Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:34:31 AM EST
Viewing the posts on "Terrorism" and fuel consumption made me seek this information out. It would be quite useful in flattenig that argument. This is not from a government source, but the percentages do agree with what I thought they would be...:
Where do the raw materials for your gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, and all of our plastic products come from? Here is a breakdown based on government data for the year 2000: Supplied Domestically 38.2 % Canada 9.2 % Saudi Arabia 8.0 % Venezuela 7.8 % Mexico 7.0 % Nigeria 4.5 % Iraq* 3.7 % United Kingdom 2.9 % Norway 2.4 % Colombia 2.7 % Angola 2.0 % All Other Countries 11.6 %
View Quote
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 8:43:51 AM EST
Not surprising: Liberals don't have their facts straight once again. BTW, what is the source?
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 8:45:45 AM EST
If ANWR were developed what % would it supply?
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 8:47:40 AM EST
Originally Posted By W-W: If ANWR were developed what % would it supply?
View Quote
Also include other offshore oil reserves that the liberals don't want us to use in that figure as well.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 8:51:21 AM EST
Sweet..I can really use that one! [:D]
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 8:56:07 AM EST
Where did you get this again? I wonder why they throw in plastics, couldn't that mess with the numbers?
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 8:56:36 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 9:14:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/10/2003 9:15:23 AM EST by Sylvan]
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 9:24:17 AM EST
So if we just took over Iraq and pumped all the oil out of the ground, what would that do?
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 9:31:08 AM EST
Originally Posted By Sylvan: ANWR p95 is 5 billion barrels. p50 is probably 10-15 billion barrels. Remember, daily production from ANWR would be about 2.5 million barrels a day for about 5 years, and then a decline. Total production would last about 25 years. It would take about 5 years to bring ANWR on line. Daily US consumption is 22-23 million barrels a day. We are developing the vast majority of our large off-shore oil fields. It isn't cheap. Example, approximately 600million barrel field (called Atlantis) is in 7000 ft in Gulf of Mexico. It will cost about 2 billion dollars to bring that on line. That is not including the cost of the sub-sea pipeline to deliver the oil. That is another 300-500 million dollars. Atlantis will have a daily production rate of 100-200,000 barrels of oil per day at peak (called plateau). plateau will last two-four years. The field will be on-line for about 25 years. There is no magic bullet out there. You can think that all you want. God is His perverse sense of humor gave the Arabs incredible reservoirs. Just stick a pipe in the ground and let it flow. their fields are in the 100's of billions of barrels. Currently they produce at about 50% of already developed capacity. The rest of the non-opec world produces at 100% capacity. The point of the exercise is that all increases and decreases in oil consumption are covered by the saudis. If you use one less gallon of gas a day, that money is taken directly away from the Saudis. you buy one more gallon of gas, that money goes directly to the saudis. The whole world produces whatever it can, the saudis produce whats left. Even small changes help. Yes, I work in the oil-gas industry. I hate fucking liberals but this is the one place they have their shit straight.
View Quote
This info is quite disheartining.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 9:33:14 AM EST
No one really knows how much oil is in ANWR. But my friend's next door neighbor was one of the chief geologists who first surveyed the oil deposits in Prudhoe Bay back in the 60's. One of their techniques were to fly low in small planes and throw rolls of TP onto the tundra. The areas where the TP turned black from surface crude oil got the highest priority to survey in better detail. This geologist said that the ANWR was at least as rich as Prudhoe, judging by this method. At any rate, the liberals block any attempt to do any exploration in ANWR while pooh-poohing the significance of any oil that ANWR could produce. They spew horseshit like "It would only produce 6 months of oil anyway" or "We need to put priorities on finding alternative energy solutions to fossil fuels". Look, if ANWR isn't developed, then much of the infrastructure that is already in place up on the Slope to extract and transport oil is going to fall into decay from disuse once the non-ANWR fields dry up. Prudhoe Bay's on the downslope right now. It would not be hard to exploit ANWR's deposits, but we have to get cracking now while the costs of doing so are relatively low, and can take up the slack from a declining Prudhoe Bay. I just find it hard to understand why anyone could be opposed to opening ANWR. It's not like there's a shortage of barren, "pristine" tundra on the polar coastlines of the world. But it is unusual to have such a potentially massive petroleum deposit right next to a fully functional extraction infrastructure, right on our territory. It's like saying "Let's not pick up this $500 lying in the backyard, because it'll only cover 6 months of my fuel expenses anyway."
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 9:35:31 AM EST
Originally Posted By mcnielsen: Not surprising: Liberals don't have their facts straight once again. BTW, what is the source?
