Avgas availability

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Sorry that's not how it works. The guy making the claim is the guy
that has to back it up.

Sorry, but that *is* how it works. NOBODY can provide a
cite to an absense of information, which is what Matt is
requesting of me.



So you are admitting that you have no information. Great!





If *he* is correct, he can easily prove it by merely
citing a credible source that says there are in fact
"proven reserves" in ANWR. (He can't because there are
none.)

But there is nothing that I or anyone can cite that
proves there are no such sources.

But the first result of a Google search of "ANWR oil reserves" gives
this link.

http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm

Which in part says, "The Coastal Plain of ANWR's 1002 area is the
nation's single greatest onshore oil reserve. The USGS estimates
that it contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of
technically recoverable oil.

Estimates... that makes it, not a "proven reserve", but
what is called a "probable reserve". They are guessing
based on a lack of drilled wells to demonstrate that
there is *any* oil there at all.


To be intellectually honest there is no way to PROVE oil reserves short of
pumping it ALL out of the ground and counting the barrels. Until you do that
it is all an educated guess. So I posted an educated guess that there is
10.4 billion barrels under ANWR.

So to get he information and proof you want we have to pump what is there
out. I say we go for it. If when they empty it out and if we find you are
right and I am wrong I will publicly apologize. If the promise of my apology
isn't enough think how much money the big, mean oil companies will loose if
there isn't enough oil there. That should make you happy.

On May 18, 11:09 am, ktbr wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

There is certainly not an oligopoly in the supply of crude oil. I'm
not familiar enough with the fuel's market to tell you if there may be
further down the chain (distribution, refining, etc). I have heard
some suggestions that some oil producers may have been growing through
vertical integration (i.e. they don't control the crude but may be
creating exclusive channels of distribution). If that is the case, it
may be appropriate for the gov't to break them up (as they did with
the old AT&T).

Oh, great. Lets let the 'great minds' in the Senate decide how to
more efficiently explore for, produce and deliver energy to the
American people. I can't wait to see how much lower my energy costs
are going to be with Ted Kennedy in charge.

Breaking up a big company can increase efficiency, not reduce it, if
their size prevents competition. At one point Boeing owned the only
viable airline. You may be able to argue that some certain situation
does not justify a gov't breaking up a company, but there is no
logical way you could be arguing that it is never necessary.

-Robert

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
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?

I never made any claim about ANWR so I have no need to provide anything.
Try to keep up with the attributions so you know who said what.

Matt

On May 17, 8:00 pm, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:



Try to keep more than two facets in mind at the same time


I do. I pay for a lot of data about this sector. I was merely
responding to your (single) data point that gulf production had
recovered. It had not.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA281-180)

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 18, 11:09 am, ktbr wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

Oh, great. Lets let the 'great minds' in the Senate decide how to
more efficiently explore for, produce and deliver energy to the
American people. I can't wait to see how much lower my energy costs
are going to be with Ted Kennedy in charge.

Breaking up a big company can increase efficiency, not reduce it, if
their size prevents competition. At one point Boeing owned the only
viable airline. You may be able to argue that some certain situation
does not justify a gov't breaking up a company, but there is no
logical way you could be arguing that it is never necessary.


Which side of your mouth are you going to talk out of next?

GEEZ!

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Sorry that's not how it works. The guy making the claim is the guy
that has to back it up.

Sorry, but that *is* how it works. NOBODY can provide a
cite to an absense of information, which is what Matt is
requesting of me.

So you are admitting that you have no information. Great!

About 30 years ago when my children hit age 10 I had to
explain that twisting words was not just dishonest, but
really annoying when people are attempting serious
conversations. It is only appropriate for jokes, and even
then is considered low humor.

Somebody should have taught you the same, assuming you
are now at least 10 years old.

I do have a great deal of information about such things
as ANWR, the oil reserves on the North Slope, and what
defines different types of reserves. That appears to be
something nobody else in this discussion actually has
(which is not surprising, given that I live on the North
Slope and it is *my* backyard we are talking about).

If *he* is correct, he can easily prove it by merely
citing a credible source that says there are in fact
"proven reserves" in ANWR. (He can't because there are
none.)

But there is nothing that I or anyone can cite that
proves there are no such sources.

But the first result of a Google search of "ANWR oil reserves" gives
this link.

http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm

Which in part says, "The Coastal Plain of ANWR's 1002 area is the
nation's single greatest onshore oil reserve. The USGS estimates
that it contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of
technically recoverable oil.

Estimates... that makes it, not a "proven reserve", but
what is called a "probable reserve". They are guessing
based on a lack of drilled wells to demonstrate that
there is *any* oil there at all.


To be intellectually honest there is no way to PROVE oil reserves short of

That is not intellectual honesty, it is abject ignorance
of what the term "proven reserves" means. It is not
proven in the same sense that mathematical proofs are,
or even in the way that something in a court case is
proven.

The words "proven reserves" are what is called a term of
art. It has a well known meaning within the particular
field where it is used, and does not necessarily mean
exactly what those two words would mean out side of that
context.

