News and Politics Forum

Thundersnow wrote:

Most economics are bunk.

Ah.

Now I understand your position on nationalised healthcare as well.

Thundersnow wrote:

Not accurate in respect to this perhaps:

The fact of the matter is, we don't know how productive places like ANWR and the eastern GOM are until we actually start looking in earnest.

However, this is the opposite of what those claiming to mine anwr claim. They claim it to be the next big thing, and that it will lower prices.

The politicians and the pundits maybe. The professionals simply say that it has potential, and it's easier and cheaper to get to.

I do not buy into diminishing returns, nor do I find it applicable in this situation. Most economics are bunk.

Don't buy into diminishing returns? Seriously? So the value of a commodity isn't dependent on it's availability? Really? That doesn't happen? Look up the ice cream cone analogy.

Bakken is a viable source of supply. It may tougher, and more costly to exploit, but that is the market.

What? What does this mean?

If there is a bubble (which this is), as you state,...

I said that it's a concern, not an established truth.

...then we should be in no rush to exploit anwr. Supply, which you state is a factor in price, must be projected to go up at some point in the future regardless of anwr (which will lower oil prices, and is scaring the companies). The oil company is not going to exploit anwr to lower prices, deflating its returns on Bakken. Either it is necessary to lower costs (as claimed by others) or it is not as you stat here.  In short: you state that Bakken is expensive (which I have read that it is, and that it is less enviro-friendly), yet oil companies are afraid that the price of crude will drop below what they can make there. Why? If it is supply, and the price is inevitable to drop, then why tap anwr? Simply to allow certain companies to profit? (I apologize for the convoluted nature of this portion of my post. I try to be more clear in most instances, but am off to class shortly).

It helps to know what you're talking about. You do not. It's not just one thing. It's supply. It's market speculation. That market speculation is based on several factors itself, including current and future scarcity. Scarcity as a result of both supply and demand, due to known and unknown reserves, along with regional stability, etc...

Bakken is profitable at $60-80. Several companies are drilling there already. But we all want to be in business in 50 years and if existed plays are tapped dry by then, guess what? We might have to switch back to making buggy whips.

This I can agree with you on. Given the vague nature of energy, we need to focus on renewables.

Yeah... There's a stable market.

It ultimately matters not.

Tap every possible resource we have and refine all of it at a pace to keep up with demand, and we basically have a temporary solution to a long term problem.

Crude oil is still not a renewable resource.  In another 75 to 100 years, when the usage has increased with the population, we'll be right back to where we are now; a finite resource in high demand becoming astronomically expensive, and a mad dash for alternatives.  In the meantime, we've (possibly) permanently destroyed our environment, to keep energy prices cheap for a few decades.

Long term losses and putting off the inevitable outweighs the temporary gains IMHO.

maxor wrote:

Thundersnow wrote:

If demand of a product will vastly outstrip the supply, even with an increase, the price will remain high. If you have 10k AIDs patients, and only two thousands antidotes the price is high. Adding another thousand antidotes does nothing for the price. Demand still vastly outstrips supply. This is non linear.

The cure for a terminal illness is not the same as the demand for Oil (or any other commodity).

You are the one who kept insisting on supply side economics. Explain how I am wrong.

Thundersnow wrote:

I have neither the time nor the will to explain this. There are plenty of websites with far more knowledge than I that can do so however.

The least you could do is link them.

1. Please don't refer to Michael Masters
2. No congressional hearings where democratic congressmen regurgitate this mantra
3. Something with actual data or analysis of existing data would be nice.

1.WHo is Michael Masters
2. what?
3.Again, I am not going to explain this.

Thundersnow wrote:

COngrats. This is the first honest position I have read on this issue.

It's not a secret. You need better sources of information. This position is well documented.

... it does not account for intaginbles.

Such as?

Youir position was that because it is expensive to exploit, we should go to anwr. This again accounts for no intangibles. While what you say is true, that does not mean that we need to exploit an easier resource simply for the oil companies convience.

My position is that we should go after all of it. Recovery timelines are different for each play. This is not an either/or option. Energy sustainability means going after everything we can.