View Quote
Touche.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 10:16:26 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 10:22:11 AM EST
raven, You bring up an interesting point. If there is crude oil on the surface of the ANWR, it is our responsibility to ensure we "clean it up" and prevent any more from polluting the surface of suicha pristine land. We'll have to pump it all out......
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 10:27:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/10/2003 10:29:09 AM EST by Methos]
Those figures come from the American Petroleum Institute. [url]http://api-ec.api.org/industry/index.cfm?bitmask=1D798D48-3258-11D5-9F1A0008C7094D05#[/url] I converted the PDF file of the latest (Jan-OCT 2002) figures to a JPEG: Of that we get 2.3% of petroleum products from Iraq... BFD. [img]http://bin.homestead.com/files/OctImp.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 10:37:43 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 10:48:20 AM EST
Originally Posted By Sylvan: 2.3% (artificially low, since we have cut off their exports here, but regardless) is still 15.7 million dollars A DAY to Iraq. BFD? Incidently, technology has progressed past the toilet paper on the ground. That is why prudoe bay produced way beyond anyone's expectations.
View Quote
Sylvan, Further education please...What grows or lives in a habitat that has oil on the ground? And as a % of total land in ANWR what amount of land would be used if we were developing it?Thanks ww
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 11:08:42 AM EST
I think Sylvan just made the case that in addition to Iraq's we should take the Saudi oilfields for ourselves as well.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 11:19:21 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 11:25:00 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 11:31:32 AM EST
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Methos: I think Sylvan just made the case that in addition to Iraq's we should take the Saudi oilfields for ourselves as well.
View Quote
God Damn right! We developed those reserves. Saudi Arabia would be a desert shithole if it wasn't for american technology and american engineers. And those goat humping fuckers repay by killing thousands of Americans. My solution is much simplier. We shut off the straights of hormuz with a blockade and don't let any oil through. The spot price of oil at the straight of hormuz is $.01 a barrel. take it or leave it. The arabs have nothing but oil. In 6 months they will be begging us to sell their oil. After they have complete turmoil and chaos, we move in, take the oil fields and let them have mecca and medina. Fuck them. They can't even fix the M-1s and F-15s we gave em. worthless greedy murdering shit heads. Ask me how I really feel.
View Quote
I LIKE YOUR ATTITUDE!
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 11:37:28 AM EST
Originally Posted By Sylvan: We shut off the straights of hormuz with a blockade and don't let any oil through. The spot price of oil at the straight of hormuz is $.01 a barrel. take it or leave it. The arabs have nothing but oil. In 6 months they will be begging us to sell their oil. After they have complete turmoil and chaos, we move in, take the oil fields and let them have mecca and medina. Fuck them.
View Quote
lol, we could definitely do that. Screw the UN and screw UNCLOS. We own the biggest baddest Navy in history and we should use it. The Saudis finance terrorists with oil money so it just makes sense for us to take control of their oil.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 11:42:48 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/10/2003 11:44:43 AM EST by The_Macallan]
Thank you [b]Sylvan[/b] for your information. You seem VERY knowledgeable in the industry. But you're mistaken in your math:
Originally Posted By Sylvan: If you count Venezuala (which has admitted it has given millions to Al Queda directly), 30% of our oil comes from terrorist finance supporters. [red]If we reduce our oil consumption by 15%,[/red] we have cut the money we send to terrorists by half.
View Quote
Not really. That 15% reduction is spread among ALL sources of oil (like domestic, Canada, Mexico...) If we use 15% less oil, we're reducing the amount going to Saudi & Co. by 15% also. 15% of 30% is 4.5%. If we reduce our total oil use by 15%, terrorist-supporting oil suppliers will only see a 4.5% decrease because our reduction is spread among all sources. It will hurt OUR lifestyle more than it hurts THEM. (and of course THAT'S the real goal of the liberals) The only way we can cut off money going to the terrorist-supporting oil-producers is to cut-off BUYING [u]THEIR[/u] oil. And that is controlled at the Gov't/Industry level, not the consumer level. I can't control WHERE Texaco or ARCO gets its oil from, so it's pointless for me to inconvenience myself thinking that will "trickle down" to inconvenience the terrorist-supporting states and thus down to the terrorists.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 11:55:43 AM EST
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Thank you [b]Sylvan[/b] for your information. You seem VERY knowledgeable in the industry. But you're mistaken in your math:
Originally Posted By Sylvan: If you count Venezuala (which has admitted it has given millions to Al Queda directly), 30% of our oil comes from terrorist finance supporters. [red]If we reduce our oil consumption by 15%,[/red] we have cut the money we send to terrorists by half.
