alumni Association
meeting about two years ago, an engineering professor gave a very
disturbing account of the state of the environment within 100, 200 and 500
miles of Columbus Ohio. This is coming from a very conservative college,
although recently the college has been having problems with the liberal
arts side trying to downplay if not sideline engineering and science.

The last decade has seen a major decline in environmental regulations and
enforcement of these regulations in the U.S. However you can't just blame
Bush on this.
C J Nelson
2006-09-07 19:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
Post by t***@aol.com
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........
We all know you're full of shit.
No it is thou who speaketh who art full of manure.
Any discovery of recoverable oil assets is a good thing (except if you
are a enviro wacko leftie)
Post by Adam Albright
Get a clue right wing freak. There is only a finite amount of oil.
Once it is gone, it is gone forever. The oil you're talking about is
over five miles below the ocean, making it much harder to get and at
least 4-5 years away from turning into gasoline assuming they start
drilling today which of course they're not.
So do not look explore or look for more oil deposits to help are energy
problem (along with a strong push for development of renewable ruels
and energy sources).

Lets all go back a few hunderd years and make due with candles and wood
fires (or I forgot wood fires would lead to global warming, Gad what
are we to do??)


Besides it is EXPENSIVE
Post by Adam Albright
oil that makes little sense to drill for unless of course the oil
price is kept artifically high, which geez, oh my God, exactly the
plan of the damn fucking major oil companies. Keep oil prices high to
make more profit and you fools will keep right on wanting to run
around in gas guzzling SUV's.
Damn stupid isn't even close when it comes to describing right wing
morons.
No I believe the left has a corner market on the stupid debate.

You want to dictate to us how to live because you are oh so much
smarter than the rest of the mere rable.

Check this out meat head. The Chineese in conjunction with Cuba and
your hero Chavez are going to be drilling in areas adjacent to Cuba.
And guess what there is not anything you can do to stop it.

But you would rather we not have any energy alternatives??

Liberals are fools
Matt
2006-09-06 00:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) - A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp.
has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could
boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well
indicates it could be the biggest new domestic oil discovery since
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay a generation ago."
Wow. Could be as much as 15 billion barrels. Gee.

The US uses, on average, 5.7 BILLION barrels a year. You just bought
us 2+ years. Congrats. And this will increase the reserves by 50%.

Very nice.

Idiots.

Matt
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-06 15:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Wow. Could be as much as 15 billion barrels. Gee.
The US uses, on average, 5.7 BILLION barrels a year. You just bought
us 2+ years. Congrats. And this will increase the reserves by 50%.
Matt,

In the sixties, fools and the uninformed said Prudhoe Bay would be
exhausted within two or three years as well. Based on what has actually
been extracted, I would have to say that our best science is simply
not up to the task of declaring the total amounts of oil that can be
found in a given area. These same "scientists" said we would be
completely out of oil by the year 2003...... The time for trusting them
as being infallible has passed.

There is enough oil, shlale, coal, and natural gas in this country to
allow us to completely shut down ALL oil imports, over a reasonable
amount of time, and if we could simply cease depending on our enemies
for our oil, a lot of violence would end, our troops could come home
for good, and the world would be a more peaceful place, or so it would
seem.

By arguing against developing our own oil reserves, you are advocating
the death of countless human beings over the next few decades. Of
course, alternatives are imperative, but they will not be appearing en
masse in the next decade, so we can either provide for ourselves, or
we can keep sending our money to countries and people who use it to
fight wars against us. They have the oil, we have declared that we
need it or we will perish, so they are perfectly willing to give us
some, but I think we would agree that the price, and the cost, are much
too high.

Let's use our own energy reserves, and tell the Arabs and south
american idiots, to go to hell......
Well Done
2006-09-09 19:57:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Wow. Could be as much as 15 billion barrels. Gee.
The US uses, on average, 5.7 BILLION barrels a year. You just bought
us 2+ years. Congrats. And this will increase the reserves by 50%.
Ooh, look, yet another lefty moron using the "new math".
Tell us, imbecile, just how will we extract all the oil in that well
in "2+ years"? We won't, of course, that oil would be onstream for
generations and would help the U. S. in a variety of ways.

The reason so many environauts are opposed to U. S. oil drilling; it
helps the U. S. They don't oppose drilling in the same areas by
Mexico, Cuba and other countries.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
Stu Gotz
2006-09-06 02:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) - A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp.
has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could
boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well
indicates it could be the biggest new domestic oil discovery since
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay a generation ago."
Rumpranger, you'd better fire up your Hummer to celebrate...
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-06 19:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) - A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp.
has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could
boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well
indicates it could be the biggest new domestic oil discovery since
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay a generation ago."
Slow down a little. The Prudhoe Bay oil field in Alaska was discovered
in 1968 and began production in 1977. It is the largest oil field ever
discovered in the US. Despite this fact, US oil production continued
to fall as it had since 1970 is doing to this very day. The new Gulf
discovery is a fraction the size of the Alaska discovery, production is
5 to 10 years away and, unlike easily recoverable Prudhoe Bay oil, this
find is 28,000 feet down. The energy requirements for pumping oil from
that depth must be subtracted from the energy content of the new
reserve, thereby reducing the useful number of barrels available. The
cost to recover the oil will be a multiple of the cost of recovering
near-surface oil. In addition, it has been suggested that the venture
is viable only if the price of oil is $55/barrel. So under any
circumstances, the discovery will not change the fact that the world is
out of "cheap" oil. Anything you can find is good, but to suggest this
discovery represents any sort of solution to the world's energy
problems is naive at best. How do I know this? I spent 30 years in
research for Shell Oil Company, including a lot of time on Enhanced Oil
Recovery (EOR) projects.
t***@aol.com
2006-09-06 20:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Slow down a little.
Why?........This ISN'T the "Only" Oil we've Discovered..........Oil is
ALL OVER THE PLACE...........We discover MORE every Year..........All
we have to do is Stop the Lefties who are Keeping Us FROM It with their
Bullshit...........
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-06 21:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Slow down a little.
Why?........This ISN'T the "Only" Oil we've Discovered..........Oil is
ALL OVER THE PLACE...........We discover MORE every Year..........All
we have to do is Stop the Lefties who are Keeping Us FROM It with their
Bullshit...........
Why? Because the RATE of discovery is decreasing over time and the
discoveries are only marginally contributing to reserves. As I
mentioned, despite occasional discoveries in the US, both reserves AND
production have been in steady decline since 1970. The US Energy
Information Administration publishes data on oil reserves, production,
consumption, etc. Between 1980 and 2006, US reserves dropped from 29.8
billion barrels to 21.4 billion barrels. Between 1980 and 2004, US
production dropped from 8.6 million barrels/day to 5.4 million
barrels/day. These figures are despite the fact that Prudhoe Bay was
in maximum production in the 1980s and Prudhoe Bay is the largest find
ever made in the US.