Few things are established truths. You stated "an enormous concern". That is more than "a concern"

Hair splitting. It is not an absolute. The industry has been through 2 oil shocks in the past and the subsequent downturns have hurt the industry badly. We're been in no rush to repeat history. This is looking less and less likely though.

I will say it again; While speculation plays some role, it's not the only thing driving up prices.

Thanks for telling me what I know. I understand that you are quite enlightened, and, as my position differs, I must be wrong or not know as much.

I have no idea what you do know. I do however see what you do NOT know. There's a difference. Your logic w/re to how the industry operates is convoluted. I have over a decade actually working in the industry. I am telling you that you are wrong. Period. It's not a matter of opinion. You have no actual knowledge of the industry and what motivates it. My point is, your opinion means fuck-all without accurate information driving it.

You are the one who suggested that the price will drop, and that Bakken will be too expensive to exploit, so we must therefore help the unfortunate oil company.

What? I never said that we need to "help the unfortunate oil company". WTF are you talking about???

Scarcity is a basic economic truth, however it does not equate to exploiting anwr.

So that part's not bunk? Thanks for the 411.

The oil companies best interests are far down on my list of conerns.

HAHA! Do you drive? Do you heat your home? Do you eat? Better reassess your priorities.

If we have no alternativces, and Bakken is tapped by then, we can re evaluate anwr etc. Y&ou have admitted that Bakken is viable, yet you claim that we should exploit anwr because it is easier and then justify it with basic economics.

You're either misinterpreting me on purpose, or you're not very bright. I said that Bakken has potential, but we're not sure how much. There are wildly varying estimates from some very smart people. We cannot assume that it will suit all of our needs. We need to be prepped and ready to exploit as much as we can now in order to keep society in the 21 century.

The market is barely developed.

So? Unstable is unstable, whether due to immaturity or current technical reality. It's all fine and dandy to cross your arms and say, we need alternatives. But how long will it take? How much will it cost? How realiable are they? How scalable are they?

Thundersnow wrote:

Sustainability does not mean using a finite resource. I am sure that you know that. Oil is unsustainable, or can you demonstrate otherwise? It is an either or option given that many people do not want anwr exploited. thankfully corporations do not run our country.

I said that we need to use "everything" and I said "energy sustainability". That includes renewable sources as well. The point is to exploit every available option and seek a diversified infrastructure that includes oil, coal, NG, as well as wind, solar, hydro, and new concepts like methane hydrates.

Yes, we have been in a rush to repeat history. We chose to not create nor invest in viable alternatives. Again, oil is not sustainable. Drill more is not a viable option.

Why not? Do you know how much is left? How much more we have? To think that drilling isn't a viable, long-term (note I don't say permanent) option is just silly.

You have not shown me anything that I do not know. Thus far you have stated: There is oil but we don't know how much so lets drill everywhere; oil prices might be driven by supply & demand, maybe by speculation, maybe by both or perhaps something else; that Bakken should be able to supply our needs, but lets drill anwr just in case; and that I do not know what I am talking about, yet you do in spite of your vagueness.

There's no just in case. We do need ANWR. We do need the eastern GOM. That is if we're at all interested in maintaining civilization. Should we also work on renewables? Yes. Is it possible to instantly replace carbon based energy sources with them now. Uh... No. So in the meantime, we need a hypbridized approach. I was being generous calling you ignorant. If you already know all of this, but fail to acknowledge it, then I can only assume that you're stupid.

I did not use quotation marks. Do not play daft.

I was quoting you, you moron. Hence the ""s.

you clearly stated that Bakken is expensive, the oil company is afraid that prices will come down (why you never stated), hence the oil company is afraid that it will be unable to compete, therefore we should let them drill anwr.

Once again, I never said it was either/or. You made a logic jump between two different statements.

Much of economics is bunk, not all. This is a pointless diversion from the topic.

You made the claim pal. Don't run from it now.

There was a time (a few million years) where people went without oil. It is low on my list of priorities. I can exist outside of my immediate comfort zone and adapt.

Enjoy your 40 year life expectancy, agregarian lifestyle, and having 10 children because 6 of them probably won't make it past the age of 10. Ahhhh... The good old days.

You were rather sure that it was quite large to begin with. Larger than the Saudis.

