[Cruisingdad]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

I've asked and now Cam has asked. Please answer the question. Otherwise we're just wasting valuable time that could be spent on drilling. (g)

You might want to be a little careful with your statistics as well. Stats on oil reserves, proven and otherwise, are notoriously malleable. For instance, they never really know how much oil is down there until the well goes dry. At the same time, old unproductive wells that no longer produce get re-opened and, using new technology, produce significant quantities of oil. And I'll continue to wait.

Anyone notice how very deprived of FACTS and References and Links everyone elses posts are here about Pro-Drill? I went to their site. It is NO different. Drill Now, Drill Here, Pay Less. What it SHOULD say is:

Drill Now, because we have not propoerly invested in alternative means of energy and have no energy plan and have reached peak production on a number of our major producing wells and Chavez is kicking our butts out of his counrty.

Drill Here, because we have a unrealistic 5% (high end) chance that we MIGHT have 20 billion barrels of oil that will last the US almost three years at current use - then we got nothing. And after that is over, because of no other energy sources, we will be riding horses again (yahoo!)

Pay Less (my favorite). As I have shown, with facts and numbers (which everyone else seems to avoid putting down), the average family that drives 15000 miles/year and gets a crappy 20 mpg will get $12.50/month. That will not buy chopped liver, it will buy one-two Big Mac Happy meals. The 'Pay Less' will be extraordinary, let me tell you. Course... you gonna have to wait 15 yeras to get that happy meal. Try slim fast until then. Oh, and as I have also shown, if you get MORE than 20 mpg, or the cost of oil goes down, or you drive less than 15,000 miles, you won't even get a Big Mac. Fortunately, the one dollar double cheesburger is somewhat filling. After 15 years of living on slim fast, it might even fill you up (pun intended).

Sway,

1) Define significant. Quit using these hypothetical inferences. Show me numbers. SHow me examples. You have made an accusation, now prove it with numbers and facts. I am waiting. Obviously the amount of oil we can get out of ANWR, which I have already shown you will give you a Big Mac Happy Meal once or MAYBE twice a Month is significant to you. That makes one ask the question then, what is insignificant?

2) Since I have been put under the gun to do some research, I ask you to do the same. SHow me, in guaranteed facts, from real unbiased numbers, where we have Proven, Recoverable, Reserves that we can drill and replace 25% of our oil production. I am not asking you to show me how we get off... not even replace HALF. Just drill and replace a quarter for 20 years. I am waiting. I can't wait for this since it seems Exxon, Mobil, BP, Chevron, USGS, Department of Interior, MMS, and countless consultants have not been able to for the last 200 hundred years. What is your source? The Easter Bunny? I didn't ask him - but I got it on my wish list for Santa Clause. I have been good this year after all. But the question is, have you been that good?

3) You seem to be impressed with the new technology to squeeze a bit more oil out, why not be as impressed with the new technology to find alternative means?

4) Statistics. I AM SOOOOO GLAD YOU BROUGHT THIS ONE UP. ANother example of you not reading what is posted or what you link. When I have quoted the oil reserves, I have generally used the high-end 5% margin. Know what that is? That means there is a 5% chance or less that there is that much available. In other words, using ANWR as an example, I have been quoting:

A 1998 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km³) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (1.7 km³). (wikipedia, also available at USGS, Dpt of Int)

That means, since you have not been paying attention, that there is a pittiful little 5% chance that ANWR even has the 11.8 billion barrels I have been quoting and you seem to be frothing over. FIVE PERCENT. The odds (Mean.... that is 50:50) are that it has 7.7 billion and COULD have 4.3 billion. However, I have focused on that pie in the sky, the Lord has blessed us, Santa Clause has given us, The Easter Bunny has hidden (and we will find) chance that there might be 11.8 Billion barrels.

You are right. The stats are notoriously Maleable. I should be a little more careful. Because you know what... if it is 4.3 billion, you might have a hard time even keeping the pipeline open long enough to make a profit out of it (ie, research the cost to keep the Alaska Oil Pipeline open... I can provide a link if you want). Thank you for making my point for me again.

My Research Challenge

Answer one single question. What energy sources do we have locally that can be sustained for a decade or two (your words) that are anywhere near capable of replacing even 25% of the btu's we get from oil? I'll wait.

Well, if I have to do EVEN MORE honest research (of which you have done almost none), I will also pass the buck to you, and Cam, and EVERYONE else too that supports drilling for oil here. You show ME, with fact not hypotheses, how drilling oil will make any sizeable difference, 25% or better, in where we are currently AND in the future AND be suistaineable for 20 years. I will even give you leeway. I will tell you forget ANY environmental impacts. Put a spigot in everyone's back yard... everyones! Make this place look like North Jersey in the winter or LA in the summer. Strip her. Burn her. Gut her. You don't have to care what is left of this place after 20 years. Just show me how you can do that. Here are the numbers you have to meet:

7.6 billion barrels/year * 20 years= 152 billion barrels we will burn. Now, 25% of that is 38 billion barrels. Show me, in Proven, Recoverable, Guaranteed Reserves that WE have that will supply 25%.

Remember... it is Proven AND Recoverable. If it is NOT proven AND recoverable AND sustaineable for 20 years then you would just be hypothesizing like me and that would make your research challenge hypocritical. I am waiting. Otherwise, we are wasting valueable time here when we could be spending it on trying to find a LONG TERM solution that we can all be happy with (except Exxon, of course). As I said before, this should be interesting because Exxon, Mobil, BP, Chevron, USGS, Department of Interior, MMS, countless consultants, and those with hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal have not been able to for the last 200 hundred years.

And I'll continue to wait...

- CD