Making Gasoline/Diesel More Afforedable

[Toddsterpatriot]

I see they mythmakers are still swimming in their ignorance of how the oil bidness works ... smh

Number one, oil companies drill, not the gummint, not we the people. You can't force them to drill unless you nationalize the oil companies.
Number two, oil companies are for-profit corporations; their loyalties and goals are based on their shareholders, not the citizens of whatever country they're based in. They're not going to undermine their own profits.
Number three, even if they do start additional drilling (which is kinda magical since the surplus equipment to do so doesn't exist), that oil has nowhere to go, as refineries are already running at capacity;
Number four, even if you get past one through three and find a refinery, that oil then goes on the international market, not to the pump in Dubuque.
Number five, even if you get past one through four and pump up that international supply (which takes about 22 years according to the EIA), the net effect on the world price is literally pocket change;
And number six, when that barrel price drops by thirty-two cents, OPEC, if it notices at all, simply cuts their own production back to compensate, and we're back where we were.

Happy motoring.

You can't force them to drill unless you nationalize the oil companies.

No, but you can try stop them from drilling. Or make it easier for them to drill. One guess where Obama is leaning.

They're not going to undermine their own profits.

Right, oil companies don't want to drill, they want to make money instead. LOL!
What is that, liberal economics?

Number three, even if they do start additional drilling (which is kinda magical since the surplus equipment to do so doesn't exist),

Right, there is no possible way to build more equipment.

that oil has nowhere to go, as refineries are already running at capacity;

I guess building more refining capacity is out of the question?

Number four, even if you get past one through three and find a refinery, that oil then goes on the international market, not to the pump in Dubuque.

Right, and why is lowering the world price of oil a bad thing? And adding more gasoline doesn't drop the price?

Number five, even if you get past one through four and pump up that international supply (which takes about 22 years according to the EIA),

Selling oil on the world market takes 22 years? LOL!
If you have a source for whatever silly point you imagine you're making here, please post it.

And number six, when that barrel price drops by thirty-two cents, OPEC, if it notices at all, simply cuts their own production back to compensate, and we're back where we were.

Back to where we were? But we now have more US production and fewer imports.
Why is that bad again?

Wow. Worst case of rationalization infection I've seen all day. Put your masks on folks. And cover me-- I'm going in.

Maybe you didn't notice, Sparky, where the end product goes on the international market? You do know what international means, doncha?



I don't know that there is any "lean" but I do know that back in '08 when we picked this fake mantra apart, the oil companies were already sitting on 68 million acres of leased drilling land that wasn't being drilled --- the point being, it's not like they're out of territory to exploit. Today's number is prolly not much changed.



Once again, talk to the oil companies, which are private profit making enterprises. If they wanted more facilities or found them profitable, they would build them. To the contrary, they've been closing refineries. Wanna nationalize them so you can tell them what to do?

Right, and why is lowering the world price of oil a bad thing? And adding more gasoline doesn't drop the price?

Way to read through to the end. Again, search the word "OPEC" for the relevant part -- if it's relevant at all, since the differential in the resulting market price would be, as the EIA put it, "insignificant". And if it is significant, see the OPEC part.

Selling oil on the world market takes 22 years? LOL!
If you have a source for whatever silly point you imagine you're making here, please post it.

:: sigh :: done before but here again, just because you said "please"...

Silly source 1
Silly source 2

Anything else?

Maybe you didn't notice, Sparky, where the end product goes on the international market?

No end product stays in the US market? Really?

I don't know that there is any "lean" but I do know that back in '08 when we picked this fake mantra apart, the oil companies were already sitting on 68 million acres of leased drilling land that wasn't being drilled

So when they lease land and determine it's not worthwhile to drill, they should be forced to drill? And they should be prevented from finding more sources to drill, just because?

Today's number is prolly not much changed.

Prolly? What's the amount of Federal land leased in 2008? In 2013?