Even Dick Cheney, when CEO of Halliburton, understood the problem. In
1999 he said "...there will be an average of two-percent annual growth
in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively,
a three-percent natural decline in production..." That 2% growth in
global oil demand seems very low now considering the dramatically
accelerating demands of China and India.
JakTheHammer
2006-09-06 22:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Why? Because the RATE of discovery is decreasing over time and the
discoveries are only marginally contributing to reserves.
I would hardly call a 50% increase "Marginal"..........
Post by s***@gmail.com
US reserves dropped from 29.8 billion barrels to 21.4 billion barrels.
Then 15 billion barrels would be MORE than 50%.........
Post by s***@gmail.com
Even Dick Cheney, when CEO of Halliburton, understood the problem. In
1999 he said "...there will be an average of two-percent annual growth
in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively,
a three-percent natural decline in production..." That 2% growth in
global oil demand seems very low now considering the dramatically
accelerating demands of China and India.
Our Production is only "declining" because Leftist Pukes get in the
way..........Btw, thanks to Asshole Jimmy Carter, China will be
drilling 45 miles off the Florida Coast now........Ain't that a
Hoot?..........
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-06 23:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by JakTheHammer
Post by s***@gmail.com
Why? Because the RATE of discovery is decreasing over time and the
discoveries are only marginally contributing to reserves.
I would hardly call a 50% increase "Marginal"..........
Post by s***@gmail.com
US reserves dropped from 29.8 billion barrels to 21.4 billion barrels.
Then 15 billion barrels would be MORE than 50%.........
Post by s***@gmail.com
Even Dick Cheney, when CEO of Halliburton, understood the problem. In
1999 he said "...there will be an average of two-percent annual growth
in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively,
a three-percent natural decline in production..." That 2% growth in
global oil demand seems very low now considering the dramatically
accelerating demands of China and India.
Our Production is only "declining" because Leftist Pukes get in the
way..........Btw, thanks to Asshole Jimmy Carter, China will be
drilling 45 miles off the Florida Coast now........Ain't that a
Hoot?..........
First of all, the claim is 3 billion to 15 billion barrels of oil AND
natural gas liquids. It could easily turn out to be the lower number
instead of the higher. The real issue is not how much is there but how
much is readily recoverable. That could be even a lot less.
Furthermore, the energy required to extract oil from a depth of 28,000
feet will significantly reduce the the real available energy from the
reserve. For example, if it takes the equivalent of 20 barrels of oil
to generate the energy required to raise 100 barrels from that depth,
you don't really add 100 barrels to your supply, do you? Because of
the increasing difficulty in extracting oil from harder to reach
locations, the efficiency of the process has changed dramatically. In
the 1940s you could extract over 100 barrels of near-surface oil for
each barrel equivalent of energy expended. By the 1970s the ratio had
dropped to 8 barrels extracted for each barrel used to supply energy
for the extraction because there was less oil close to the surface. At
the depths we are talking about here, the ratio is likely to be
considerably lower. It's probable we won't add more than 10-20% to the
recoverable US reserves from this discovery at best. That would be
about a six month supply for US consumption. But most significant, the
declines in US reserves and production occurred even after Prudhoe Bay,
the largest find in US history, and this one doesn't come close.

As for "Leftist Pukes" getting in the way of increased production, that
is not true. In my 30 years with Shell Oil, I can't recall one time
when an exploration or production investment (i.e., digging wells or
building refineries) decision was based on anything other than the
profitability of the venture. And since 45 miles off the Florida Coast
is outside the US territorial limits, there are no US political
entities that would have any control.
t***@aol.com
2006-09-07 06:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
First of all, the claim is 3 billion to 15 billion barrels of oil AND
natural gas liquids. It could easily turn out to be the lower number
instead of the higher.
But it could just as easily turn out to be a Higher Number rather than
Lower..........

The real issue is not how much is there but how
Post by s***@gmail.com
much is readily recoverable. That could be even a lot less.
Or it could be a LOT More........
Post by s***@gmail.com
As for "Leftist Pukes" getting in the way of increased production, that
is not true.
Really........You're saying Environmental Regulations have NO EFFECT on
Production?..........You must be Smoking Something Awfully
Good...........

In my 30 years with Shell Oil, I can't recall one time
Post by s***@gmail.com
when an exploration or production investment (i.e., digging wells or
building refineries) decision was based on anything other than the
profitability of the venture.
In your "30 years with Shell Oil" were you AWAKE at any particular
time?..........Did you ever think that Environmental Regulations
Affected the "Profitability" of Any Venture?..........I get the Feeling
that your "30 years with Shell Oil" were spent cleaning out Service
Station Rest Rooms..............

