Author Topic: Who is Ron Paul?  (Read 12483 times)

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Who is Ron Paul?
« Reply #60 on: May 18, 2007, 10:04:39 AM »
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/05/18/but_who_was_right_--_rudy_or_ron?page=full&comments=true

It's an analysis of Giuliani's misstep regarding Ron Paul.  Paul being defended by Pat Buchanan of all people.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
Who is Ron Paul?
« Reply #61 on: May 18, 2007, 10:30:32 AM »
Quote
IIRC, Charon, you do this oil industry analysis stuff as a profession, is that correct?


Yeah. I took a year off to cover advanced imaging technologies, but found technology to be really neat but pretty boring. No drama :)

Charon

Offline Mickey1992

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3362
Who is Ron Paul?
« Reply #62 on: May 18, 2007, 10:45:31 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Chairboy
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/05/18/but_who_was_right_--_rudy_or_ron?page=full&comments=true

It's an analysis of Giuliani's misstep regarding Ron Paul.  Paul being defended by Pat Buchanan of all people.


Wow.  Pat Buchanan actually made sense in that article.

Offline SteveBailey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
Who is Ron Paul?
« Reply #63 on: May 18, 2007, 11:09:53 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Charon
That won't solve a thing. Those "vast" oil fields aren't vast.
Charon


Source please?

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
Who is Ron Paul?
« Reply #64 on: May 18, 2007, 12:45:18 PM »
Well Bailey, you can start with this:

Quote
Oil. Estimates of ANWR oil potential, both old and new, depend upon limited data and numerous assumptions about geology and economics. The most recent government study of oil and natural gas prospects in ANWR, completed in 1998 by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2 found that there is an excellent chance (95%) that at least 11.6 billion barrels of oil are present on federal lands in the 1002 area. There also is a small chance (5%) that 31.5 billion barrels or more are present. USGS estimates there is an excellent chance (95%) that 4.3 billion barrels or more are technically recoverable (costs not considered); and there is a small chance (5%) that 11.8 billion barrels or more are technically recoverable. But the proportion that would be economically recoverable depends upon the price of oil. The USGS estimated that, at $24/ barrel (in 1996 dollars), there is a 95% chance that 2.0 billion barrels or more could be economically recovered and a 5% chance of 9.4 billion barrels or more. Roughly one-third more oil may be under adjacent state waters and Native lands. 3 However, these areas would be difficult to develop without access through Federal land.

Oil prices, geologic characteristics such as permeability and porosity, cash flow, and any transportation constraints, would be among the most important factors affecting the development rates and production levels that would be associated with given volumes of oil resources. The Energy Information Administration estimated that at a faster development rate, production would peak 15-20 years after the start of development, with maximum daily production rates of roughly 0.00015 (0.015%) of the resource. Production associated with the slower rate would peak about 25 years after the start of development at a daily rate equal to about 0.000105 (0.0105%) of the resource. Peak production associated with a technically recoverable resource of 5.0 billion barrels (bbls) at the faster development rate would be 750,000 bbls per day. U. S. petroleum consumption is about 19 million bbls per day .

http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/crs_anwr.shtml
It the summary, basically, of a Congressional Research Report on the subject which I have read cover to cover.

After 20 years we might get an additional 1/20th or so of our domestic (motor fuels / oil demand in total is about 27MBD) demand from ANWR--in a best case scenario. This ASSUME that other domestic production that is less efficient and more costly to extract will not be shut down as the new fields are brought online. Not really all that safe of an assumption.

Here's a graph:
http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill/charts/chart8.pdf

We are no longer a major oil producing nation and have not been able to adequately meet or domestic demand for about 40 years or so now. The OPEC embargo of 1973 was the first time that was clearly illustrated. Things have not improved since.

Now, you do see some comparisons here and there on the Net along the lines of: "equal to 30 years of Imports from Iraq or Saudi Arabia!!!" I haven't looked into those in detail, but since we don't directly get most of our oil from ether county as imports (only 17% total from the entire region) they could be true. Highly misleading to the uninformed and sure to get you riled up to support the ANWR goal, but technically true :)

Charon
« Last Edit: May 18, 2007, 12:55:37 PM by Charon »

Offline Xargos

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4281
Who is Ron Paul?
« Reply #65 on: May 18, 2007, 01:11:27 PM »
That was a good article Pat Buchanan wrote, never would have imagined him supporting Ron Paul in such a way.
Jeffery R."Xargos" Ward

"At least I have chicken." 
Member DFC

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Who is Ron Paul?
« Reply #66 on: May 18, 2007, 02:26:38 PM »
charon.. I bow to your superior experiance in oil.

I don't see how it changes what I or ron paul said tho...  I think there is a lot of offshore oil and anwar oil and that we need to get it while developing new nuke plants.

Ron paul can not make that happen.  He can't make us be independent and a destabalized middle east will not help us one bit.

I think he would throw the jews to the wolves.  I don't think throwing our only friend in the region to the wolves is a great plan.

Other than that.. and even including all that..  I would vote for the guy if he had a snowball chance in hell.    Most of the guys my age who are fed up with the politicians and the media would vote for him but....

He will be so villified by the liberals and their hollywood and media lackeys that he won't be able to catch his breath much less get a word in edgewise...

john stewart will make fun of him every show and the baldwins will threaten to move to france or hold their breath till they turn blue if you vote for paul.