It is *not* just some random definition, but is defined
rather precisely by the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
(Consider that things like taxes and stock prices are based
on these definitions... so while *you* don't have a clue
what it means, the people who cite those number for the
government or for the oil companies are being extremely
precise.)

Proven reserves are those where the estimate of what can
be produced economically is made with information from
either exploratory wells or production wells. (It is
sometimes also divided farther between those two,
because there is a distinction in how much investment is
required for recovery, which is important information for
someone about to invest in an oil company stock.)

Probable reserve estimates are based on geological
evidence other than drilled wells. That can include
seismic work, for example.

pumping it ALL out of the ground and counting the barrels. Until you do that
it is all an educated guess. So I posted an educated guess that there is
10.4 billion barrels under ANWR.

Another less than enlightened statement. Geologists
(i.e., the USGS) estimate the probable reserves in ANWR
as 11,799 million barrels at 5% probability and 4,254
million barrels at a 95% probability. That gives a
median at 7,668 million barrels.

Your 10.4 billion figure indicates you haven't been
paying attention, because you have the right number but
you are attributing it incorrectly to ANWR. It includes
state and Native owned land in the north east corner of
Alaska that does not require Congressional approval to
explore.

So to get he information and proof you want we have to pump what is there
out. I say we go for it.

That would certainly sound cute to most 10 year olds.
But this discussion really should not be aimed at
children so young.

If when they empty it out and if we find you are
right and I am wrong I will publicly apologize. If the promise of my apology
isn't enough think how much money the big, mean oil companies will loose if
there isn't enough oil there. That should make you happy.

You probably haven't noticed that the oil companies are
not the ones clamoring to get access to ANWR. They want
more to move towards the west side of Prudhoe Bay and to
offshore exploration. (If you had half a clue about
geology and oil production on the North Slope, the
reasons for that would obvious. My bet is you'd never
heard of the idea and don't know what to make of it.)

Maybe you should figure out why it happened that former
Governor Frank Murkowski could offer leases on State
owned offshore areas just north of ANWR... and *nobody*
even bid on them. Not *one* bid.

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

"ktbr" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:


Umm..."pragmatism" is where they say "At least he made the trains run on
time".

Slippery slope to say the least.

That was probably not the ideal choice ofevery American...
or anyone concerned about why things are getting so screwed
up so quickly.

Think: principles

This requires long-term view of things and also integrative thought.

Pragmatism is short-term, whim based.

Priciples, correctly done, are self-corrective. Pragmatism leads, as we see
in current society, the heaping on of more and more "corrective action" in
the form of "vicious cycles". (Think" "Throw more money at the problem".)

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Sorry that's not how it works. The guy making the claim is the guy
that has to back it up.

Sorry, but that *is* how it works. NOBODY can provide a
cite to an absense of information, which is what Matt is
requesting of me.



So you are admitting that you have no information. Great!


Shizam!!


Estimates... that makes it, not a "proven reserve", but
what is called a "probable reserve". They are guessing
based on a lack of drilled wells to demonstrate that
there is *any* oil there at all.


To be intellectually honest there is no way to PROVE oil reserves short of
pumping it ALL out of the ground and counting the barrels. Until you do
that it is all an educated guess. So I posted an educated guess that there
is 10.4 billion barrels under ANWR.

BINGO!!

Recall note about "Pre-Conceptual" thinking and the Flat Earth types.


So to get he information and proof you want we have to pump what is there
out. I say we go for it. If when they empty it out and if we find you are
right and I am wrong I will publicly apologize.

And most likely you will use your own capital to find out whether you're
right or wrong. Oil exploration firms do this all the time.

If the promise of my apology isn't enough think how much money the big,
mean oil companies will loose if there isn't enough oil there. That should
make you happy.

:~)

"John Galban" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 17, 8:00 pm, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:



Try to keep more than two facets in mind at the same time


I do. I pay for a lot of data about this sector. I was merely
responding to your (single) data point that gulf production had
recovered. It had not.

I didn't say it had recovered. Not entirely, but it recoved most of what it
had lost.

Are you saying the lost of Guld production facilities was not a factor in
price increases? Further, are you saying that mere _conservation_ caused the
prices to decline back towards $2 a gallon?

You're looking at data points, not overall causation.

What was the world market price of oil? You still haven't answered that
question. Also, how much more processed fuel was imported compared to raw
petroleum?

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 18, 11:09 am, ktbr wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

Oh, great. Lets let the 'great minds' in the Senate decide how to
more efficiently explore for, produce and deliver energy to the
American people. I can't wait to see how much lower my energy costs
are going to be with Ted Kennedy in charge.

Breaking up a big company can increase efficiency, not reduce it, if
their size prevents competition. At one point Boeing owned the only
viable airline. You may be able to argue that some certain situation
does not justify a gov't breaking up a company, but there is no
logical way you could be arguing that it is never necessary.


Which side of your mouth are you going to talk out of next?

GEEZ!

Why is it you cannot argue issues on any topic, and
instead have to stoop to this low life gratuitous insult
game every time somebody posts an argument or opinion
that you cannot refute?

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