I said, "some initial surveys suggest..." You took that as me being "rather sure"?

Again, sustainable energy is the future, not oil. This is a reality that will have to be faced lest we enter this predicament repeatedly. There are varying estimates of peak oil, but most pinpoint now to be it.

Try talking about peak oil to professional geophysists and engineers. Have you? I have.

the market is developing quite rapidly. Unstable is drilling in random places with fingers and toes crossed *hoping* that we will strike oil.

That's not how it works. Stop being a jackass. Jackass.

A market where oil prices are like roller coasters.  Sustainable energy is viable, developing, and when in place stable.  Currently it is slightly more costly on the front end, but long term less so. Sustainable energy does without many of the environmental compromises that oil places upon us.

Now who sounds sure of himself? Facts, figures and a timeline please.

Last edited by Seabird (07-04-2008 06:27 PM)

Seabird wrote:

I said that we need to use "everything" and I said "energy sustainability". That includes renewable sources as well. The point is to exploit every available option and seek a diversified infrastructure that includes oil, coal, NG, as well as wind, solar, hydro, and new concepts like methane hydrates.

You have given no viable reason as to why we need to exploit everything we can, with the exception of the oil companies need to profit. You stated bakken is a large supply etc etc, but just in case, lets drill  anwr. Ya'know, just in case.

Why not? Do you know how much is left? How much more we have? To think that drilling isn't a viable, long-term (note I don't say permanent) option is just silly.

Oil has been shown to be a major pollutant. To think that it is sustainable, given its volatility, which you claim is what makes renewables bad and it's mass pollution renders it not a valid option. The only upside to oil is that it is is easy. To suggest that a commodity that has been as volatile and scarce as oil should be our future is lame at best. Do you know how much is left? Ho much more do we have? It can certainly be used as a stop-gap toward a more sustainable future (note that I don't say no oil whatsoever).

You have not shown me anything that I do not know. Thus far you have stated: There is oil but we don't know how much so lets drill everywhere; oil prices might be driven by supply & demand, maybe by speculation, maybe by both or perhaps something else; that Bakken should be able to supply our needs, but lets drill anwr just in case; and that I do not know what I am talking about, yet you do in spite of your vagueness.

There's no just in case. We do need ANWR. We do need the eastern GOM. That is if we're at all interested in maintaining civilization. Should we also work on renewables? Yes. Is it possible to instantly replace carbon based energy sources with them now. Uh... No. So in the meantime, we need a hypbridized approach. I was being generous calling you ignorant. If you already know all of this, but fail to acknowledge it, then I can only assume that you're stupid.

Where did I state that a monohybrid approach is wrong? I didn't. Are you able to discuss without using insults? I hold no anger toward you, yet you seem set on calling me names. Perhaps you should sit in the corner for a while. This is the first that a monohybrid approach has come up. Regardless, we are talking about ANWR, do not get confused. You still FAIL to demonstrate how or why we need anwr. You continue to be vague and elusive.

you clearly stated that Bakken is expensive, the oil company is afraid that prices will come down (why you never stated), hence the oil company is afraid that it will be unable to compete, therefore we should let them drill anwr.

Once again, I never said it was either/or. You made a logic jump between two different statements.

You are being intentionally vague. Clarify what you mean, if you know what you mean. Remember, I am an idiot.
Just to clarify, you are stating that these two statements are unrelated:

46 wrote:

Because we don't know. ANWR and the Gulf, while not exactly "conventional" plays, are considered easier and cheaper to tap than Bakken which is most definitely unconventional and requires for more work to extract. It's not a lake of oil. It's a thin layer vertical deposit sandwiched between shale deposits something like 10,000 feet (I think?) down. From there, we have to go horizontal and "crack" the porous materials by forcing water and sand into the containment layers. It's difficult and expensive and requires oil to sit at around $60-80 a barrel to be profitable.

Now pay extra attention here... Even though oil is close to $150 a barrel at the moment, there is enormous fear in the industry that that price is a bubble. Not just from speculators. There are several reasons for the current prices AND SUPPLY IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THEM!!!