Once again, talk to the oil companies, which are private profit making enterprises. If they wanted more facilities or found them profitable, they would build them.

That simple? Just build them? LOL!

done before but here again,

Thanks for the links. Did either source back your 22 year claim? Because I didn't see it.

 

[itfitzme]

I see they mythmakers are still swimming in their ignorance of how the oil bidness works ... smh

Number one, oil companies drill, not the gummint, not we the people. *You can't force them to drill unless you nationalize the oil companies.
Number two, oil companies are for-profit corporations; their loyalties and goals are based on their shareholders, not the citizens of whatever country they're based in. *They're not going to undermine their own profits.
Number three, even if they do start additional drilling (which is kinda magical since the surplus equipment to do so doesn't exist), that oil has nowhere to go, as refineries are already running at capacity;
Number four, even if you get past one through three and find a refinery, that oil then goes on the international market, not to the pump in Dubuque. *
Number five, even if you get past one through four and pump up that international supply (which takes about 22 years according to the EIA), the net effect on the world price is literally pocket change;
And number six, when that barrel price drops by thirty-two cents, OPEC, if it notices at all, simply cuts their own production back to compensate, and we're back where we were.

Happy motoring.

You can't force them to drill unless you nationalize the oil companies.

No, but you can try stop them from drilling. Or make it easier for them to drill. One guess where Obama is leaning.

They're not going to undermine their own profits.

Right, oil companies don't want to drill, they want to make money instead. LOL!
What is that, liberal economics?

Number three, even if they do start additional drilling (which is kinda magical since the surplus equipment to do so doesn't exist),

Right, there is no possible way to build more equipment.

that oil has nowhere to go, as refineries are already running at capacity;

I guess building more refining capacity is out of the question?

Number four, even if you get past one through three and find a refinery, that oil then goes on the international market, not to the pump in Dubuque. *

Right, and why is lowering the world price of oil a bad thing? And adding more gasoline doesn't drop the price?

Number five, even if you get past one through four and pump up that international supply (which takes about 22 years according to the EIA),

Selling oil on the world market takes 22 years? LOL!
If you have a source for whatever silly point you imagine you're making here, please post it.

And number six, when that barrel price drops by thirty-two cents, OPEC, if it notices at all, simply cuts their own production back to compensate, and we're back where we were.

Back to where we were? But we now have more US production and fewer imports.
Why is that bad again?

Wow. *Worst case of rationalization infection I've seen all day. *Put your masks on folks. *And cover me-- I'm going in.

Maybe you didn't notice, Sparky, where the end product goes on the international market? *You do know what international means, doncha?



I don't know that there is any "lean" but I do know that back in '08 when we picked this fake mantra apart, the oil companies were already sitting on 68 million acres of leased drilling land that wasn't being drilled --- the point being, it's not like they're out of territory to exploit. * Today's number is prolly not much changed.



Once again, talk to the oil companies, which are private profit making enterprises. *If they wanted more facilities or found them profitable, they would build them. *To the contrary, they've been closing refineries. *Wanna nationalize them so you can tell them what to do?

Right, and why is lowering the world price of oil a bad thing? And adding more gasoline doesn't drop the price?

Way to read through to the end. *Again, search the word "OPEC" for the relevant part -- if it's relevant at all, since the differential in the resulting market price would be, as the EIA put it, "insignificant". *And if it is significant, see the OPEC part.

Selling oil on the world market takes 22 years? LOL!
If you have a source for whatever silly point you imagine you're making here, please post it.

:: sigh :: done before but here again, just because you said "please"...

Silly source 1
Silly source 2

Anything else?

It's The Beverly Hillbillies theory of production. *All you gotto do is miss, while shootin' possum. *Up from the ground comes bubblin' crude. *Then you sell your land, fill up your truck with the new gasoline, and move to Beverly Hills. *It's just that simple. *One round of buckshot plus one truck equals two million dollars. *

See how simple the math is, Sparky?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Drill baby drill!