And since 45 miles off the Florida Coast
Post by s***@gmail.com
is outside the US territorial limits, there are no US political
entities that would have any control.
Then WHY did President Asshole Jimmy Carter allow the Chinks to
purchase Oil Rights 45 miles off the Florida Coast??..........WHY were
they GRANTED?...........
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-07 12:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
First of all, the claim is 3 billion to 15 billion barrels of oil AND
natural gas liquids. It could easily turn out to be the lower number
instead of the higher.
But it could just as easily turn out to be a Higher Number rather than
Lower..........
The real issue is not how much is there but how
Post by s***@gmail.com
much is readily recoverable. That could be even a lot less.
Or it could be a LOT More........
Post by s***@gmail.com
As for "Leftist Pukes" getting in the way of increased production, that
is not true.
Really........You're saying Environmental Regulations have NO EFFECT on
Production?..........You must be Smoking Something Awfully
Good...........
In my 30 years with Shell Oil, I can't recall one time
Post by s***@gmail.com
when an exploration or production investment (i.e., digging wells or
building refineries) decision was based on anything other than the
profitability of the venture.
In your "30 years with Shell Oil" were you AWAKE at any particular
time?..........Did you ever think that Environmental Regulations
Affected the "Profitability" of Any Venture?..........I get the Feeling
that your "30 years with Shell Oil" were spent cleaning out Service
Station Rest Rooms..............
And since 45 miles off the Florida Coast
Post by s***@gmail.com
is outside the US territorial limits, there are no US political
entities that would have any control.
Then WHY did President Asshole Jimmy Carter allow the Chinks to
purchase Oil Rights 45 miles off the Florida Coast??..........WHY were
they GRANTED?...........
Let me put it to you this way. If you're going to be an ignorant,
brain-dead prick, there's no point in trying to discuss this issue
rationally with you. You are obviously an angry and uninformed
loudmouth just looking for a place to vent his frustration. I'm sorry
life hasn't gone the way you hoped it would for you.
t***@aol.com
2006-09-07 18:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Let me put it to you this way. If you're going to be an ignorant,
brain-dead prick, there's no point in trying to discuss this issue
rationally with you. You are obviously an angry and uninformed
loudmouth just looking for a place to vent his frustration. I'm sorry
life hasn't gone the way you hoped it would for you.
Let me put it to you this way: Anyone who "claims" to have spent "30
years working for Shell Oil" that tells you Environmental Regulations
DON'T affect Cost or Profitability of any Oil project is either Smoking
Something or is an Outright PHONY........That's pretty OBVIOUS.........
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-07 19:40:41 UTC
Permalink
***@aol.com wrote:
[snip]
Post by t***@aol.com
Let me put it to you this way: Anyone who "claims" to have spent "30
years working for Shell Oil" that tells you Environmental Regulations
DON'T affect Cost or Profitability of any Oil project is either Smoking
Something or is an Outright PHONY........That's pretty OBVIOUS........
Go back and reread the thread. Nowhere does it say anything about
environmental regulations not affecting the cost of doing business.
They are part of the equation. However, the assertion that it is the
left wing that is reponsible for overly restrictive environmental laws
is so outrageously innacurate that it deserves a rebuttal. Let me
remind you that the following were passed under conservative,
Republican administrations. These are just a few. I suggest you get
educated before you spout so much drivel.

Under Nixon:
1970 - National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); "To declare a national
policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between
man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or
eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the
health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the
ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation..."
1970 - Clean Air Act (Extension); requires the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to develop and enforce regulations to protect the general
public from exposure to airborne contaminants that are known to be
hazardous to human health.
1970 - Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA); to ensure that
employers provide their workers with an environment free from dangers
to their safety and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals,
excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or
unsanitary conditions.
1973 - Endangered Species Act; to protect critically imperiled species
from extinction due to "the consequences of economic growth and
development untempered by adequate concern and conservation."

Under Ford:
1975 - Hazardous Materials Transportation Act; ". . .to improve the
regulatory and enforcement authority of the Secretary of Transportation
to protect the Nation adequately against risks to life and property
which are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials in
commerce."
1976 - Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); regulates the introduction
of new chemicals.

Under Reagan:
1982 - Offshore Drilling Ban; bans offshore drilling off the East and
West coasts of the US

Under Bush 41:
1990 - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; sets limits on how much of a
pollutant can be in the air anywhere in the United States
t***@aol.com
2006-09-07 20:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Go back and reread the thread. Nowhere does it say anything about
environmental regulations not affecting the cost of doing business.
YOUR WORDS:......."As for "Leftist Pukes" getting in the way of
increased production, that is not true. In my 30 years with Shell Oil,
I can't recall one time
when an exploration or production investment (i.e., digging wells or
building refineries) decision was based on anything other than the
profitability of the venture."................If Leftist Pukes COST
more Money or STOP the Project with "Regulations", they DO "Get in the
way".........The "Profitability of the Venture" IS Directly Affected by
Leftist Pukes.........
Post by s***@gmail.com
However, the assertion that it is the
left wing that is reponsible for overly restrictive environmental laws
is so outrageously innacurate that it deserves a rebuttal.
Really........This ought to be FUNNY.........

Let me
Post by s***@gmail.com
remind you that the following were passed under conservative,
Republican administrations.
CONGRESS Passes the Laws...........Until 1994, Congress was Controlled
by DEMOCRATS.........What country do you live in?..............
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-07 21:07:32 UTC
Permalink
***@aol.com wrote:
[snip]
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
However, the assertion that it is the
left wing that is reponsible for overly restrictive environmental laws
is so outrageously innacurate that it deserves a rebuttal.
Really........This ought to be FUNNY.........
Let me
Post by s***@gmail.com
remind you that the following were passed under conservative,
Republican administrations.
CONGRESS Passes the Laws...........Until 1994, Congress was Controlled
by DEMOCRATS.........What country do you live in?..............
And at no time during those periods did the Democrats have a large
enough majority to override a veto. And I guess you forgot that when
the Reagan administration authorized the offshore drilling ban,
Republicans had a 53-46 Senate majority (1 Independent). Are all
Americans as ignorant about their own history as you are?
t***@aol.com
2006-09-08 01:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
And at no time during those periods did the Democrats have a large
enough majority to override a veto.
Are Democrats the "Only" ones who Vote to Override Vetoes?.......

