Avgas availability

Matt Whiting wrote:
Bob Fry wrote:
"MB" == Matt Barrow writes:
MB Got a cite for that?
Usenet ain't a peer reviewed journal, ferchrissake.
Requests for
"cites" are almost always a signal the requestor has been effectively
out-argued. If the requestor really wanted a cite they'd google for
it.

No, it is a sign that the requester thinks the person
making the claim is wrong. And, often on the internet
this is the case.

So when are *you* going to provide any indication that
someone (that you can cite) thinks there are proven
reserves in ANWR?

Given that only one well has ever been drilled, and it
was the tightest hole ever, just how could it even be
possible?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
Bob Fry wrote:
"MB" == Matt Barrow writes:

MB Got a cite for that?

Usenet ain't a peer reviewed journal, ferchrissake. Requests for
"cites" are almost always a signal the requestor has been effectively
out-argued. If the requestor really wanted a cite they'd google for
it.

If there were proven reserves in ANWR Matt would have
been very happy to run out the long list he would easily
have found on google of reports detailing every drop.
But there are no proven reserves in ANWR.

Bob Fry is a long-tern Usenet nutcase...and you got suckered in!

So answer the question, you fraud!

I did answer the question. *YOU* are the fraud. You
have yet to provide *anything* which suggests my
original statement was other than precisely correct.

(Note" "Davidson" is a fairly common Usenet nut in his own right: he's opne
of the "Peak Oil" crowd. These guys engage in what's called "pre-conceptual
logic", the non-logic of lower animal species, which equates quite closely
with the "Flat Earth" crowd.)

So that sort of drivel is all you can come up with in response
to my previous comments...

Looks like you are the nutcase, given that sort of argument!

Skip the gratuitous personal insults Matt. Try proving your
points with logic. You've been given a cite that proves positively
there are no proven reserves in ANWR. What have you got to refute
the USGS?

You've been challenges several times now, but so far nothing...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:


If there were proven reserves in ANWR Matt would have
been very happy to run out the long list he would easily
have found on google of reports detailing every drop.
But there are no proven reserves in ANWR.


Well instead of just letting you be the one person to make
a judgment on whether or where to drill for gas and oil why
don't we just let the energy companies do what they do best -
explore and develop energy.

See my previous about Mr. Davidson.

Think of what "Proven Reserves" means. In 1900, the US "proven reserves" was
about 1 billion barrels.

Frauds like Davidson (and his eco-freak friends) are a part of the "peak
production" bunch that said US production would "peak" in the 1970's, just
like Paul Erlich said we would be starving by 1980.

Well, US production did peak in the 70's (see previous about refining
capacity), but only for a while. The peak was also a factor of regulations
espoused by folks like Davidson.

Now their efforts are blowing up and the denial is setting in.

Note, too, that total-nutcase Bob Fry has chimed in for his padded cellmate
Davidson. :~)

Note that Matt Barrow will not and cannot support his
statement that my points were incorrect. He is going
off the deep end about things that *I* have never
discussed and could care less about.

I don't keep up with the "peak oil" discussion... but
isn't it wierd to say it did peak in the 70's "but only
for a while"? It either did or it didn't.

I actually don't know. Did it or didn't it?

But better yet, what has that got to do with the simple
fact that there are *no* proven reserves in ANWR. None!
Zilch, nada, dot zip.

Oh, you want a cite?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf

"Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area,
Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic
Analysis", by the USGS.

In their analysis of petroleum resources in ANWR they do
not mention a single drop of proven reserves.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"kt" == kontiki writes:

kt why
kt don't we just let the energy companies do what they do best -
kt explore and develop energy.

We tried that over a hundred years ago. Didn't work. See
"anti-trust".
--
What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river
to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know.
- Jack Handey

"kt" == kontiki writes:

kt If I, as a farmer, decide the going price for beans is just
kt too low to make it worth the effort to plant any then the
kt supply will go down and perhaps the price will rise enough
kt next year to make it worth while.

kt What make you think it is right (or beneficial) for the
kt government to step in and tell me to either plant beans (when
kt I can't make a decent profit doing so) or sell them at an
kt abnormally low price becuase _it_ thinks the price is too
kt high?

If there are zillions of independent farmers, yes, the free market can
then work. When there is an effective oligopoly
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly) as we have in the energy
markets then it probably needs regulation.
--
Why do people in ship mutinies always ask for "better treatment"?
I'd ask for a pinball machine, because with all that rocking back
and forth you'd probably be able to get a lot of free games.
- Jack Handey

Bob Fry wrote:

If there are zillions of independent farmers, yes, the free market can
then work. When there is an effective oligopoly
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly) as we have in the energy
markets then it probably needs regulation.