You have stated that we need more oil to increase supply, yet you also state that Bakken is expensive and that prices may come down so we need to tap anwr. You admit that we can get lots of oil from Bakken, but since anwr is easier and cheaper, for the sake of the oil company we should use that.

Much of economics is bunk, not all. This is a pointless diversion from the topic.

You made the claim pal. Don't run from it now.

I was not speaking in an absolute, and again do not try to distract with shiny objects. In the context of this statement I was referring to the vast assumptions economics makes. If the crux of your debate is that I am locked into an unclarified statement, then ok. I really have no reason to debate this,

There was a time (a few million years) where people went without oil. It is low on my list of priorities. I can exist outside of my immediate comfort zone and adapt.

Enjoy your 40 year life expectancy, agregarian lifestyle, and having 10 children because 6 of them probably won't make it past the age of 10. Ahhhh... The good old days.

I understand now. You think that without mass use of oil the world stops. Regardless of scientific advances. Again, I NEVER said use no oil. In fact, I never stated do not tap ANWR. I stated just the opposite. Regardless, either you do not understand life expectancy and the world without oil at large or you are purposely using hyperbole.

You were rather sure that it was quite large to begin with. Larger than the Saudis.

I said, "some initial surveys suggest..." You took that as me being "rather sure"?

It i tough to have a conversation with someone who purposely plays vague with every statement. It may be big, or it may be small, maybe it doesn't exist whatsoever. If this is as clear as a trillion dollar industry gets there is a problem.

30 wrote:

Take the Bakken Oil Shale deposits for instance. Back in 1995, the USGS surveyed the field and determined that there were about 100-150 million barrels of recoverable crude utilizing the technology of the time. During that period, oil was trading for between $10-20/barrel. The margins of oil and gas companies were razor thin and we were barely making any money. Everytime the price fell by more than $4, layoffs came. There was little to no R&D happening within the industry. That has only started ramping up within the last couple of years. I mean really ramping up.

Just this past April, the USGS released a new study that show Bakken can yield as much as 4.5 billion barrels utilizing existing technology. So to recap, in the last few years, we've developed the technology to increase the Bakken Play by 400 times (Is my math correct? I suck at math.).

Some initial surveys suggest Bakken could hold as much as 500 billion barrels - almost twice what the Saudis are believed to have. $150/barrel buys a shit ton of R&D.

You represented this statement as fact until inconvenient and then stated maybe but who knows again. Vagueness for convenience.

Again, sustainable energy is the future, not oil. This is a reality that will have to be faced lest we enter this predicament repeatedly. There are varying estimates of peak oil, but most pinpoint now to be it.

Try talking about peak oil to professional geophysists and engineers. Have you? I have.

Cookie? I have with engineers in the field however. That in no way renders there opinion supreme. I suppose your conversations with people somehow outweigh the numerous papers published in scientific journals by people who have researched this for much of their lives? Do I really need to go through google and show you the accomplished people who state that peak oil has been reached?

the market is developing quite rapidly. Unstable is drilling in random places with fingers and toes crossed *hoping* that we will strike oil.

That's not how it works. Stop being a jackass. Jackass.

Thus far that is your position. Stop being vague, and again stop name calling. If it is not drill and hope, then how does it work? Do we or do we not know how much is in certain places? You have given two answers. Pick one so that we can have an honest discussion.

Please clarify your position. This should be fairly easy. Thus far you have given no reasons that you are willing to stand behind in regards to drilling anwr.
Because you have attempted to pain my entire position as being anti-drilling, I will clarify mine: We can and maybe should tap anwr, but only to be used for military purposes, and only in the case of a true military emergency. None of this strategic reserve "oh no oil is expensive!!!!" crap. It should not have anything to do with an oil company.

Okay you idiot, I'm going to lay this down for you as simply as I can, and hopefully you'll get it, though I have my doubts. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and just assumed you were being obstinate because you disagreed with me. But now I'm becoming more convinced that you genuinely lack the ability to understand.