And I guess you forgot that when
Post by s***@gmail.com
the Reagan administration authorized the offshore drilling ban,
Republicans had a 53-46 Senate majority (1 Independent).
So?..........WHAT was Wrong with the Democrats?...........
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-09 19:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
And at no time during those periods did the Democrats have a large
enough majority to override a veto.
Are Democrats the "Only" ones who Vote to Override Vetoes?.......
And I guess you forgot that when
Post by s***@gmail.com
the Reagan administration authorized the offshore drilling ban,
Republicans had a 53-46 Senate majority (1 Independent).
So?..........WHAT was Wrong with the Democrats?...........
What the hell are you talking about?

Aren't you the one who wrote: "CONGRESS Passes the Laws...........Until
1994, Congress was Controlled by DEMOCRATS.........What country do you
live in?.............."?

You were arguing that the drilling ban was pushed through by a
Democratic Congress when, in fact, the Republicans controlled the
Senate and the Democrats didn't have enough votes to override a Reagan
veto. If the conservative Republican administration did not want a ban
on offshore drilling, the Senate could have stopped it or Reagan could
have vetoed it.
It's Just Me
2006-09-09 19:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Even better is the fact the Republicans control all three branches of our
goverment now and still the ban exist. ROTFLMAO.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
And at no time during those periods did the Democrats have a large
enough majority to override a veto.
Are Democrats the "Only" ones who Vote to Override Vetoes?.......
And I guess you forgot that when
Post by s***@gmail.com
the Reagan administration authorized the offshore drilling ban,
Republicans had a 53-46 Senate majority (1 Independent).
So?..........WHAT was Wrong with the Democrats?...........
What the hell are you talking about?
Aren't you the one who wrote: "CONGRESS Passes the Laws...........Until
1994, Congress was Controlled by DEMOCRATS.........What country do you
live in?.............."?
You were arguing that the drilling ban was pushed through by a
Democratic Congress when, in fact, the Republicans controlled the
Senate and the Democrats didn't have enough votes to override a Reagan
veto. If the conservative Republican administration did not want a ban
on offshore drilling, the Senate could have stopped it or Reagan could
have vetoed it.
Kevin Cunningham
2006-09-06 21:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Slow down a little.
Why?........This ISN'T the "Only" Oil we've Discovered..........Oil is
ALL OVER THE PLACE...........We discover MORE every Year..........All
we have to do is Stop the Lefties who are Keeping Us FROM It with their
Bullshit...........
Yup, we lefties have been busy covering up oil but then we have been busy
getting the chinese and indians to drive more thus causing pollution...wait
a minute, we don't like pollution.

Geez, lonester, your an ass. The oil found in the gulf is not 3 meters
down, it's thousands of meters. Its difficult to find and very expensive.
Even more expensive than getting your Pacer running again.
JakTheHammer
2006-09-06 22:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Geez, lonester, your an ass. The oil found in the gulf is not 3 meters
down, it's thousands of meters. Its difficult to find and very expensive.
Even more expensive than getting your Pacer running again.
I see why you Flunked Law School, Moron........You're an IDIOT.........
robw
2006-09-07 00:13:39 UTC
Permalink
It will take at least five years for it to be usable as fuel.
Post by JakTheHammer
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Geez, lonester, your an ass. The oil found in the gulf is not 3 meters
down, it's thousands of meters. Its difficult to find and very expensive.
Even more expensive than getting your Pacer running again.
I see why you Flunked Law School, Moron........You're an IDIOT.........
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-08 04:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by robw
It will take at least five years for it to be usable as fuel.
What. If we had drilled ANWR five years ago, we would be using that oil
right now, and even better than that, we would be that much less
dependent on foreign oil.

Let me tell you that when the mideast explodes into a massive war, our
oil is going to be cut off. Bet against Hugo helping us out, and so
when that happens, it will be the wrong time to start seeking
alternative sources of oil. We need to take ALL of these resources, to
guarantee our independence when our enemies cut us off.

