Most People Will Never Know About Biodiesel

Page 2 of 2  


Well Floyd, what you've got is about 9 years old. I read in several newer sources online that the "estimate" was up beyond 22 billion barrels. Clearly there is some debate, since what you've provided isn't proof (by your own admission), but an ESTIMATE.
Next, if you read what I said, rather than picking at exacting figures, you'd have figured out that I'm a proponant of biofuels. Clearly my point is that the mass hysteria that Snohead, an now you, isn't worth the time of day. Those of us who realize the problems are working on a solution, rather than running about like Henny Penny and exclaiming about the condition of the sky!
You'll need to bring PROOF if you decide to post again.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And what I've got is the *only* such estimate. There are no others.
You are making up statistics.

*All* other debate is based on the USGS report that I've cited. The whole point of my comment was indeed that it is an estimate. There are *no* proven reserves.
(I will grant you that there are *dozens* of folks out there posting invalid references to the study that I cited. They read it wrong and give numbers that are stated to be not what the report says they are.)
Your 22 billion barrels is estimated for what is called "in-place oil", which is an almost useless figure because it is oil that cannot be extracted at any cost. Typically the next level of error is to cite "technically recoverable oil", which includes oil that would cost $2000 a barrel to produce.
The next most common error is to cite the figures for all of northeastern Alaska, which are also provided in the same report.
The bottom line is that the report says there might be about 7 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil if the price remains as high as it is. That figure is the only one of any value at all, and as you admit is almost worthless because it is just an estimate.

You are citing fabricated data. I am hardly given to hysteria... I have the facts and a very good perspective on what they mean. You may have noticed that all of this applies to *my* backyard, not yours.

There you are, just exactly what I gave you to start with.
Now it's your turn sonny. Cite some kind of proof.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'm sorry Floyd, but thats incorrect.
http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm cites 10 billion +
http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/potent.html claims 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion, depending on source of information they cite.
http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/ANWR_estimates.pdf puts the mean recoverable at 18 billion, depending on technology.
Again, its not the amount that is important, but the fact that its there, and is of sufficient magnitude as to be economically feasable to recover.

I never said there was.

The data I have cited ALL tracks back to your USGS report. If my data is fabricated, yours is worthless. I don't particularly care whose backyard its in, since YOU don't live immediately on site either. Furthermore, even if you did live on site, your data is based on something other than looking over the metaforical white picket fence you've set up.

Done Floyd. Now, would you care to argue my actual point, or will you continue to claim my estimate is worth less than yours, although both are based on the same data?
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you had looked at my original source, you would have found that its among those you now find credible.

Yes, people do distort the reports, including yourself. You also distort my actual point, since you never understood it to begin with. You might want to return to my original reply to Snohead.
There is no dispute that there IS oil in the ANWR, despite your alarmist reaction, and by your own sources. In fact, at the rate of recovery supposed to be available via the cost per barrel, there IS more recoverable that is suggested in the reports due to the increased price of oil. Thus, the figure which you are citing could be much more at this time that it was at the time of the report. So again, the amount of oil is debateable. Many factors which you refuse to acknowledge are causing this variation.
But again, the point is not the quantity, but the fact that it IS there.

Bullshit. You may be able to actually see the equipment, but the reports you read are the same ones I can read.
Now, I repeat, would you like to debate the points I've made, or your proximity to large oil drilling equipment?
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I told you that all of the figures are from the USGS. You denied it, and claimed you have "newer" data. You don't. *ALL* of your sources are simply grabbing numbers from the USGS and distorting them. What you claimed was *wrong*. What your sources claimed was *wrong*.
And no I did *not* say your source was credible. I said they lied, and so do you.

If I were distorting the report you would of course be able to show exactly what and where the distortion was. You don't even try to do that... because you *know* it won't fly. So instead you lie about it.

None of your points in any discussion with me have been valid. None have been supported by facts, and all have been traced to one unreliable source or another trying to distort what the USGS says.

There are *ZERO* proven reserves in ANWR. That means there *is* a dispute about whether there is any oil there at all. Nobody knows of a single drop of oil in ANWR.
We do *not* *know* there is oil in ANWR.

How do you figure that? The rate of recovery has *nothing* to do with how much oil is recoverable. And "via the cost per barrel" is a nonsense phrase. You are making up mumbo jumbo statements, hoping that in the confusion you sound good.

How can you justify that statement? The report was issued in 1999. There has been no research in ANWR since 1985. It includes all of the known and currently used technology that has been developed for Arctic oil production over the past 30 years.
You cannot cite a single specific that would point at an increased in the figures provided by the USGS.

The amount is open to question, within the range specified by the USGS. Name even *one* of these "many factors"! You can't, because there are none.

What is there? There are *ZERO* proven reserves in ANWR.
You know, don't you (!) that the NPR-A is supposed to have just about the same amount of oil as ANWR? The USGS reports for the NPR-A say just about the same thing they do for ANWR. Same amounts, same type of expected discoveries (nothing big like Prudhoe or Kuparuk).
Are you aware that there has been exploratory drilling in the NPR-A since the 1940s? And there has yet to be a single reservoir found that is large enough to produce.
We could be poking holes in ANWR for the next 60-70 years without finding anything there either.
(Just in case you don't have a clue what the National Petroleum Reserve -- Alaska is, it is the area west of Prudhoe Bay, and is of course similar in many ways to ANWR, the area east of Prudhoe Bay.)