I see they mythmakers are still swimming in their ignorance of how the oil bidness works ... smh

Number one, oil companies drill, not the gummint, not we the people. *You can't force them to drill unless you nationalize the oil companies.
Number two, oil companies are for-profit corporations; their loyalties and goals are based on their shareholders, not the citizens of whatever country they're based in. *They're not going to undermine their own profits.
Number three, even if they do start additional drilling (which is kinda magical since the surplus equipment to do so doesn't exist), that oil has nowhere to go, as refineries are already running at capacity;
Number four, even if you get past one through three and find a refinery, that oil then goes on the international market, not to the pump in Dubuque. *
Number five, even if you get past one through four and pump up that international supply (which takes about 22 years according to the EIA), the net effect on the world price is literally pocket change;
And number six, when that barrel price drops by thirty-two cents, OPEC, if it notices at all, simply cuts their own production back to compensate, and we're back where we were.

Happy motoring.

Maybe you should explain the details of production increase as it progresses from geological survey to the gas tank. *Some folk can add 1 +1=2 but their short term memory isn't capable of 2.5+8.3+1.6+3.9=16.3 *They may know how to add, just not what to add. *When your short term memory is capable of only three items, a supply chain is just too long.*And solving simultaneous equations is beyond them.*

Supply chain?

Is that what you get when you claim increasing the supply is a bad idea, because it won't make the price go down? Or it's bad because drilling won't add to supply tomorrow?

 

[itfitzme]

I see they mythmakers are still swimming in their ignorance of how the oil bidness works ... smh

Number one, oil companies drill, not the gummint, not we the people. *You can't force them to drill unless you nationalize the oil companies.
Number two, oil companies are for-profit corporations; their loyalties and goals are based on their shareholders, not the citizens of whatever country they're based in. *They're not going to undermine their own profits.
Number three, even if they do start additional drilling (which is kinda magical since the surplus equipment to do so doesn't exist), that oil has nowhere to go, as refineries are already running at capacity;
Number four, even if you get past one through three and find a refinery, that oil then goes on the international market, not to the pump in Dubuque. *
Number five, even if you get past one through four and pump up that international supply (which takes about 22 years according to the EIA), the net effect on the world price is literally pocket change;
And number six, when that barrel price drops by thirty-two cents, OPEC, if it notices at all, simply cuts their own production back to compensate, and we're back where we were.

Happy motoring.

Maybe you should explain the details of production increase as it progresses from geological survey to the gas tank. *Some folk can add 1 +1=2 but their short term memory isn't capable of 2.5+8.3+1.6+3.9=16.3 *They may know how to add, just not what to add. *When your short term memory is capable of only three items, a supply chain is just too long.*And solving simultaneous equations is beyond them.*

Supply chain?

Is that what you get when you claim increasing the supply is a bad idea, because it won't make the price go down? Or it's bad because drilling won't add to supply tomorrow?

What's the time from lease to increase in supply at the pump?

What is the current demand for leases by the crude oil suppliers in the US?

What is the current supply capacity of current unused leased land, Sparky?

Oh, I'm sorry. *I may have misunderstood.

A supply chain is the sequence if companies that support production and supply in market. *It begins with the raw materials and ends with the consumer.

Do you need the word "sequence" explained? It is a word from precalculus so I understand if you didn't get to it after you finished that math thing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe you should explain the details of production increase as it progresses from geological survey to the gas tank. *Some folk can add 1 +1=2 but their short term memory isn't capable of 2.5+8.3+1.6+3.9=16.3 *They may know how to add, just not what to add. *When your short term memory is capable of only three items, a supply chain is just too long.*And solving simultaneous equations is beyond them.*

Supply chain?

Is that what you get when you claim increasing the supply is a bad idea, because it won't make the price go down? Or it's bad because drilling won't add to supply tomorrow?

What's the time from lease to increase in supply at the pump?