Why is that so hard for people to understand. "its too expensive?" So
is war. So is defending our country against terrorist attacks. Drill
the damn oil, refine the shale in CO and UT. Tell the enemy they won't
be getting any more money from us. Its called being prepared. Its the
right thing to do. Screw the greenies.
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-08 04:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Geez, lonester, your an ass. The oil found in the gulf is not 3 meters
down, it's thousands of meters. Its difficult to find and very expensive.
Even more expensive than getting your Pacer running again.
Oil companies are telling us that we will soon be paying over $100 a
barrel. It is ludicrous for you to call deep ocean drilling expensive,
when it probably come in at under $60 a barrel. Stop calling it
expensive, when no one has any idea how much oil from the
mideast/south america is going to cost in five years.
Stu Gotz
2006-09-07 03:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Slow down a little.
Why?........This ISN'T the "Only" Oil we've Discovered..........Oil is
ALL OVER THE PLACE...........We discover MORE every Year..........All
we have to do is Stop the Lefties who are Keeping Us FROM It with their
Bullshit...........
If we melted that fat between your ears, rumpranger, we could meet US energy
demands for centuries.
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
2006-09-06 23:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by t***@aol.com
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) - A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp.
has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could
boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well
indicates it could be the biggest new domestic oil discovery since
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay a generation ago."
Slow down a little. The Prudhoe Bay oil field in Alaska was discovered
in 1968 and began production in 1977. It is the largest oil field ever
discovered in the US. Despite this fact, US oil production continued
to fall as it had since 1970 is doing to this very day.
One of the reasons production in the US has gone down is because cost to
produce is nearer or even more than the market price. If the market
price is higher and stays higher, there are a lot more options within
the US including production from alternative fossil and not fossil
sources.
Post by s***@gmail.com
The new Gulf
discovery is a fraction the size of the Alaska discovery, production is
5 to 10 years away and, unlike easily recoverable Prudhoe Bay oil, this
find is 28,000 feet down. The energy requirements for pumping oil from
that depth must be subtracted from the energy content of the new
reserve, thereby reducing the useful number of barrels available.
The Alaska oil requires that it be heated and pumped down a difficult
pipeline route and then carried by tanker. Still it seems to be worth
it. In Gulf production, the users are essentially right there. I'm not
going to say it's a wash, but let's not pretend that higher production
costs in the US are a new thing.
Post by s***@gmail.com
The
cost to recover the oil will be a multiple of the cost of recovering
near-surface oil. In addition, it has been suggested that the venture
is viable only if the price of oil is $55/barrel. So under any
circumstances, the discovery will not change the fact that the world is
out of "cheap" oil.
How cheap does it have to be to be considered cheap to you? Inflation
adjusted fuel costs are still not that high compared to historical
norms. And that doesn't even discount the changes in efficiency. You
don't have to drive a six ton SUV, you know.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Anything you can find is good, but to suggest this
discovery represents any sort of solution to the world's energy
problems is naive at best.
It's a big deal for the US because it is US production. It doesn't mean
the US should seek other domestic sources, it just means that seeking
sources domestically is fruitful.
Post by s***@gmail.com
How do I know this? I spent 30 years in
research for Shell Oil Company, including a lot of time on Enhanced Oil
Recovery (EOR) projects.
Good for you.
--
"I hate you and I despise you! Now give me back my tail.", Marilyn
Monroe, "Bus Stop"
Fact Attack
2006-09-07 05:42:28 UTC
Permalink
it says 3-15 billion barrels, the US uses 5.7 billon barrels a year, so
this could possible be half a years supply of oil.
Clave
2006-09-07 05:51:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fact Attack
it says 3-15 billion barrels, the US uses 5.7 billon barrels a year, so
this could possible be half a years supply of oil.
After taking ten years to develop it, prolly more like 3 months.

They'll sell it to China anyway.

Jim
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
2006-09-07 06:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clave
Post by Fact Attack
it says 3-15 billion barrels, the US uses 5.7 billon barrels a year, so
this could possible be half a years supply of oil.
After taking ten years to develop it, prolly more like 3 months.
No one is suggesting that this find alone would provide all the oil the
US needs. It is enough though to move the market on the fines.
Post by Clave
They'll sell it to China anyway.
What difference would that make?
--
"I hate you and I despise you! Now give me back my tail.", Marilyn
Monroe, "Bus Stop"
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-07 23:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
In addition, it has been suggested that the venture
is viable only if the price of oil is $55/barrel. So under any
circumstances, the discovery will not change the fact that the world is
out of "cheap" oil. Anything you can find is good, but to suggest this
discovery represents any sort of solution to the world's energy
problems is naive at best. How do I know this? I spent 30 years in
research for Shell Oil Company, including a lot of time on Enhanced Oil
Recovery (EOR) projects.
Well, let's see. Oil is $70 a barrel, and not going to ever come down,
but will one day exceed $100, so its certainly profitable to drill for
this find.

These kinds of discoveries make total jackasses out of the bandwagon
scientists who say we are running out, there is no more, and all the
oil in the earth is known, and cataloged. "we will run out of oil in
2003!" I know that is what was said, I lived through that baloney, and
didn't accept it then either.

Its not about cheap oil, its about drilling out own, and being as self
sufficient as possible so we don't have to pay our enemies, to fuel the
economy that we use to combat those enemies.

Prudhoe bay was scoffed and laffed at, as not being big enough to be of
any value. Just like ANWR is now, but the truth is, no one knows HOW
much is there. Only idiots advocate that we continue to buy from those
who want to kill us, and intelligent people realize we need to shore up
our own supplies. Its not like anyone thinks we will find all the oil
we need, in one place......
ROME
2006-09-06 22:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) - A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp.
has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could
boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well
indicates it could be the biggest new domestic oil discovery since
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay a generation ago."
Yep, It's just that the Liberal Enviro-nazis have been blocking the
construction of oil platforms and other nuclear energy facilities
causing the mess were in now.

-ROME
Roger
2006-09-06 23:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ROME
Post by t***@aol.com
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) - A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp.
has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could
boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well
indicates it could be the biggest new domestic oil discovery since
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay a generation ago."
Yep, It's just that the Liberal Enviro-nazis have been blocking the
construction of oil platforms and other nuclear energy facilities
causing the mess were in now.
It's the price of oil that blocks most oil exploration.
ROME
2006-09-07 04:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by ROME
Post by t***@aol.com
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) - A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp.
has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could
boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well
indicates it could be the biggest new domestic oil discovery since
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay a generation ago."
Yep, It's just that the Liberal Enviro-nazis have been blocking the
construction of oil platforms and other nuclear energy facilities
causing the mess were in now.
It's the price of oil that blocks most oil exploration.
No, its the regulatory constraints against drilling in certain parts of
the country where resources exist. That's why there hasn't been a new
power plant built in California since the '70s. That's why companies
aren't allowed to drill in new places in alaska, and up until a bill
was signed last month. No drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

-ROME
Roger
2006-09-07 05:27:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by ROME
Post by Roger
Post by ROME
Post by t***@aol.com
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) - A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp.
has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could
boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well
indicates it could be the biggest new domestic oil discovery since
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay a generation ago."
Yep, It's just that the Liberal Enviro-nazis have been blocking the
construction of oil platforms and other nuclear energy facilities
causing the mess were in now.
It's the price of oil that blocks most oil exploration.
No, its the regulatory constraints against drilling in certain parts of
the country where resources exist. That's why there hasn't been a new
power plant built in California since the '70s. That's why companies
aren't allowed to drill in new places in alaska, and up until a bill
was signed last month. No drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
They can't DRILL so they don't build plants to BURN?

