Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!

From: Fred J. McCall (fmccall_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 03/07/05 

Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:02:16 GMT

"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@ieee.org> wrote:
:>
:>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>>> lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:>>>
:>>>> In article <4254d0c1.1089795002@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
:>>>> simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:>>>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:24:34 +0200, in a place far, far away,
:>>>>> Klaus Heitman <Klaus@Heitman.org> made the phosphor on my monitor
:>>>>> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:>>>>>
:>>>>>>> It's not about oil.
:>>>>>>
:>>>>>>
:>>>>>> Then why would the US be interested?
:>>>>>
:>>>>> Why was the US interested in defeating totalitarianism the past
:>>>>> two times?
:>>>> Iraq? Oil. Panama? Grenada? Who knows.
:>>>
:>>> We get more oil from Canada.
:>>
:>> For a few years, canada was indeed the largest single foreign
:>> supplier. Unfortunately the reserves of oil pools are as limited as
:>> those in the U.S. so the pace could not be kept up.
:>
:> Look at current numbers. You need to change your "could not" above to
:> "can not", since Canada is back at the top again.
:
:You seem to have no abilty to deal with reality. Canada has slipped to third
:place. Please stop posting crap when a few seconds and a functioning brain
:could have gotten you the facts.
:http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm
:RANK Country Thousand Barrels per Day
:------------------------------------------------------
:1 Saudi Arabia 1,726
:2 Mexico 1,569
:3 Canada 1,549

And you seem to have missed the small detail that there was a year
after 2003. This is why I said "back at the top" rather than "remains
at the top". Speaking of a lack of a few seconds and a functioning
brain on someone's part....

For crude, the 2004 figures are:

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Dec-04 Nov-04 YTD 2004 Dec-03 Jan - Dec 2003
CANADA 1,563 1,557 1,611 1,663 1,549
MEXICO 1,552 1,604 1,597 1,765 1,569
SAUDI ARABIA 1,449 1,625 1,494 1,399 1,726
VENEZUELA 1,344 1,237 1,294 1,340 1,183
NIGERIA 1,006 945 1,062 938 832

For total petroleum, the 2004 figures are:

Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Dec-04 Nov-04 YTD 2004 Dec-03 Jan - Dec 2003
CANADA 2,143 2,094 2,118 2,227 2,072
MEXICO 1,605 1,654 1,642 1,801 1,623
VENEZUELA 1,581 1,532 1,521 1,631 1,376
SAUDI ARABIA 1,502 1,700 1,556 1,410 1,774
NIGERIA 1,027 963 1,119 959 867

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Once again, you are not only 'non-value added' when it comes to
information, but you are outright deceptive by 'cherry-picking' the
year whose data you chose to present.

In other words, I think you lied on purpose, given that the data was
on the same DOE site that you were already on.

:>> It is mainly about the large reserves of cheap oil. The PG has 75%
:>> of the remaining oil pool reserves, and most of the desirable 'light
:>> sweet' variety that makes the bulk of the profits.
:>
:> Or perhaps not. How much oil do you think could be found with the
:> money spent on Iraq (which money provides us ZERO oil, just by the
:> way)?
:
:Not much. Exploration peaked in the sixties and the main effort has been to
:drill more holes in the existing reserves.

This is only true because existing reserves have given adequate
production. If you think there is no place left to look, you are
greatly mistaken.

:It might have made a big
:difference investing in the Oil Sands, but that would take time and not
:produce the 'quick profits' for the *OIL* companies. The people making the
:profits are NOT the U.S. public which pickes up hundreds of billions for
:this private war in order to fund the contracts for Halibruton, Roots and
:Brown, etc. The number of companies ( including private militia ) that are
:in Iraq to make money off the carcass is astounding. Facts are that the
:intention is to install a puppet governmetn which will allow them to own the
:companies and take the profits. The legal framework ( limited taxes, wide
:open international ownership, etc ) was installed by Bremer.

I'd suggest you need to look at rig rates when compared to oil price
expectations. See http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/RIGCOUNT.gif for a
nice graphic. If I thought you could read, I'd refer you to the paper
it is contained in which makes it quite plain that folks in the
industry seem to think there are lots of places left to drill given
expectations of sustained higher prices.

If you're actually interested in some detail, try
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

:>> Tar Sands, for example, cost ten to fifteen dollars a barrel and are
:>> heavy oil of limited desirablitily. The light sweet crude of the PG
:>> and expecially of Iraq ( Saudi Arabia has a heavier type ) are only
:>> a dollar or so to pump and are cheapest to pump, refine, and most
:>> suitable to making gasoline. Ergo the profit margins on PG oil are
:>> much much higher than on Canadian crude and the stockpiles of easily
:>> obtainable oil much much larger.
:>>
:>> If there were any more Alberta oil pools to drill, then they would be
:>> drilling. And if Oil Sands were as profitable, they would be
:>> investing the billions needed for mining equipment. Instead they are
:>> promoting a war to obtain the cheap and high quality oil from Iraq.
:>> Ipso Facto.
:>
:> Canada is still at the top of the list of nations we get oil from.
:> You figure it out, Ian.
:
:I can just refer to the facts.

Apparently not.

:Figuring it out seems to be your problem. You
:start from a false premise and create a fantasy to order.

Well, one of us seems to be doing that, but I'm not the one having to
'cherry pick' old data to support my claims. That would seem to be
you.

:>>> It's closer. The women are friendlier.
:>>>
:>>> If it was 'all about oil' we'd have troops in Ottawa right now.
:>>
:>> Bull***. This ignores the economics of the oil business entirely.
:>
:> Then explain why we are STILL getting more oil from Canada than any
:> other nation.
:
:I can't because it isn't true. Ask the DOE. Mexico has taken second spot, by
:the way.

You're wrong. Given the definition of 'lie' that your lot seem to
want to use, this makes you a liar. By the way, it took me less than
5 seconds to find numbers for 2004, which I gave above. From DOE,
just by the way.

Now, would you care to answer the original question, since it most
certainly IS true that we ARE getting more oil from Canada than any
other nation?

:>> Something
:>> like 'lying with statistics' only without the numbers.
:>
:> As opposed to your simply lying, you mean?
:
:As opposed to my posting the facts and backing them up.

As opposed to you posting old data to further your lies, you mean? My
statements were facts. Your statements were WRONG.

See why I put you in the 'non-value added' category? 

-- 
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
 soul with evil."
                                      -- Socrates
Quantcast