What is the current demand for leases by the crude oil suppliers in the US?

What is the current supply capacity of current unused leased land, Sparky?

Oh, I'm sorry. *I may have misunderstood.

A supply chain is the sequence if companies that support production and supply in market. *It begins with the raw materials and ends with the consumer.

Do you need the word "sequence" explained? It is a word from precalculus so I understand if you didn't get to it after you finished that math thing.

What's the time from lease to increase in supply at the pump?

If you never allow drilling, the time is really, really long.

What is the current demand for leases by the crude oil suppliers in the US?

In ANWR, higher than the supply.

 

[PaulS1950]

If you want cheaper gasoline then buy crude by the barrel and make your own.
Heck, the chemistry isn't hard at all. You basically build a reflux still that is high enough to cool the volitiles in the crude and combine those you want to make the most of (gasoline) and tap the still at the point where those combinations distill out. You keep cycling the higher volitiles and the sludge at the bottom until you stop getting gasoline. You can sell the other stuff and that will reduce your cost for the gas you make.

There is the small matter of the billions of dollars that the reflux still and supporting mechanicals will cost but heck - after a few trillion gallons it will all equal out.

Its a lot cheaper to grow Jeruselum artichokes or sugar beets and make alcohol. You can legally make up to 10000 gallons a year without paying anything on it as long as it is for fuel.

 

[itfitzme]

Drill baby drill!

I see they mythmakers are still swimming in their ignorance of how the oil bidness works ... smh

Number one, oil companies drill, not the gummint, not we the people. *You can't force them to drill unless you nationalize the oil companies.
Number two, oil companies are for-profit corporations; their loyalties and goals are based on their shareholders, not the citizens of whatever country they're based in. *They're not going to undermine their own profits.
Number three, even if they do start additional drilling (which is kinda magical since the surplus equipment to do so doesn't exist), that oil has nowhere to go, as refineries are already running at capacity;
Number four, even if you get past one through three and find a refinery, that oil then goes on the international market, not to the pump in Dubuque. *
Number five, even if you get past one through four and pump up that international supply (which takes about 22 years according to the EIA), the net effect on the world price is literally pocket change;
And number six, when that barrel price drops by thirty-two cents, OPEC, if it notices at all, simply cuts their own production back to compensate, and we're back where we were.

Happy motoring.

In 1991, there were 30,093 US wells drilled, of the 71,013 total for the world. That is 42%.

Could be 30k/(30k+70k) = 30%. *Dagnabit table totalmis hard to interpret. *

Page 28 of*http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natu...ational_exploration_develop_1991/pdf/0577.pdf

 

[Pogo]

You can't force them to drill unless you nationalize the oil companies.

No, but you can try stop them from drilling. Or make it easier for them to drill. One guess where Obama is leaning.

They're not going to undermine their own profits.

Right, oil companies don't want to drill, they want to make money instead. LOL!
What is that, liberal economics?

Number three, even if they do start additional drilling (which is kinda magical since the surplus equipment to do so doesn't exist),

Right, there is no possible way to build more equipment.

that oil has nowhere to go, as refineries are already running at capacity;

I guess building more refining capacity is out of the question?

Number four, even if you get past one through three and find a refinery, that oil then goes on the international market, not to the pump in Dubuque.

Right, and why is lowering the world price of oil a bad thing? And adding more gasoline doesn't drop the price?

Number five, even if you get past one through four and pump up that international supply (which takes about 22 years according to the EIA),

Selling oil on the world market takes 22 years? LOL!
If you have a source for whatever silly point you imagine you're making here, please post it.

And number six, when that barrel price drops by thirty-two cents, OPEC, if it notices at all, simply cuts their own production back to compensate, and we're back where we were.

Back to where we were? But we now have more US production and fewer imports.
Why is that bad again?

Wow. Worst case of rationalization infection I've seen all day. Put your masks on folks. And cover me-- I'm going in.