Logic fails you.
ROME
2006-09-07 06:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by ROME
Post by Roger
Post by ROME
Post by t***@aol.com
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) - A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp.
has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could
boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well
indicates it could be the biggest new domestic oil discovery since
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay a generation ago."
Yep, It's just that the Liberal Enviro-nazis have been blocking the
construction of oil platforms and other nuclear energy facilities
causing the mess were in now.
It's the price of oil that blocks most oil exploration.
No, its the regulatory constraints against drilling in certain parts of
the country where resources exist. That's why there hasn't been a new
power plant built in California since the '70s. That's why companies
aren't allowed to drill in new places in alaska, and up until a bill
was signed last month. No drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
They can't DRILL so they don't build plants to BURN?
Logic fails you.
Perhaps your drunk, let me explain again.

Building nuclear plants in California cost too much to be profitable +
No drilling allowed in environmentaly protected areas =
Lower energy supply
RESULT: High fuel prices.

If you can't get it this time Roger, I'm afraid you never will.

-ROME
h***@yahoo.com
2006-09-07 07:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by ROME
Post by Roger
They can't DRILL so they don't build plants to BURN?
Logic fails you.
Perhaps your drunk, let me explain again.
He isn't drunk - he is just a left-wing Anti-American QUEER... luckily,
they don't reproduce.

- Stewart
Roger
2006-09-07 10:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by ROME
Post by Roger
They can't DRILL so they don't build plants to BURN?
Logic fails you.
Perhaps your drunk, let me explain again.
He isn't drunk - he is just a left-wing Anti-American QUEER... luckily,
they don't reproduce.
1 right out of 3.

Good for a conservative. Even Bush can't get that many right, and he's your
leader!
Roger
2006-09-07 10:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by ROME
Post by Roger
Post by ROME
Post by Roger
Post by ROME
Post by t***@aol.com
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) - A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp.
has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could
boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well
indicates it could be the biggest new domestic oil discovery since
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay a generation ago."
Yep, It's just that the Liberal Enviro-nazis have been blocking the
construction of oil platforms and other nuclear energy facilities
causing the mess were in now.
It's the price of oil that blocks most oil exploration.
No, its the regulatory constraints against drilling in certain parts of
the country where resources exist. That's why there hasn't been a new
power plant built in California since the '70s. That's why companies
aren't allowed to drill in new places in alaska, and up until a bill
was signed last month. No drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
They can't DRILL so they don't build plants to BURN?
Logic fails you.
Perhaps your drunk, let me explain again.
My drunk what?
Post by ROME
Building nuclear plants in California cost too much to be profitable +
Is that because the full costs are factored in? Like disaster insurance and
waste disposal?

Maybe it's so expensive because this is the first time the FULL costs,
including those to the environment, are factored in.
Post by ROME
No drilling allowed in environmentaly protected areas =
Lower energy supply
Good. We just MIGHT want some energy tomorrow.

Maybe.
Post by ROME
RESULT: High fuel prices.
If you can't get it this time Roger, I'm afraid you never will.
I get it what you're saying just fine. You don't get what I'm saying at all.
Post by ROME
-ROME
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
2006-09-07 16:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by ROME
Building nuclear plants in California cost too much to be profitable +
Is that because the full costs are factored in? Like disaster insurance and
waste disposal?
Maybe it's so expensive because this is the first time the FULL costs,
including those to the environment, are factored in.
It is difficult to imagine a worse outcome than rampant global warming
and smoggy pollution everywhere. Given that nuclear power avoids all
that, factoring in the true costs seems to be something that should
produce more nuclear power options, not fewer.
--
"I hate you and I despise you! Now give me back my tail.", Marilyn
Monroe, "Bus Stop"
Roger
2006-09-07 23:19:58 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by Roger
Post by ROME
Building nuclear plants in California cost too much to be profitable +
Is that because the full costs are factored in? Like disaster insurance and
waste disposal?
Maybe it's so expensive because this is the first time the FULL costs,
including those to the environment, are factored in.
It is difficult to imagine a worse outcome than rampant global warming
and smoggy pollution everywhere. Given that nuclear power avoids all
that, factoring in the true costs seems to be something that should
produce more nuclear power options, not fewer.
You're assuming that the only environmental costs are to the air.
Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
2006-09-08 01:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by robw
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by Roger
Post by ROME
Building nuclear plants in California cost too much to be profitable +
Is that because the full costs are factored in? Like disaster insurance and
waste disposal?
Maybe it's so expensive because this is the first time the FULL costs,
including those to the environment, are factored in.
It is difficult to imagine a worse outcome than rampant global warming
and smoggy pollution everywhere. Given that nuclear power avoids all
that, factoring in the true costs seems to be something that should
produce more nuclear power options, not fewer.
You're assuming that the only environmental costs are to the air.
What is the environmental cost of nuclear power? Don't say the nuclear
waste because it is a tiny amount compared to the garbage that gets
dumped every day and some of that could easily leak into ground water.
Nuclear waste can easily be sequestered, about the only issue is after
it loses its highly radioactive fission products and the plutonium
proliferation becomes possible. That seems like a minor worry given the
other possibilities, global warming, ozone destruction, etc. caused by
other sources of power.
--
Post by robw
One of the officials, former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright,
said in her letter to the Disney executive, Robert A. Iger, that
although she had requested a copy of the film, ABC had not given her
one. But, Ms. Albright said, she has been told by people who have seen
it that it depicts scenes that never happened, events that never took
place, decisions that were never made and conversations that never
occurred.
So evidently it is a movie about what the Clinton administration should
have done to prevent 9/11.
Roger
2006-09-08 06:07:57 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by robw
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
Post by Roger
Post by ROME
Building nuclear plants in California cost too much to be profitable +
Is that because the full costs are factored in? Like disaster
insurance
and
waste disposal?
Maybe it's so expensive because this is the first time the FULL costs,
including those to the environment, are factored in.
It is difficult to imagine a worse outcome than rampant global warming
and smoggy pollution everywhere. Given that nuclear power avoids all
that, factoring in the true costs seems to be something that should
produce more nuclear power options, not fewer.
You're assuming that the only environmental costs are to the air.
What is the environmental cost of nuclear power? Don't say the nuclear
waste because it is a tiny amount compared to the garbage that gets
dumped every day and some of that could easily leak into ground water.
Nuclear waste can easily be sequestered, about the only issue is after
it loses its highly radioactive fission products and the plutonium
proliferation becomes possible. That seems like a minor worry given the
other possibilities, global warming, ozone destruction, etc. caused by
other sources of power.
From http://environment.guardian.co.uk/energy/story/0,,1848241,00.html

