Ursa Majoris Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) katrina (and more relevantly, rita) were "artificial"? 1294806[/snapback] Nope, but the scarcity scare was. I thought the price jack ought to be included alongside the other two. Edited January 30, 2006 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Nope, but the scarcity scare was. I thought the price jack ought to be included alongside the other two. 1294814[/snapback] well, i don't think supply worries when there's a category 5 hurricane parked 50 miles off of half the country's refining capacity are necessarily "artificial". aside from that, you've got a point. greater supply makes any scarcity less acute, and thus the market less succeptible to price pressures exerted by act of man OR god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) oh so now your argument against maximizing our domestic output is that somebody might make money. brilliant. 1294775[/snapback] No... my argument is that it wouldn't make an impact in our foreign oil dependancy. You just chose to ignore that. It's still true, according to the study from the energy department. Did you just forget? How could anyone possibly argue that Bush would use questionable policy in order to give money to his friends? That's just preposterous. Edited January 30, 2006 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 No... my argument is that it wouldn't make an impact in our foreign oil dependancy. You just chose to ignore that. It's still true, according to the study from the energy department. Did you just forget? 1294889[/snapback] ignore it? i addressed the fact that your link predicts that the amount of oil we import will "only" go down by 5% and the price of oil will "only" go down 2% several times. a million+ barrels a day doesn't make an impact on our foreign oil dependency? why should we leave those million barrels per day in the ground? do you have a coherent answer to that question other than the non-responsive idiocy "somebody will make money" or "a million barrels isnt that much"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) Doesnt South America have oil ? 1294714[/snapback] Venezuela has a massive amount ..one of the top 10 oil producing countries in the world Edited January 30, 2006 by isleseeya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 30, 2006 Author Share Posted January 30, 2006 http://www.energybulletin.net/12336.html the good news keeps coming!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Venezuela has a massive amount ..one of the top 10 oil producing countries in the world 1294977[/snapback] Number 5, I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 a million+ barrels a day doesn't make an impact on our foreign oil dependency? 1294966[/snapback] That is considerably higher than the energy department estimate of how many barrels a day we could get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 QUOTE(Azazello1313 @ 1/29/06 7:16pm)a million+ barrels a day doesn't make an impact on our foreign oil dependency? That is considerably higher than the energy department estimate of how many barrels a day we could get. 1295596[/snapback] you f*cking idiot. In 2025, the coastal plain of ANWR is projected to reach 0.9 million barrels per day under the USGS mean oil resource case, and 0.6 and 1.6 million barrels per day under the low and high resource cases, respectively. link so why should we leave that 0.6-1.6 million barrels per day in the ground again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) you f*cking idiot. 1295699[/snapback] I'm sorry... I'm an idiot because I know the difference between 900K and "1 million+"? For someone arguing the importance of 5% earlier in the thread... you were off by "10%+" I guess... because it wouldn't have an effect on our dependence on foreign oil. Just like the report said. And like I said before... a move away from "Cowboy Stupid" in our foreign policy would have a much larger effect on our gas prices... but unfortunately, it wouldn't have nearly as nice effect for the profits of oil companies. rats. Edited January 30, 2006 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 I'm sorry... I'm an idiot because I know the difference between 900K and "1 million+"? For someone arguing the importance of 5% earlier in the thread... you were off by "10%+" 1295714[/snapback] let me get this right....a million barrels is "irrelevant", but the difference between a million barrels and 900 thousand barrels is "considerable"? half of the commissioned estimates are over a million barrels a day...and of course we won't KNOW how much is actually there until we start drilling. so why should we leave those million+/- barrels per day in the ground again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Atomoranic, you may want to stop posting in this thread before you begin to look any more like lulu's cousin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Atomoranic, you may want to stop posting in this thread before you begin to look any more like lulu's cousin. 1295777[/snapback] I feel like such a moron for agreeing with the Energy department. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Yeah all our problems would just melt way. And thx for working on turning this into yet another political rant thread, we need more of those. 1294452[/snapback] Sign up for the oil war with China then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 (edited) You know what would solve our problems more than nearly anything else ... simply annex Mexico's oil in exchange for allowing their illegal immigrants to continue to access our educational and healthcare systems. Seems like a reasonable trade to me? Heck, maybe even require Canada to give us oil in exchange for their opportunity to vacation on our beaches when it is -400 degrees in January in Yellowknife... Edited January 30, 2006 by muck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.