View Quote
Not really. That 15% reduction is spread among ALL sources of oil (like domestic, Canada, Mexico...) If we use 15% less oil, we're reducing the amount going to Saudi & Co. by 15% also. 15% of 30% is 4.5%. If we reduce our total oil use by 15%, terrorist-supporting oil suppliers will only see a 4.5% decrease because our reduction is spread among all sources. It will hurt OUR lifestyle more than it hurts THEM. (and of course THAT'S the real goal of the liberals) The only way we can cut off money going to the terrorist-supporting oil-producers is to cut-off BUYING [u]THEIR[/u] oil. And that is controlled at the Gov't/Industry level, not the consumer level. I can't control WHERE Texaco or ARCO gets its oil from, so it's pointless for me to inconvenience myself thinking that will "trickle down" to inconvenience the terrorist-supporting states and thus down to the terrorists.
View Quote
I believe what we need is a Federal Law (I KNOW, Flame Away) requiring gas stations to have Oil source info at the pump...we can then decide to pay a bit more for non-saudi oil...
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 11:59:45 AM EST
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: Thank you [b]Sylvan[/b] for your information. You seem VERY knowledgeable in the industry. But you're mistaken in your math:
Originally Posted By Sylvan: If you count Venezuala (which has admitted it has given millions to Al Queda directly), 30% of our oil comes from terrorist finance supporters. [red]If we reduce our oil consumption by 15%,[/red] we have cut the money we send to terrorists by half.
View Quote
Not really. That 15% reduction is spread among ALL sources of oil (like domestic, Canada, Mexico...) If we use 15% less oil, we're reducing the amount going to Saudi & Co. by 15% also. 15% of 30% is 4.5%. If we reduce our total oil use by 15%, terrorist-supporting oil suppliers will only see a 4.5% decrease because our reduction is spread among all sources. It will hurt OUR lifestyle more than it hurts THEM. (and of course THAT'S the real goal of the liberals) The only way we can cut off money going to the terrorist-supporting oil-producers is to cut-off BUYING [u]THEIR[/u] oil. And that is controlled at the Gov't/Industry level, not the consumer level. I can't control WHERE Texaco or ARCO gets its oil from, so it's pointless for me to inconvenience myself thinking that will "trickle down" to inconvenience the terrorist-supporting states and thus down to the terrorists.
View Quote
Not only that Macallan, but who's to say they won't simply reduce their output in order to raise the price of oil enough to offset any differential. Remember, OPEC controls a LOT of oil, including stuff that doesn't come from the Middle East. If we consume less, they will lower production so they don't end up losing much money.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 12:11:06 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 12:21:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/10/2003 1:14:39 PM EST by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By Sylvan: All decreases in demand will be shifted wholly on imports. More to the point, it will be shifted on the most expensive imports (Saudi, due to the distances involved). The US and canada will continue to produce 100% at capacity. The difference is made up from mostly OPEC imports. [red]If we cut oil demand 50%, do you think we would shut in 50% of our wells? Hell no.[/red]
View Quote
Hell YES! If we reduced oil consumption, the liberals would use that to show that we don't need to open new reserves and we can start shutting down our own domestic production to spare the "delicate natural ecosystems" here. You're assuming that the liberals WANT us to be oil-self-sufficient. The liberals had their chance to show they'd choose domestic oil sources over "terrorist-supported" oil sources with the ANWR vote last year. They chose to support terrorist states. Conservatives should go on the offensive with this latest tactic and put out ads saying, [b]"If you voted for Daschle or Gephardt or Clinton or Rangel, you voted for TERRORISTS!!! [red]Because those Democrats voted to keep us dependant on terrorist-supported oil sources!!![/red][/b][pissed] Again, I appreciate your expertise [b]Sylvan[/b] but you gotta see the real picture behind the picture here. It's politics. The liberals WANT America to be weakened and for THEM to be re-elected. Period. They don't give a fuck about terrorism or oil or the environment or jobs or children or you or me or anything. All they want is POWER. And these are all just excuses to get us to be more dependant, poorer and weaker as a people and less secure and dominant as a nation.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 2:06:55 PM EST
Last I knew we sent most of the Alaska crude to Japan. I know that Mexican Crude has a higher sulfur content than the sweet crude from other areas, but we could quickly get Mexico on line, anwr on line and refuse to export any more oil to Japan. We could easily make up for the Persian Gulf crude in short order. Let the Jap's deal with the Arab's I hope our oil reserves have been topped off since that traitor Bill opened the gates.
Top Top