There are safety concerns about mining uranium, which can be harmful to
health. New supplies are found by flying aircraft over areas believed to
contain uranium and taking radioactivity readings. Any potential prospects
are then drilled and might eventually be exploited by open cast mining or by
pumping acid underground to dissolve the uranium before pushing it back up
to the surface in concentrated form. This "yellowcake" is put through
extractor plants and shipped to users.


From
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-energy/basics/introduction.htm

While electricity generated from nuclear power does not directly emit carbon
dioxide (CO2), the nuclear fuel cycle does release CO2 during mining, fuel
enrichment and plant construction. Uranium mining is one of the most CO2
intensive industrial operations and as demand for uranium grows because of
new electricity generation and new plant construction, CO2 levels will also
rise.
In a case study in Germany, the Oko-Institute determined that 34 grams of
CO2 are emitted per generated kilowatt (kWh). Other international research
studies show much higher figures (up to 60 grams of CO2 per kWh). In
comparison to renewable energy, energy generated from nuclear power releases
4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced, taking into account the
entire nuclear fuel cycle.

US government regulations allow radioactive water to be released into the
environment at "permissible" levels. Accurate accounting of all radioactive
wastes released into the air, water and soil from the nuclear fuel cycle is
simply not available. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission relies on
self-reporting and computer modeling from reactor operators to track
radioactive releases and project dispersions.
Post by Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')
--
Post by robw
One of the officials, former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright,
said in her letter to the Disney executive, Robert A. Iger, that
although she had requested a copy of the film, ABC had not given her
one. But, Ms. Albright said, she has been told by people who have seen
it that it depicts scenes that never happened, events that never took
place, decisions that were never made and conversations that never
occurred.
So evidently it is a movie about what the Clinton administration should
have done to prevent 9/11.
c***@yahoo.com
2006-09-07 08:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) - A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp.
has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could
boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well
indicates it could be the biggest new domestic oil discovery since
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay a generation ago."
Your excessive....use of.... elipses... is fucking stupid....and marks
you as...an illiterate asshole...please stop....
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-08 19:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) - A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp.
has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could
boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well
indicates it could be the biggest new domestic oil discovery since
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay a generation ago."
http://www.energybulletin.net/20140.html:

Published on 6 Sep 2006 by Energy Bulletin. Archived on 6 Sep 2006.
Clarification of the Huge Chevron Gulf Oil Discovery

by Randy Kirk

The September 5th announcement by Chevron and Devon and Statoil of the
huge Gulf of Mexico discovery should be clarified. The announcement
claims that the discovery could increase US proven reserves of oil by
as much as 50%. However, the total amounts are highly speculative.
Additionally, the discovery likely won't impact oil markets but could
potentially impact natural gas markets since the discovery is probably
mainly natural gas. The area will not come online for at least 4 years
and, at a full rate, for at least 7 years. Further, it is likely that
there are political motivations behind the announcement, as the vote to
open offshore drilling in the United States is upcoming in the US
Senate.

1. The range of amount -- from 3 billion to 15 billion (in itself a
huge range -- reserves of Exxon Mobile are around 14 billion barrels
total) is comprised of no single field of more than 300 million
barrels. An entire area of as much as 15 billion barrels with no
"giant" over 1 Bn bar oil field is unusual. Oil discoveries tend to
cluster with a giant (King) and several queens and even more jacks.

2. The area is very deep: 7000 feet of seawater and a further 20,000
feet below the ground. That is about 3 miles below the surface, in 1+
miles of deep water. The normal time to accurately estimate oil and gas
field size is months. These fields are more challenging because of the
extreme depths. It is therefore likely that very little is known with
certainty about the potential reserves from a geological standpoint.

3. Production will not start, at the very earliest, at 2010. Full
production, will not start at the very earliest 2013. Many projects are
being delayed so these dates are most likely the best possible
scenario.

4. The wells are located in deep water and will not be served by
underground GOM pipelines. The oil will be pumped directly to tankers.
Pipelines are faster and more efficient, and tankers will put a higher
price and limited the amount of oil pumped out.

5. The wells are most likely mainly natural gas, as they are very deep.
All estimates are in barrels of oil equivalent. Oil tends to form
closer to the surface, gas deeper. Therefore the discovery is likely to
impact natural gas markets, not oil, if the gas exists in meaningful
quantities.

6. The US Senate is weeks away from voting on the lifting of the
25-year ban on offshore drilling off the majority of the coasts in the
US. This offshore drilling bill was approved in the Congress but
political analysts believe the bill will face more opposition in the
Senate. The oil industry stands to make high profits if Congress will
open up Florida and the Offshore East coast to drilling. To date the
offshore drilling bill has not been approved by both houses because of
environmental interests. A large potential oil "discovery" in the
Gulf would provide evidence that the passing of the offshore oil bill
would be beneficial.