First of all... I have some pretty extensive experience working in the oil and gas field. I have choppered offshore and spent time on shallow and deepwater rigs. I speak with geologists, geophysicists, engineers, technicians, energy marketers on a professional level every day. I have done this for over 10 years. That makes me the closest thing to an expert here. Furthermore, as much as we all joke around here, I have no interest in seeing oil and gas at skyhigh rates. I pay the same to fill up my car as does the average Joe. The information I offer here is based on firsthand knowledge, and also because my job requires me reading and following the industry and the market beyond typical  political soundbites and news blurbs.

You have misinterpreted my previous statements on purpose in a bush league attempt to box me into a false dichotomy. I never represented the Bakken information as fact. You are welcome to go back to the original posts and prove me wrong. Peak Oil theory is more complex than you seem to understand. In truth, we've have had several peaks already, followed by new estimates and considerations based on advances in exploration and recovery techniques. For example, look up a company called Endeavour Energy. They specialize in revitalization of North Sea (an assumed peak region) production spots that were considered dead 10 years ago. They are now using state of the art imaging and extraction methods to show new vitality that the old majors didn't think was worth producing from any more. Once these spots are rehabbed, they sell them back to the old majors as turn-key operations.

This is but one example of the new sorts of innovations being looked at. But nothing on it's own is going to be enough. To flippantly say that Bakken should be enough because I said so is moronic. First of all, I didn't say that and only the most puerile dipshit fuckstick asshole would assume that was my point. Not saying you are one. Are you?

Oil, gas, and coal have to work in conjunction with newer sustainable sources until those sources can come online in a cost effective way. I know that you think rainbows and unicorn farts are enough to keep us going strong, but fortunately smarter people than you are hard at work on real solutions. It is very clear to me that you are woefully unaware of just how much we depend on the petrochemical industry. Petro-based fertilizers, modern farm equipment, and food transportation all allow us to make food affordable.

Drill and hope? Seriously? Is that how you think the industry works? LOL! Geologists and geophysicists use state of the art sounding and imaging tools to peer deep (miles) into the Earth's oceans and crust. We have a rough idea of where to start looking based on past knowledge of current geologic conditions and overall geologic history. Before a single drill bit touches dirt, there is a lot of preliminary work done. To suggest that we simply cross our fingers and pray for a strike is so stunningly insulting and stupid as to defy description.

What I am suggesting is that we need a stepped approach, taken over time; decades. The viability of Bakken today, versus yesterday, and into the future is unclear. Unclear enough that to assume that's all we need is naive and dangerous. It's an eggs in one basket strategy. We get what we can from Bakken now (which probably isn't all there is, just what we can obtain today - clear enough?). We begin production of ANWR and the easter GOM, because we have an even better idea of what's there, and we have a better idea, given the today's technology of what we can extract. These are plays that will take us into the next 10-20 years. ANWR wouldn't start flowing for another 10 years. The eastern GOM might begin within the 4-6 depending on who you talk to. Hopefully by then, we can learn to extract even more from Bakken, as well as having discovered more efficient ways to extract from the oil shale areas of the Rocky Mountain Fairway (Shell just gave up because it's still too expensive and requires enormous amounts of water that just don't exist in the arid regions of Utah where they were working), and learn more efficient refining techniques for places like the heavy crude Canadian tar sands in Alberta.

Finally, I insult you because you're purposely mischaracterized my statements and generally tried to hold onto a reed in a windstorm. You know jackshit about the oil and gas industry, whine like a little bitch about me not explaining it (though that's what I've been trying to do for the better part of 3 pages) and being supposedly vague (your inability to comprehend is the actual culprit here you moron), and you think that ANWR is a viable military reserve, why? Do you have any idea how long it takes to begin production for some place like that??? Do you think the military has the luxury to hang around for the better part of a decade for us to get pumping so that we can then respond to a serious global threat?

Are you 10?

Last edited by Seabird (07-05-2008 10:31 PM)

Seabird wrote:

Okay you idiot, I'm going to lay this down for you as simply as I can, and hopefully you'll get it, though I have my doubts. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and just assumed you were being obstinate because you disagreed with me. But now I'm becoming more convinced that you genuinely lack the ability to understand.

Are you 10?

What's that?