You can't read. You don't seem to be able to relate this stuff to reality. You clearly do not have the same perspective on it that just about *everyone* here gets.

When are you going to make a point? You have made up all sorts of distortions, *none* of which you can support with accurate data.
Telling lies that cannot be supported is *not* making points...
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There was no denial of your source. My info is from more recent sources. You have no more proof of my sources than I do. Simply put, all sources are "estimates", so when citing them, you must use the full range. Again, that wasn't my point to begin with.
However, in your rabid bullshit session, you've more than eloquently proven my point. If you care to do so, you would find that my post was advocating the use of biofuels. This was a direct rebuttal to Snohead, since he seems to feel fossil fuels are in extremely short supply, but biofuels are not the answer. If I had a reason to guess, I'd say you two know each other, and that accounts for your hitherto unseen presence on this newsgroup.

My sources base their findings on your source. Therefore your source, following your logic, must be lying as well.

The distortion is in the fact that the area has been mapped by oil companies as well as the USGS. Since the oil companies feel there is a reason to go into the ANWR, they must feel their data is fairly sound and well researched. As such, their findings must be taken with as much weight as the USGS. Thus all sources distort for their own use. However, in the case of a business entity looking to make a profit, it stands to reason that they will not distort it so far as to risk losing money.

None of my points with you were about the original topic. Indeed, the more you claim I'm over estimating the amount of fossil fuels, the more you make my point that biofuels are a necessary part of the energy plan for this country. So keep yammering away Floyd, you'll drive home my point far more forcefully than I ever could.
Your lack of fossil fuel position SUPPORTS my contention that biofuels are necessary.
Let me repeat that....
Your lack of fossil fuel position SUPPORTS my contention that biofuels are necessary.
And for you hard of thinking people...
Your lack of fossil fuel position SUPPORTS my contention that biofuels are necessary.

If the oil companies want to go there, then there is oil. Its simple economic logic.
Again, for you to ponder....
Your lack of fossil fuel position SUPPORTS my contention that biofuels are necessary.
Lack of fossil fuel means we must encourage biofuel production. I said this in my original post, and I said it again when Snohead denied that biofuels were viable.
As such, we're done here, because you obviously have no clue you've played right into my hands.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You aren't catching on yet, are you! Your info is *not* more recent. It is *all* from the same source. The difference is that I'm quoting exactly what the USGS actually did say, with *accurate* prespective.
You keep quoting source who cite the same USGS report and distort what it says.

So you think an estimate by the USGS for in place oil in ANWR is appropriate to use for calculating how much oil per day might be pumped during peak production??? Do you really need to be told *again* just how stupid that is?
The USGS gave figures for ecomonically recoverable oil. Those are the numbers that count. They gave the figures explicitely for the 1002 Area of ANWR. Yet you quote sources using technically recoverable oil figures (which are meaningless anyway) for the entire northeastern corner of Alaska and claim they are for ANWR. Do you really need to be told *again* just how stupid that is?

That you can't figure out what your sources are, what is an accurate perspective on the data, or even which data applies to where? Yes, that has eloquently been proven. Did you even have a point?

And then they *lie* about it. So do you. Just like that statement. You can't get it through your head that the USGS is not lying, but people who "base their findings" on the USGS report by distorting what they said *are lying*.

That is false. Show us data.

Heh heh... I think you will find that the oil companies aren't doing much of *anything* towards opening ANWR. They are drilling *no* wells anywhere near ANWR. They have virtually all pulled out of funding Arctic Power (anwr.org).
Recently the State of Alaska even tried to sell offshore leases in the waters just north of ANWR... and *no* oil companies bid on any of the offerings.

So show us "their findings"!

The oil companies have been drilling in the NPR-A since the 1940's, and have yet to bring a single field to production.
You don't seem to have much understanding of the oil industry.

As if you could tell...
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 8, 9:31 am, snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

So ... do you use biodiesel?
:-) Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can, but I doubt you can. I've made an argument that biofuels must be part of the furture of our energy plan regardless of their emissions levels. This is because of lower production levels of fossil fuels, and the accompanying higher prices.
By claiming that even the most conservative estimates of fossil fuel reserves are in doubt, you've reinforced my argument that alternative fuels, such as bio fuels, are necessary despite the accompanying problems they bring.
Thank you for making my point even stronger.
Good day to you.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

shit, anybody in their right mind knows that. California also bans guns that there's nothing wrong with. Yeah, you're right, you can't make horsepower with anything other than gasoline, just ask drag racers. What the hell do you know about reality?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
From: "DonStaples" Newsgroups: alt.autos.dodge.trucks Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 1:28 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: Most People Will Never Know About Biodiesel

LOL
well you know, I just can't wait for his answer to that one.
--
----------------------------
-Chris
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why would you have to wait for an answer he already has given and was correct on. He didn't claim that alcohol could not be used, only that it is ineffective in an engine that also burns gas. His claim was that in order to effectively run on alcohol due to the considerably lower energy content, the compression ration would have to be significantly increased (just like on drag cars). The problem is that increasing it to the required level would make it impossible to run on pump gas.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.