He doesn't stand a chance... not one black person or union person or teacher or illegal will vote for him.

lazs

Offline bsdaddict

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1108
Who is Ron Paul?
« Reply #67 on: May 18, 2007, 03:16:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
charon.. I bow to your superior experiance in oil.

I don't see how it changes what I or ron paul said tho...  I think there is a lot of offshore oil and anwar oil and that we need to get it while developing new nuke plants.

Ron paul can not make that happen.  He can't make us be independent and a destabalized middle east will not help us one bit.

I think he would throw the jews to the wolves.  I don't think throwing our only friend in the region to the wolves is a great plan.

Other than that.. and even including all that..  I would vote for the guy if he had a snowball chance in hell.    Most of the guys my age who are fed up with the politicians and the media would vote for him but....

He will be so villified by the liberals and their hollywood and media lackeys that he won't be able to catch his breath much less get a word in edgewise...

john stewart will make fun of him every show and the baldwins will threaten to move to france or hold their breath till they turn blue if you vote for paul.

He doesn't stand a chance... not one black person or union person or teacher or illegal will vote for him.

lazs

jeez, with friends like you...

btw...  the only people villifying him atm are the hardcore neocon/warmongers.  even Rosie came out in his defense.

Offline SteveBailey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
Who is Ron Paul?
« Reply #68 on: May 18, 2007, 04:42:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Charon
Well Bailey, you can start with this:

 

Charon


This doesn't say ANWR isn't vast.  So you really have no evidence it isn't "vast", you just decided to say it wasn't.  Also, we have several other oil fields at our disposal, are they not vast as well, simply because you say so?

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
Who is Ron Paul?
« Reply #69 on: May 18, 2007, 07:30:37 PM »
Here's where we rank on oil reserves.(millions of barrels as of January 1, 2002)

The Winners
Saudi Arabia: 261,750
Canada: 180,000 (2003 data/oil sands included)
Iraq: 112,500
United Arab Emirates: 97,800
Kuwait: 96,500
Iran: 89,700
Venezuela: 77,685

The Rest
Russia: 48,573
Libya: 29,500
Mexico: 26,941
Nigeria: 24,000
China: 24,000
United States: 22,045
Qatar: 15,207
Norway: 9,947
Algeria: 9,200
Brazil: 8,465
Oman: 5,506
Kazakhstan: 5,417
Angola: 5,412
Indonesia: 5,000

ANWR would add 3 BBl to 12BBl to that figure. Neither amount get's us anywhere close to the top oil reserves in the world. Russia will still kick our bellybutton in a best case ANWR scenario.

Now, actually, in terms of sucking our reserves out of the ground as fast as we can we're doing pretty good by world standards, but we can still only meet about 1/3 of our demand. As that simple chart I posted shows, ANWR will not change that. It will not notably impact our dependence on foreign oil or the price of oil. It will not not significantly impact the price of a gallon of gasoline (especially when you add that total to the world production figure, since it will not just go as some "US surplus").

But, let's just look at the "VAST" field itself. Maximum best case, new technologies for extraction reserves = 12Billion Barrels. But perhaps only 3 billion barrels.

These fields are VAST.
Kuwait, Burgan Field = 66-72 billion
Saudi Arabia, Ghawar Field = 60-71 billion

ANWR is at best a reasonable sized field (at maximum projection possible), and hardly remarkable.  There are perhaps a dozen fields that can match both ANWR and the Northern Slope combined (and those are the best we have by a good margin).

Wanna talk vast, Canada's western oil sands = WOW "1700 billion" that is still only a potential, but talk about VAST. We do have VAST shale oil, about 800 billion, but that is harder to extract than Canada's oil sands by a good margin.

As for the "other fields," US fields ANWR is by far the best it gets and that isn't all that impressive by international oil industry standards (but good for some profits, certainly). Not good for any kind of solution to our supply/demand problem though.


Charon
« Last Edit: May 18, 2007, 07:50:45 PM by Charon »

Offline SteveBailey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
Who is Ron Paul?
« Reply #70 on: May 18, 2007, 07:42:08 PM »
Well I guess if we ever did actually go to war over oil as some nutjobs contend, we'd invade Canada.

Offline Fulmar

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3936
      • Aces High Movie Database
Who is Ron Paul?
« Reply #71 on: May 18, 2007, 08:46:25 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by bsdaddict
didn't watch the video, didja?  money's coming in, he's getting a HUGE amount of grassroot support.


Don't you remember, the elections are rigged.  See 2000 Presidential election conspiracies!
In game callsign: not currently flying
Flying off and on since Warbirds
Aces High Movies available at www.derstuhl.net/ahmd2 - no longer aceshighmovies.com - not updated either

Offline Xargos

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4281
Who is Ron Paul?
« Reply #72 on: May 18, 2007, 09:29:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Well I guess if we ever did actually go to war over oil as some nutjobs contend, we'd invade Canada.


I'd support that.:D
Jeffery R."Xargos" Ward

"At least I have chicken." 
Member DFC

Offline Dadano

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 714
Who is Ron Paul?
« Reply #73 on: May 18, 2007, 09:35:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Well I guess if we ever did actually go to war over oil as some nutjobs contend, we'd invade Canada.

Wow.
Dano
Army of Muppets

"Furballing is a disease, and we are the cure... Oink."
-Twitchy

Offline Hap

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
Who is Ron Paul?
« Reply #74 on: May 19, 2007, 01:51:27 AM »
For those who were surprised that Buchanan supported Paul, read Pat's book, Where The Right Went Wrong.  You won't be able to put it down.