You are paranoid... fed by conspiracy therories about Haliburton,
the Trilateral Commission and Skull and Bones (etc.) from leftist
media (Rosie, Michael Moore, the leftist blogosphere etc.)

If government can't tax it then they want to regulate it.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:


Because the oil companies have exactly one thing in
mind, byt they are not the only ones affected. They
choose based soley on their profit margins. But for
example everyone (not just me, little one, *everyone*)
here wants to keep oil exploration out of certain areas
that are important to for local usage.

Oh puhleeze. You bunch of anti-American/Anti-profit
pinheads sicken me. It's always "Big Oil"'s fault... or
some other big busnesses making NASTY profits that is
ruining everything. For your information they are the ones
that bring relatively cheap and efficient energy to your
house so you can take a warm bath.

The US government hasn't generated one watt of electricity
or produced one barrel of oil, yet they make more money
per gallon of gasoline than the oil companies or gas stations
do. And do they re-invest that money in new drilling techniques...
alternate energy source... or exploration??????? _NO_

They SPEND it ... buying votes. In other words, BLOWING IT.

I give up on you people.

Bob Fry wrote:

kt why
kt don't we just let the energy companies do what they do best -
kt explore and develop energy.

We tried that over a hundred years ago. Didn't work. See
"anti-trust".

Oh, and what other entity do you suggest is (or has) done a better
job of bringing inexpensive energy right to you home to you can take
a warm bath???? government??? HAHahahahaha

The US government hasn't generated one watt of electricity
or produced one barrel of oil, yet they make more money
per gallon of gasoline than the oil companies or gas stations
do. And do they re-invest that money in new drilling techniques...
alternate energy sources... or exploration...??????? _NO_

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
"Matt Barrow" wrote:
Oh, they know where it is (Continental shelf, ANWR, etc.), so
exploration
is
rather worthless.

Do you know what the know proven reserves in ANWR are?
ZERO barrels. None, nada, zip.

Got a cite for that?

[Rest of blather snipped]

Blather, eh? Lets see you cite *any* proven reserves in
ANWR.

You made the claim, you prove it you f*cktard.

I did. And you are kind of left swinging in the wind.

Just to rub it in, here's another one:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1732/pp1732a/pp1732a.pdf

That is titled "Oil and Gas Resources of the Arctic
Alaska Petroleum Province", and lists all "proven
reserves" on the North Slope, as well as the
"undiscovered petroleum resources". Since there are no
known producible fields in ANWR, there are no proven
reserves listed there. The USGS report that I cited
previously has potential estimates for ANWR, and in this
report those are of course discussed under
"undiscovered" resources, as the obviously should be.

It is exceedingly clear that you don't know much about
ANWR and apparently haven't got a clue what "proven
reserves" even are. Otherwise you wouldn't be making a
fool of yourself suggesting that a place that has never
been drilled has proven reserves.

We don't actually know that anyone will ever find even
one bucket of oil in ANWR!

First, you can start with the USGS "Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998,
Including Economic Analysis" report the Congress,

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf

See Figure 2, for a map that shows the location of the
one and the only exporation well ever drilled in ANWR
(by Chevron on 1985). Chevron was so tight lipped about
that particular hole that they even shipped the waste to
the Lower-48 for disposal at their own facilities rather
than risk any of it getting into the hands of a
competitor to be analyzed if it were sent to the nearby
facilities at Prudhoe Bay.

That's not how reserves are calculated, you SFB fraud.

So explain to us just how proven reserves *are* calculated!

Let me give you a hint: wells.

No wells... no proven reserves.

Anyone can certainly see why you clipped virtually
everything in my first article and didn't want to even
attempt a defense of the flaws it demonstrated in the
article of yours that I responded to!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

ktbr wrote:
Bob Fry wrote:
kt why
kt don't we just let the energy companies do what they do best -
kt explore and develop energy.
We tried that over a hundred years ago. Didn't work.
See
"anti-trust".

Oh, and what other entity do you suggest is (or has) done a better
job of bringing inexpensive energy right to you home to you can take
a warm bath???? government??? HAHahahahaha

The point however, is who should choose which areas are
explored, and which they are not. Just letting oil
companies explore anywhere they chose is insane.

The choice is, by definition, a function of
"government". It might be local government, state
government, federal, or some combination of those, but
"government" is by definition what the entity that makes
the decision is called.

The US government hasn't generated one watt of electricity
or produced one barrel of oil, yet they make more money
per gallon of gasoline than the oil companies or gas stations
do. And do they re-invest that money in new drilling techniques...
alternate energy sources... or exploration...??????? _NO_

What has that got to do with who decides where exploration is
allowed and where it is not?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)