Maybe you didn't notice, Sparky, where the end product goes on the international market? You do know what international means, doncha?



I don't know that there is any "lean" but I do know that back in '08 when we picked this fake mantra apart, the oil companies were already sitting on 68 million acres of leased drilling land that wasn't being drilled --- the point being, it's not like they're out of territory to exploit. Today's number is prolly not much changed.



Once again, talk to the oil companies, which are private profit making enterprises. If they wanted more facilities or found them profitable, they would build them. To the contrary, they've been closing refineries. Wanna nationalize them so you can tell them what to do?



Way to read through to the end. Again, search the word "OPEC" for the relevant part -- if it's relevant at all, since the differential in the resulting market price would be, as the EIA put it, "insignificant". And if it is significant, see the OPEC part.

Selling oil on the world market takes 22 years? LOL!
If you have a source for whatever silly point you imagine you're making here, please post it.

:: sigh :: done before but here again, just because you said "please"...

Silly source 1
Silly source 2

Anything else?

Maybe you didn't notice, Sparky, where the end product goes on the international market?

No end product stays in the US market? Really?

I don't know that there is any "lean" but I do know that back in '08 when we picked this fake mantra apart, the oil companies were already sitting on 68 million acres of leased drilling land that wasn't being drilled

So when they lease land and determine it's not worthwhile to drill, they should be forced to drill? And they should be prevented from finding more sources to drill, just because?

Today's number is prolly not much changed.

Prolly? What's the amount of Federal land leased in 2008? In 2013?

Once again, talk to the oil companies, which are private profit making enterprises. If they wanted more facilities or found them profitable, they would build them.

That simple? Just build them? LOL!

done before but here again,

Thanks for the links. Did either source back your 22 year claim? Because I didn't see it.

In linky-blinky 1:
>> The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. <<
(report dated 2007; 2030 - 2007 = 23)

I misunderestimated by a year; I had the year '2008' in my head because that's when we did this before, at the time McCain/Palin were selling this bullshit.
So if you're scoring at home (or even if you're alone) it's not 22 years after all; it's 23.

So when they lease land and determine it's not worthwhile to drill, they should be forced to drill?

-- that's what I'm saying. You're the guy with the "drill baby drill" mantra. Don't step on my lines, read your script.

That simple? Just build them? LOL!

I suppose you could wave a magic wand but yes, that's how we roll on earth; you want a drilling rig, you build it. You want a refinery, you don't shut down the ones you already have.
It's not petroleum science. Oh wait, yes it is. Matter of fact that's exactly what it is.

 

[itfitzme]

If you want cheaper gasoline then buy crude by the barrel and make your own.
Heck, the chemistry isn't hard at all. You basically build a reflux still that is high enough to cool the volitiles in the crude and combine those you want to make the most of (gasoline) and tap the still at the point where those combinations distill out. You keep cycling the higher volitiles and the sludge at the bottom until you stop getting gasoline. You can sell the other stuff and that will reduce your cost for the gas you make.

There is the small matter of the billions of dollars that the reflux still and supporting mechanicals will cost but heck - after a few trillion gallons it will all equal out.

Its a lot cheaper to grow Jeruselum artichokes or sugar beets and make alcohol. You can legally make up to 10000 gallons a year without paying anything on it as long as it is for fuel.

That's how the Beverly Hillbillies got started. *Just adapted that moonshine still out back and converted the truck from ethanol to fossil fuel.

'Course, they put it all back when Granny started gettin' the shakes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow. Worst case of rationalization infection I've seen all day. Put your masks on folks. And cover me-- I'm going in.

Maybe you didn't notice, Sparky, where the end product goes on the international market? You do know what international means, doncha?



I don't know that there is any "lean" but I do know that back in '08 when we picked this fake mantra apart, the oil companies were already sitting on 68 million acres of leased drilling land that wasn't being drilled --- the point being, it's not like they're out of territory to exploit. Today's number is prolly not much changed.



