Do you know what ANWR is? (gallon, middle east, thoughts, gasoline)

[karfar]

Originally Posted by Sonrise

I find it interesting that you just got pwned! How is Tammybruce.com, Fox News? And even if it was, how does that change what you just viewed. So, just to reiterate, you have no actual qualms or arguments with what you just saw(How could you? It is what it is), you just hate the messenger so much you refuse to acknowledge it? Did I get that correct? I find that laughable.

PS. Tammy Bruce is a lesbian. I thought that gave her instant cred amongst the liberal Marxist crowd, or is that only when she agrees with your agenda?

Let's see, what I opened the link, Fox news came up. Doesn't that mean there's a link there somewhere? Just because someone's a lesbian doesn't mean liberals will automatically agree w/their arguments. Who's the laughable one now?

[bbkaren]

Okay, if that's the case, then let's see some links showing that she's lying?

Or are you just saying the source is affiliated with a TV station you don't like and don't really have a point?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by karfar

That's funny, isn't Fox a conservative station?

Originally Posted by karfar

I find it interesting that instead of getting your news from an unbiased source, you use Fox News, a laughable & totally biased newsource. You don't see the humor in this?

Please find another news source that discusses the area of ANWR and I'll be happy to consider it. Until then, I'll review the news as it comes and this is the news currently discussing the issue. Its not my fault that liberal news stations dont want to discuss the issue because they dont like the facts.

[seattlerain]

Originally Posted by Sonrise

PS. Tammy Bruce is a lesbian. I thought that gave her instant cred amongst the liberal Marxist crowd, or is that only when she agrees with your agenda?

One of the most ridiculous statements I've read on here.

If a person is straight does that give them instant credibility with you...?

If I don’t agree with somebody, I don’t agree with him or her, gay, straight, bisexual…whatever, a person’s sexual orientation has no bearing on whether I agree with...or disagree, nor does that person have any more credibility.

[Sonrise]

Originally Posted by seattlerain

One of the most ridiculous statements I've read on here.

If a person is straight does that give them instant credibility with you...?

If I don’t agree with somebody, I don’t agree with him or her, gay, straight, bisexual…whatever, a person’s sexual orientation has no bearing on whether I agree with...or disagree, nor does that person have any more credibility.

Have you ever heard of the term, "tongue in cheek"? Sheesh

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by karfar

I find it interesting that instead of getting your news from an unbiased source, you use Fox News, a laughable & totally biased newsource. You don't see the humor in this?

Why not just question the content then. Argue the facts of the issue and then you never have to worry about the source. You can say "Well, see you are wrong because this data says... and the actual data is..."

That way, we get to skip the whole logical fallacy of source tossing. Is this information wrong? I haven't looked it up to verify, you seem to think it is, care to show us why it is wrong? I would be interested to see. (honestly)

[Habsburg]

Originally Posted by seattlerain

One of the most ridiculous statements I've read on here.

If a person is straight does that give them instant credibility with you...?

If I don’t agree with somebody, I don’t agree with him or her, gay, straight, bisexual…whatever, a person’s sexual orientation has no bearing on whether I agree with...or disagree, nor does that person have any more credibility.

I know Sonrise already commented but it bears repeating.

Have you ever heard of the term, "tongue in cheek"? Sheesh

Lighten up.

[TransAm]

Originally Posted by bryan61

I dont believe drilling will have any impact on the price of oil, long or short term. The oil companies that extract the oil will sell it at the world price for a barrel of oil and not a penny less. The amount will be a small percentage of world supply which the major oil producing countrie will decrease their supply to keep the price up. Ya gotta listen to T. Boone, we've hit peak oil and we aint drilling our way out of this problem

You have no knowledge of the futures market, do you.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by TransAm

You have no knowledge of the futures market, do you.

No knowledge of oil either.

What's being pumped out of Prudhoe Bay just a stone's throw away?

Um, heavy sour.

Unless you have a hard-on for asphalt, diesel oil or fuel oil, heavy sour is about useless. That's why the US started importing light crude from the Middle East in the 1970s.

The whopping 6 gallons of gasoline per barrel you get from heavy crudes ain't worth the time, especially when you're getting 22 gallons of gasoline per barrel from light crude.

Sure, at great cost and expense, and time, you can squeeze a few more gallons out of the residuum, but it isn't worth it.

All of the oil on the US West Coast is heavy. I guess no one ever heard of California Heavy and I guess no one is aware that the majority of heavy oil refineries are in California.

You can drill in ANWR if you want, but it won't help reduce the price of light or intermediate grade crudes. You can buy heavy and very heavy oils now for $41/barrel to $104/barrel.

Prudhoe Bay has a specific gravity of 28 and a sulfur content of 0.9%.

The specific gravity of whatever is in ANWR has to be 26 >= and =< 30 AND the sulfur content has to be between 0.75% and 1%.

If not, then a whole new pipeline will have to be built and that will take 8-9 years.

The only other possibility would be to create a "blend" sort of like Brent Blend (a blend of oil from 7 oil fields and a nightmare as soon as one of them taps out).

If you create a "Prudhoe Blend" then you can run it through TAPS (Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System), but then that means you'd have to modify all of the refineries and replace the cracking stills, which will cost $Millions and take lots of time, plus reduce the production capacity creating shortages and driving up the price of diesel oil, fuel oil, naphthas, paraffins, tars, bitumens and asphalts (and the paltry bit o' gasoline).

[evilnewbie]

I don't really mind drilling, I just think its only delaying tactic for the inevitable.. renewable energy... drill more doesn't "do" anything long term, its a way to avoid the natural evolution of energy sources... I am sure when gasoline was starting to be released people were like... we should use more coal instead of this new thing called "gasoline", so we should mine more coal and not move on to gasoline... that line of thinking is amazing.. drilling more for what? For short term relief? wow, that is such a great move...