First of all... I have some pretty extensive experience working in the oil and gas field. I have choppered offshore and spent time on shallow and deepwater rigs. I speak with geologists, geophysicists, engineers, technicians, energy marketers on a professional level every day. I have done this for over 10 years. That makes me the closest thing to an expert here. Furthermore, as much as we all joke around here, I have no interest in seeing oil and gas at skyhigh rates. I pay the same to fill up my car as does the average Joe. The information I offer here is based on firsthand knowledge, and also because my job requires me reading and following the industry and the market beyond typical  political soundbites and news blurbs.

Congrats? I never claimed that I know more than you. You have been exceptionally vague for three pages, all while claiming superiority based on working in the field.

You have misinterpreted my previous statements on purpose in a bush league attempt to box me into a false dichotomy.

No, I clearly posted what you said and asked you to clarify. If that is any way deceptive, then perhaps you should check your dictionary for the meaning. Again: I repeatedly asked you to clarify and you responded with insults.

I never represented the Bakken information as fact. You are welcome to go back to the original posts and prove me wrong.

Once again: Instead you have been ridiculously elusive and vague either in an attempt to prove yourself right through manipulation, through laziness, or perhaps that you really do not know what you are talking about.

Peak Oil theory is more complex than you seem to understand. In truth, we've have had several peaks already, followed by new estimates and considerations based on advances in exploration and recovery techniques. For example, look up a company called Endeavour Energy. They specialize in revitalization of North Sea (an assumed peak region) production spots that were considered dead 10 years ago. They are now using state of the art imaging and extraction methods to show new vitality that the old majors didn't think was worth producing from any more. Once these spots are rehabbed, they sell them back to the old majors as turn-key operations.

It is apparently more complex than you understand. Peak oil refers to multiple things (including the previous peaks and revised estimates) but you know that, don't you. It is still suggested point in the future.

Oil, gas, and coal have to work in conjunction with newer sustainable sources until those sources can come online in a cost effective way. I know that you think rainbows and unicorn farts are enough to keep us going strong, but fortunately smarter people than you are hard at work on real solutions. It is very clear to me that you are woefully unaware of just how much we depend on the petrochemical industry. Petro-based fertilizers, modern farm equipment, and food transportation all allow us to make food affordable.

Attacking claims I never made is fine. I never stated that we do not rely on petrochemicals or anything of the sort. Did I? I already stated in the post above this that I support a monohybrid approach, Stick to the conversation regardless, one about ANWR. You continue to claim stuff that I never stated. We will (and do!) have an oil industry without ANWR. It is not going to solve our world's problems. Either you have really bought into this and don't understand why, or you are a mindless shill.

Drill and hope? Seriously? Is that how you think the industry works? LOL! Geologists and geophysicists use state of the art sounding and imaging tools to peer deep (miles) into the Earth's oceans and crust. We have a rough idea of where to start looking based on past knowledge of current geologic conditions and overall geologic history. Before a single drill bit touches dirt, there is a lot of preliminary work done. To suggest that we simply cross our fingers and pray for a strike is so stunningly insulting and stupid as to defy description.

I was showing the vagueness of your position, but either you fail to grasp that or you honestly have no comprehension skills. Do we know how much ANWR has or not? Which is it?

What I am suggesting is that we need a stepped approach, taken over time; decades.

And I am not? I thought me stating that we need to move to a more sustainable future was just that. I never took this position, refrain from attacking it.

The viability of Bakken today, versus yesterday, and into the future is unclear. Unclear enough that to assume that's all we need is naive and dangerous. It's an eggs in one basket strategy. We get what we can from Bakken now (which probably isn't all there is, just what we can obtain today - clear enough?). We begin production of ANWR and the easter GOM, because we have an even better idea of what's there, and we have a better idea, given the today's technology of what we can extract. These are plays that will take us into the next 10-20 years. ANWR wouldn't start flowing for another 10 years. The eastern GOM might begin within the 4-6 depending on who you talk to. Hopefully by then, we can learn to extract even more from Bakken, as well as having discovered more efficient ways to extract from the oil shale areas of the Rocky Mountain Fairway (Shell just gave up because it's still too expensive and requires enormous amounts of water that just don't exist in the arid regions of Utah where they were working), and learn more efficient refining techniques for places like the heavy crude Canadian tar sands in Alberta.