Once again, talk to the oil companies, which are private profit making enterprises. If they wanted more facilities or found them profitable, they would build them. To the contrary, they've been closing refineries. Wanna nationalize them so you can tell them what to do?



Way to read through to the end. Again, search the word "OPEC" for the relevant part -- if it's relevant at all, since the differential in the resulting market price would be, as the EIA put it, "insignificant". And if it is significant, see the OPEC part.



:: sigh :: done before but here again, just because you said "please"...

Silly source 1
Silly source 2

Anything else?

Maybe you didn't notice, Sparky, where the end product goes on the international market?

No end product stays in the US market? Really?

I don't know that there is any "lean" but I do know that back in '08 when we picked this fake mantra apart, the oil companies were already sitting on 68 million acres of leased drilling land that wasn't being drilled

So when they lease land and determine it's not worthwhile to drill, they should be forced to drill? And they should be prevented from finding more sources to drill, just because?

Today's number is prolly not much changed.

Prolly? What's the amount of Federal land leased in 2008? In 2013?

Once again, talk to the oil companies, which are private profit making enterprises. If they wanted more facilities or found them profitable, they would build them.

That simple? Just build them? LOL!

done before but here again,

Thanks for the links. Did either source back your 22 year claim? Because I didn't see it.

In linky-blinky 1:
>> The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. <<
(report dated 2007; 2030 - 2007 = 23)

I misunderestimated by a year; I had the year '2008' in my head because that's when we did this before, at the time McCain/Palin were selling this bullshit.
So if you're scoring at home (or even if you're alone) it's not 22 years after all; it's 23.

So when they lease land and determine it's not worthwhile to drill, they should be forced to drill?

-- that's what I'm saying. You're the guy with the "drill baby drill" mantra. Don't step on my lines, read your script.

That simple? Just build them? LOL!

I suppose you could wave a magic wand but yes, that's how we roll on earth; you want a drilling rig, you build it. You want a refinery, you don't shut down the ones you already have.
It's not petroleum science. Oh wait, yes it is. Matter of fact that's exactly what it is.

access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.

They probably said the same about shale oil, and yet US production of oil climbed about 1 million barrels per day last year.

Whatever we do, we shouldn't start today, or in 2009, or in 2000 or in 1995, because it'll take a few years for production to ramp up.

I suppose you could wave a magic wand but yes, that's how we roll on earth; you want a drilling rig, you build it. You want a refinery, you don't shut down the ones you already have.

Yeah, no government regulatory impact on refinery building or expansion. LOL!

Let's not increase domestic production, because OPEC might cut their production.
Instead, make us more subject to the whims of our OPEC pals.

Is that another example of "liberal logic"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So when they lease land and determine it's not worthwhile to drill, they should be forced to drill?

-- that's what I'm saying.

Yes, you're full of faulty economic ideas, aren't you?

 

[itfitzme]

If you want cheaper gasoline then buy crude by the barrel and make your own.
Heck, the chemistry isn't hard at all. You basically build a reflux still that is high enough to cool the volitiles in the crude and combine those you want to make the most of (gasoline) and tap the still at the point where those combinations distill out. You keep cycling the higher volitiles and the sludge at the bottom until you stop getting gasoline. You can sell the other stuff and that will reduce your cost for the gas you make.

There is the small matter of the billions of dollars that the reflux still and supporting mechanicals will cost but heck - after a few trillion gallons it will all equal out.

Its a lot cheaper to grow Jeruselum artichokes or sugar beets and make alcohol. You can legally make up to 10000 gallons a year without paying anything on it as long as it is for fuel.

Oh great. I got nuf trouble with the neighbor's dagnabit roosters. *Now I gotta get woken up by their still blowin' up? *Thought we had nuf problems with the meth lab down the street. At least the hydroponic pot farmer is to stoned to make trouble.