7. Related to point #6, the announcement is reminiscent of the Mexican
"huge oil discovery" announced last year, of a possible 10 billion
barrels, which was quietly revised this year to around 43 million
barrels, a downward revision of 99.57%. This similar "discovery" was
made in Mexico last year a few months before the Mexican parliament was
to vote on Pemex (state oil co)'s budget and rights to expand drilling.
This illustrates the potential political pressure to announce oil and
gas discoveries.

8. The wells are estimated to cost between $80M to $120M each, starting
in 2010, and a completion time of 60 days. Payback period with gas at
$7 is about 3 to 5 years (by my rough calculations). Although it is
likely that some new technical issues will be likely be needed to be
resolved as the depth is approaching record levels. Further, insurance
rates at these depths in the Gulf will likely be very high - the
rough payback period here doesn't include insurance costs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Randy Kirk is a senior financial analyst at an investment management
firm in San Francisco, California.
t***@aol.com
2006-09-09 10:09:04 UTC
Permalink
***@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>
Post by s***@gmail.com
Randy Kirk is a senior financial analyst at an investment management
firm in San Francisco, California.
So he DOESN'T Know Shit about the Oil Business..........
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-09 19:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
<snip>
Post by s***@gmail.com
Randy Kirk is a senior financial analyst at an investment management
firm in San Francisco, California.
So he DOESN'T Know Shit about the Oil Business..........
Nice (but pathetic) try.
t***@aol.com
2006-09-09 21:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Nice (but pathetic) try.
Really.......What does some Investment Idiot know about the Mechanics
of Oil Production?.........ZERO..........It's called "Credentials",
Dude...........
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-10 19:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Nice (but pathetic) try.
Really.......What does some Investment Idiot know about the Mechanics
of Oil Production?.........ZERO..........It's called "Credentials",
Dude...........
Whatever.

How about the CEO of Chevron, the company that discovered the new field
in the Gulf? Is he a credible source of information about oil?

This from July 2005 (http://www.energybulletin.net/7388.html):

"It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil,"
notes Chevron Corporation's two full-page ad that began appearing in
July in the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, Financial Times and
elsewhere. "We'll use the next trillion in 30," the ad continues,
thus quietly admitting to the Peak Oil that the industry has not
previously disclosed.

"One thing is clear: the age of easy oil is over," the ad reveals
in a folksy letter from "Dave," Chevron's Chairman and CEO David
J. O'Reilly. Most Americans are still unaware of the pending Peak Oil
or try to deny the tremendous impact it will have upon us. Chevron
proudly presents itself as "the Good Guy" by informing the public
of the lessening supply of petroleum at a time when the demand is
soaring, especially in China, India, and other industrializing
countries."

Significantly, Chevron first announced the potential of the new field
in 2004 (http://www.chevron.com/news/press/2006/2006-09-05.asp):

"Chevron announced discovery of the Jack prospect in September 2004. It
is approximately 270 miles southwest of New Orleans and 175 miles
offshore. Chevron is the operator with a 50 percent working interest.
Devon (NYSE: DVN) and Statoil (OSE: STL) each own a 25 percent working
interest."

Therefore, O'Reilly's comments were made long after the potential of
the Jack 2 reserve was determined. Since Chevron then proceeded to
invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the venture, O'Reilly was
reasonably confidant of success when he made the statements he did in
2005.
t***@aol.com
2006-09-10 20:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
How about the CEO of Chevron, the company that discovered the new field
in the Gulf? Is he a credible source of information about oil?
His Company IS.............
robw
2006-09-10 21:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Another company where Busch is beholden to.
Post by t***@aol.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
How about the CEO of Chevron, the company that discovered the new field
in the Gulf? Is he a credible source of information about oil?
His Company IS.............
s***@gmail.com
2006-09-09 19:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Better than all the back and forth about whether its a worthwhile
investment, how about some of you more intelligent scientist and
investment counselors take a moment and explain this point:?

The oil/gas deposit in question is said to be about 5 miles beneath the
ocean. That is amazingly deep inside the earth, and rather flies in the
face of the notion that oil is a fossil fuel.

How the heck did the remains of dinosaurs and ancient forests end up 5
miles beneath the surface of the planet?

Oils is NOT a fossil fuel in the common sense of the term. It is NOT
the result of millions of years of pressure upon ancient organisms.
There is no way to explain why there would be an oil deposit of such
size at such a depth, if it was supposedly created by ancient animals
and plants.

We have been fed a very long term lie about the source of oil in the
earth, and it is time to put to rest the notion that dinosaurs and
trees are the methods for its origin.

Dinosaurs and forests, five miles below the ocean? I think such a
notion is really pushing the envelope of believing the words of
scientists........

Perhaps oil is a renewable substance, and perhaps it is overly
abundant? Very important to note that science has preconceived notions
as to how oil is created, and when they search for it, they do so
within the bounds of their ideas of where it might found, and when
these scientists declare that the earth is running out of oil, and that
the resources have been already located and there are no more, its
because they are not looking everywhere, but rather only in the places
they falsely believe they will find it.

Mark
g***@bayou.com
2006-09-10 20:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
Yup........Imagine that!!.........And The Lefties have been saying
"we're running out of Oil".........Of course, The American Petroleum
Institute has known for YEARS that there is LOTS of UNTAPPED Oil in the
Gulf Of Mexico..........The World is FULL of
Oil............Heehee.........
"WASHINGTON (Sept. 5) - A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp.
has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could
boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well
indicates it could be the biggest new domestic oil discovery since
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay a generation ago."
See, we got it in the Gulf so we don't need the stuff at ANWR at this
time, and can hold the ANWR oil in reserve for the next generation.

I just hope the huge amount of oil reported in the Gulf is not snake
oil. We got a lot of good snake stories down here in Louisiana.

If after November, it turns out that the gargantuan Gulf oil field is
snake oil, the price of gasoline will go back up. Snake oil has a
short shelf life and does not last past and election.
Bret Cahill
2006-09-10 23:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Maybe Cheney didn't need to invade Iraq after all.


Bret Cahill
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...