Again, the main reason is because ANWR is cheaper and easier. Or do you think that ANWR is going to be the last producing oil field? You still FAIL to give a reason to tap ANWR. Is it b/c it is easier, or because we are afraid that we are running out oil? Again I AM ASKING YOU TO CLARIFY YOUR STATEMENTS. I understand that this makes it hard to be elusive.

Finally, I insult you because you're purposely mischaracterized my statements and generally tried to hold onto a reed in a windstorm. You know jackshit about the oil and gas industry, whine like a little bitch about me not explaining it (though that's what I've been trying to do for the better part of 3 pages) and being supposedly vague (your inability to comprehend is the actual culprit here you moron), and you think that ANWR is a viable military reserve, why? Do you have any idea how long it takes to begin production for some place like that??? Do you think the military has the luxury to hang around for the better part of a decade for us to get pumping so that we can then respond to a serious global threat?

Again, I never mischaracterized what you stated. I asked you to clarify each time. You still have not done so. I am not sure what you mean by the end of this tirade with waiting for ANWR to "get pumping...decade..etc etc etc". The oil should go into a reserve for national security. That is pretty simple.

Your elusiveness is characterized here:

you clearly stated that Bakken is expensive, the oil company is afraid that prices will come down (why you never stated), hence the oil company is afraid that it will be unable to compete, therefore we should let them drill anwr.

Once again, I never said it was either/or. You made a logic jump between two different statements.

You are being intentionally vague. Clarify what you mean, if you know what you mean. Remember, I am an idiot.
Just to clarify, you are stating that these two statements are unrelated:

46 wrote:

Because we don't know. ANWR and the Gulf, while not exactly "conventional" plays, are considered easier and cheaper to tap than Bakken which is most definitely unconventional and requires for more work to extract. It's not a lake of oil. It's a thin layer vertical deposit sandwiched between shale deposits something like 10,000 feet (I think?) down. From there, we have to go horizontal and "crack" the porous materials by forcing water and sand into the containment layers. It's difficult and expensive and requires oil to sit at around $60-80 a barrel to be profitable.

Now pay extra attention here... Even though oil is close to $150 a barrel at the moment, there is enormous fear in the industry that that price is a bubble. Not just from speculators. There are several reasons for the current prices AND SUPPLY IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THEM!!!

You have stated that we need more oil to increase supply, yet you also state that Bakken is expensive and that prices may come down so we need to tap anwr. You admit that we can get lots of oil from Bakken, but since anwr is easier and cheaper, for the sake of the oil company we should use that.

You continue to jump from one ad hominem attack to the next, bookended by strawmen. I have stated my position repeatedly. I will help you here: We both agree that taking a stepped approach to sustainable future is what needs to happen (no need to attack this position. We disagree on the necessity of tapping ANWR. Is it because of price, or is it because we are on short supply of oil? Is it both?

Most economics is based on mass assumptions? Giving us a lack of viable software? Basic truths surrounded by assumptions that people are rational even though they aren't? Is that how you understand rationality in the context of economics? Really? Heheheh... Okay.

*sigh*

You keep telling me to clarify. Clarify what? I don't know what else to explain. I've explained why over and over again why ANWR should be exploited along with the rest of the GOM.

You want me to lay out every single reason why we should drill ANWR? Because oil is a scarce and crucial commodity. Because the more we produce domestically, the less we should have to import. Because to be a net importer puts us at a strategic disadvantage. Because we've placed arbitrary limitations on our ability to produce, and as a result, we're now paying through the nose. Because by the time we discover that we really, really need it before the shit really hits the fan, we won't be able to bring it online fast enough. Because there's no really good reason not to drill it. It's a mosquito infested frozen (usually) marsh, not the ultra pristine wilderness that the treehuggers would have you think.

I don't know how much more specific you want me to get.

Also, you keep using the word "monohybrid". That word doesn't mean what you think it means, and your reliance on it illustrates my point exactly. Are you making all of it up as you go along, or just some of it?

You don't get it. You won't get it. I'm weary of trying to explain this to a brick.

If anyone else has had trouble following me, please speak up.

Goodnight TS.

Last edited by Seabird (07-06-2008 03:26 PM)