 

[Pogo]

So when they lease land and determine it's not worthwhile to drill, they should be forced to drill?

-- that's what I'm saying.

Yes, you're full of faulty economic ideas, aren't you?

Hey, you're the clown taking positions contrary to your own positions so obviously you don't need me to help dig your hole. You're arguing with yourself.

Thanks for the reminder of why I had you on Ignore. Later.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So when they lease land and determine it's not worthwhile to drill, they should be forced to drill?

-- that's what I'm saying.

Yes, you're full of faulty economic ideas, aren't you?

Hey, you're the clown taking positions contrary to your own positions so obviously you don't need me to help dig your hole. You're arguing with yourself.

Thanks for the reminder of why I had you on Ignore. Later.

Pointing out your idiocy is arguing with myself?
That's funny!

 

[freedombecki]

So when they lease land and determine it's not worthwhile to drill, they should be forced to drill?

-- that's what I'm saying.

Yes, you're full of faulty economic ideas, aren't you?

Hey, you're the clown taking positions contrary to your own positions so obviously you don't need me to help dig your hole. You're arguing with yourself.

Thanks for the reminder of why I had you on Ignore. Later.

You put someone you called "sparky" and "clown" on ignore for stating facts? I think it would be nice to reconsider, as the entire point of debating is to come to understanding and not to lock the door on viewpoints other than the one we bring to debates. After all, you're not missing an arm or a leg, are you?

Come on, Pogo. Didn't you ever take PE where the coach requested that good sportsmanship was observed?

 

[Pogo]

-- that's what I'm saying.

Yes, you're full of faulty economic ideas, aren't you?

Hey, you're the clown taking positions contrary to your own positions so obviously you don't need me to help dig your hole. You're arguing with yourself.

Thanks for the reminder of why I had you on Ignore. Later.

You put someone you called "sparky" and "clown" on ignore for stating facts? I think it would be nice to reconsider, as the entire point of debating is to come to understanding and not to lock the door on viewpoints other than the one we bring to debates. After all, you're not missing an arm or a leg, are you?

Come on, Pogo. Didn't you ever take PE where the coach requested that good sportsmanship was observed?

Well Becki, if you read back (it's not really worth the time), he just took a position against his own position, i.e. the position I started with. That's why I said "that's what I'm saying".

He's playing games. There is debate, and then there are people whose only purpose is to waste your time which yes I do think is a goal worthy of derision.

And no, I don't see "Yes, you're full of faulty economic ideas, aren't you?" as stating any facts or content on the topic at all. I see it as trolling.

 

[freedombecki]

I did read back. Trust me, Mr. [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION], your loyal opposition is not trolling. It's a debate style. But it's neither a scorched earth nor is it a threat. I call it USMB University.

Everybody wins when we learn something. Honest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey, you're the clown taking positions contrary to your own positions so obviously you don't need me to help dig your hole. You're arguing with yourself.

Thanks for the reminder of why I had you on Ignore. Later.

You put someone you called "sparky" and "clown" on ignore for stating facts? I think it would be nice to reconsider, as the entire point of debating is to come to understanding and not to lock the door on viewpoints other than the one we bring to debates. After all, you're not missing an arm or a leg, are you?

Come on, Pogo. Didn't you ever take PE where the coach requested that good sportsmanship was observed?

Well Becki, if you read back (it's not really worth the time), he just took a position against his own position, i.e. the position I started with. That's why I said "that's what I'm saying".

He's playing games. There is debate, and then there are people whose only purpose is to waste your time which yes I do think is a goal worthy of derision.

And no, I don't see "Yes, you're full of faulty economic ideas, aren't you?" as stating any facts or content on the topic at all. I see it as trolling.

he just took a position against his own position

Where do you imagine I did that?

 

[itfitzme]

"According the Energy Information*Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."

Still looking for that on the EIA site

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."

Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS.

So if we had started in 2009, production would be coming on line next year.

Wish we had done that, don't you?