Why opposition to drilling for oil in the "Arctic National WildlifeRefuge" is ridiculous.

[V-for-Vendicar]

"HarryNadds" <hoofhearted07@yahoo.com> wrote
> You're pissin' in the wind.You should never confuse a liberal with
> facts.

Fact: Anwar contains 6 months consumpiton at current consumption rates.

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN

 

[Vandar]

V-for-Vendicar wrote:

> "Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote\
>
>>That's Joe Lieberman's incorrect interpretation of the report. The
>>"six-month supply" is at $30/barrel. A $100/barrel, it's economically
>>feasible to tap the whole thing.
>>http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
>
>
> From your own reference.....
>
>>The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
>>assessment area is estimated to be
>>between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels
>
>
> 16 billion barrels = 200 days of supply.

Reading isn't your strong suit, is it?

> Your $100 figure doesn't appear anywhere in your reference.

Extrapolate on the numbers given, Einstein.

> MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN

If that's the best response you can come up with, then you obviously
have extremely limited intelligence.

 

[Vandar]

V-for-Vendicar wrote:

>>> Not very likely since the entire reserve holds less than 6 months of
>>>oil
>>>at current consumption rates.
>>>
>>> MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
>>
>
> "Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>12 years using the lowest estimates of the USGS, Einstein.
>
>
> Nope, we already went over the numbers.

You're pretending that what we tap in ANWR would be used to supplement
100% of US consumption.
No one but you has ever implied that it would be.

Grow up.

 

[V-for-Vendicar]

>>>The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
>>>assessment area is estimated to be
>>>between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels
>>
>> 16 billion barrels = 200 days of supply.


"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote
> Reading isn't your strong suit, is it?

Would you like me to quote your own reference back to you?

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN



>> Your $100 figure doesn't appear anywhere in your reference.


"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote
> Extrapolate on the numbers given, Einstein.

In other words the report doesn't claim what you stated it claimed.

And that makes you a LIAR doesn't it?

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN


"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote
> If that's the best response you can come up with, then you obviously have
> extremely limited intelligence.

Isn't showing you to be a fool and a liar sufficient for you?

It is for me.

 

[V-for-Vendicar]

"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote
> You're pretending that what we tap in ANWR would be used to supplement
> 100% of US consumption.
> No one but you has ever implied that it would be.


MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN


No. The assumption is that it is sold on the global oil market. Or if it
isn't then less oil from fooreign supplies will enter the U.S. Market, as
per free traade.

 

[Day Brown]

On Mar 31, 2:29 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> No. The assumption is that it is sold on the global oil market. Or if it
> isn't then less oil from fooreign supplies will enter the U.S. Market, as
> per free traade.
Why wouldnt we wanna keep that oil in the ground until the price is
higher, and burn the oil from other economies in the meantime?