Most People Will Never Know About Biodiesel

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

You are making up statistics.

(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.

Roy,

Craig was more up on it than I was, I'm simply a proponent of the idea. and I do run the b20 that I buy from the local shell station in both trucks. my info on the matter is personal experience running the 20% blend.

I'm sorry Floyd, but thats incorrect.

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?

We had a cold snap here a while back. It went down to 18°F. I left a sample of 100% biodiesel from my last batch sitting on my driveway overnight in a plastic soda bottle. It jelled completely at 18°. When it warmed up to 22° it returned to a liquid state but it was still cloudy. It was mostly back to normal by the time it got to 25°. Good thing I had a 50-50 bio-petro blend in the tank that night. If I lived where you do I wouldn't fool with it at all in the winter. It's unlikely you'd have any trouble with it in jelling in Florida. Time for another CTD?

Mostly back to normal at 25. Seems it would plug a filter at 32. No thanks

Don't think so. The SRT is a real nice and actually functional car for me. Real quick, feels like a 13.2-5 car. Goes I don't know how fast, I got out of it at 145. I know I know, it was at 0300 on a I-95 and I was the only one around. Anyway has 4 doors so the wife is happy at 70 it gets about 20 mpg. It will go to FL in April so I'll have a better feel for it. I'd be fibbing if I said I didn't miss the truck. But situations change. Hell, it's Feb and still no plowable snow, so I moved it at the right time I guess.

Roy

Sorry, but you are clueless. What I said is *precisely* correct.

Did you read what I said? Did you read what you are quoting?

"The USGS estimates that it contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil."

So you cite an example of *exactly* what I told you. Of course it isn't surprising when you cite a Department of the Interior webpage to find that they are using DOI resourse... which is the USGS.

And as I pointed out, technically recoverable oil includes oil that would cost $2000/bbl to extract. And the quote of 10.4 billion barrels is *not* for the 1002 Area of ANWR, but for the entire north eastern section of Alaska that the 1998 USGS study covered.

Since it is going to fly right over your head, let me point out that Gail Norton was caught *lying* to Congress about ANWR, and made every attempt at dishonest distortions. The article you cite is a Gail Norton distortion. You fell for it, hook line and sinker. Congress didn't!

Here is the data from the Department of the Interior's USGS report:

|| Volume of oil, in Part Of Study Area || millions of barrels || F95 Mean F05 ------------------------------||--------------------------- Entire Assessment Area[1] || 5,724 10,360 15,955 1002 Area of ANWR || 4,254 7,668 11,799 Deformed area || 3,403 6,420 10,224 Undeformed area || 0 1,248 3,185

Table 1: Estimates of volumes of technically recoverable oil in various parts of ANWR assessemnt study area.

So, what your cite does is simply verify *precisely* what I had told you. People who are dishonest try to distort the facts from the USGS report.

Whatever source Arctic Power cites, 1) they *all* trace back to exactly one source, the USGS report that I provided for you, and 2) is almost certainly going to be a distortion given that Arctic power (the owner of anwr.org) is a political propaganda machine paid for by the Republican Legislature in Alaska and intended to lobby for opening ANWR. They are, to put it mildly, the absolute least reliable source of information available about ANWR.

The second cite you give above is on of the most grossly ridiculous papers on ANWR that exists. It basically says the USGS estimates are off by a factor of more than 2. It bases that on how oil extraction technology improved from 1968 to

As I pointed out to you previously, "in place" is a figure with no merit at all, because it includes oil that can't be extracted at any cost.

"DOI estimates that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil"

There is the exact text from your cite. The data is totally worthless.

Note that the very next sentence, which you apparently ignored, said,

"Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end."

That of course is the technically recoverable oil and is according to the 1988 report (which the 1998 report totally contradicted, saying where the above oil was expected to be, there is probably only 1.2 billion barrels (see the above table, under "undeformed area").

The paragraph following the one quoted above references the 1998 report that I've been explaining to you. Hence your "newer" information is actually the older information...

Again, you have demonstrated that the distortions and lies that I said are available, are indeed exactly what you are relying on!

You say "the fact that its there". In fact, we do *not* *know* of even one drop of oil in ANWR. We don't know there is any oil, so how can we know it is of "sufficient magnitude to be economically feasable to recover"?????

You are exceedingly confused.

So now you admit it. Before you said I had old data and you had newer information. You don't. All you have is a confused misunderstanding of what the USGS report actually does say.

Nice job of showing that *exactly* what I said was precisely true!

You made several false statements. I've shown them to be false. I made many statements and every single one of them has been shown to be precisely correct. You now admit that the only data available is exactly the data that I had cited, that you do not have any newer or better data. I'd told you that people distort the USGS report, and gave you details of exactly what they distort... and you cite *exactly* the distortions that I mentioned.

As I said, this is all about *my* backyard. I've been a full time resident of the North Slope for several years and as is not uncommon here I am well aware of what the oil industry is doing. It is a perspective that you do not come close to matching.

-- Floyd L. Davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com

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?

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

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...

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.

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

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

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

You don't seem to have much understanding of the oil industry.

As if you could tell...

So ... do you use biodiesel?

:-) Craig C.

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.