Bad oil price news...
 

Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!

Dale

Bad oil price news...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!

Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's ass...congrats.

Either you want the oil to flow and the prices to go down or you want to
stem the flow of oil and have the prices go up. I want the former.

Why should we let oil just sit in the ground? If we can reduce our
dependence upon foreign oil by drilling in ANWR, the coast of CA and the
Gulf of Mexico we would be doing what some lefties want.

Bad oil price news...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:

Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!


Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's ass...congrats.

This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!

Bad oil price news...
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:

Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7
$4 gas just around the corner?!


Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!

It *is* Bert, and Fritz.

Bad oil price news...
 

Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:


You wrote:


Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!


Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!


So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?


I say America has to cut it's consumption by at least 10%. Gasoline
rationing might help. Let's say...the first 40 or 50 gallons per month
at market price and anything over that should have a stiff 'luxury' tax
added

Bad oil price news...
 

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 08:37:45 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:


Either you want the oil to flow and the prices to go down or you want to
stem the flow of oil and have the prices go up. I want the former.


Why should we let oil just sit in the ground? If we can reduce our
dependence upon foreign oil by drilling in ANWR, the coast of CA and the
Gulf of Mexico we would be doing what some lefties want.

If you look at figure 2 in the following link, you'll note that it's the
consumption side of the equation, not the production side, that is causing
most of our dependence on foreign oil. Regardless, whether you drill in
ANWR or not, cheap oil is history.


http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/aoilpolicy2.asp

Bad oil price news...
 

Don White wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:


You wrote:


Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!


Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!


So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?


I say America has to cut it's consumption by at least 10%. Gasoline
rationing might help. Let's say...the first 40 or 50 gallons per month
at market price and anything over that should have a stiff 'luxury' tax
added

Why should we cut our oil consumption by 10%? Is it so that India and
China and use the oil?

Rationing is not an economically sound practice.

Gas a luxury?

Bad oil price news...
 

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Don White wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:


You wrote:


Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!


Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!


So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to
rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?


I say America has to cut it's consumption by at least 10%. Gasoline
rationing might help. Let's say...the first 40 or 50 gallons per month
at market price and anything over that should have a stiff 'luxury' tax
added

Why should we cut our oil consumption by 10%? Is it so that India and
China and use the oil?

Rationing is not an economically sound practice.

Gas a luxury?



PatBert, wasn't it you who said reduced demand would send a message to the
oil companies? The free enterprise argument, remember?

Bad oil price news...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Don White wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:


You wrote:


Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!

Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.
This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!

So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to
rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?

I say America has to cut it's consumption by at least 10%. Gasoline
rationing might help. Let's say...the first 40 or 50 gallons per month
at market price and anything over that should have a stiff 'luxury' tax
added
Why should we cut our oil consumption by 10%? Is it so that India and
China and use the oil?

Rationing is not an economically sound practice.

Gas a luxury?



PatBert, wasn't it you who said reduced demand would send a message to the
oil companies? The free enterprise argument, remember?

No, I don't advocate reducing our oil consumption. I am an advocate for
building nuclear plants all over the US and storing the waste in the
facility built in Nevada. I also advocate poking holes in the earth any
where there may be oil and pumping every last bit out and using it.

Bad oil price news...
 

Bert Robbins wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!

Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's ass...congrats.

Either you want the oil to flow and the prices to go down or you want to
stem the flow of oil and have the prices go up. I want the former.

What evidence do you have that the price will go down if we drill in
ANWR?

Bad oil price news...
 

Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!

Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration
wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

What evidence do you have that the price at the pump WILL go down if we
open up ANWR?

Bad oil price news...
 

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

If you look at figure 2 in the following link, you'll note that it's
the consumption side of the equation, not the production side, that is
causing most of our dependence on foreign oil.

The libfags' favorite country, France, gets 70% of its electricity from
nuclear. Know when the US built its last nuclear reactor? The 1970s.
Why? Because of whining from you libfags.

This is YOUR fault and there is NO way to deny it.

Moron. Your comments have nothing to do with the article in the message you
responded to.

Bad oil price news...
 

Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:

Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!


Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!

So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?

I will, as soon as you back up your case that the price at the pump
will definitely go down with some hard data.

Bad oil price news...
 

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


Bert Robbins wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...ield_shutdown_
7

$4 gas just around the corner?!

Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

Either you want the oil to flow and the prices to go down or you want
to
stem the flow of oil and have the prices go up. I want the former.

What evidence do you have that the price will go down if we drill in
ANWR?

Ummm... didn't today's REDUCTION in supply result in a price INCREASE?

Nevermind... You're really too ****ing stupid to even know the answer
that.

Since sealing my driveway on Saturday, I have seen no elephants in the
neighborhood.

Bad oil price news...
 

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

If you look at figure 2 in the following link, you'll note that it's
the consumption side of the equation, not the production side, that
is causing most of our dependence on foreign oil.

The libfags' favorite country, France, gets 70% of its electricity
from nuclear. Know when the US built its last nuclear reactor? The
1970s. Why? Because of whining from you libfags.

This is YOUR fault and there is NO way to deny it.

Moron. Your comments have nothing to do with the article in the message
you responded to.

The morons are the folks at the NRDC.

Hey! Thanks for reminding me - their literature was hidden in my mail pile.
I just stuck a check for $100 in an envelope.

Bad oil price news...
 

Bert Robbins wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

Don White wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:


You wrote:


Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7


$4 gas just around the corner?!


Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!


So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil
prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to
rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?


I say America has to cut it's consumption by at least 10%. Gasoline
rationing might help. Let's say...the first 40 or 50 gallons per
month at market price and anything over that should have a stiff
'luxury' tax added

Why should we cut our oil consumption by 10%? Is it so that India and
China and use the oil?

Rationing is not an economically sound practice.

Gas a luxury?



PatBert, wasn't it you who said reduced demand would send a message to
the oil companies? The free enterprise argument, remember?


No, I don't advocate reducing our oil consumption. I am an advocate for
building nuclear plants all over the US and storing the waste in the
facility built in Nevada. I also advocate poking holes in the earth any
where there may be oil and pumping every last bit out and using it.


Yeah...and screw our kids & grandkids who'll be shortshifted behind us.

Bad oil price news...
 

Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:

Alotta Fagina wrote:


You wrote:


Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...eld_shutdown_7

$4 gas just around the corner?!



Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.




You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.


This character even makes Bert seem half sensible!



So your definition of "sensible" is:

(a) claim opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration won't raise oil prices;

(b) oppose opening 7% of ANWR to oil exploration;

(c) complain when shutting off 8% of US oil supply causes prices to
rise.

Your definition of "sensible" does not pass the "reasonable man" test.

Care to explain why?



I say America has to cut it's consumption by at least 10%. Gasoline
rationing might help. Let's say...the first 40 or 50 gallons per
month at market price and anything over that should have a stiff
'luxury' tax added


Why should we cut our oil consumption by 10%? Is it so that India and
China and use the oil?

Rationing is not an economically sound practice.

Gas a luxury?


It will be if you don't stop swilling it.

Bad oil price news...
 

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:04:55 +0000, Alotta Fagina wrote:


The libfags' favorite country, France, gets 70% of its electricity from
nuclear. Know when the US built its last nuclear reactor? The 1970s.
Why? Because of whining from you libfags.

This is YOUR fault and there is NO way to deny it.

Why deny it? Us "libfags" have better economic sense than drunken
nitwits. We know that coal produced electricity is cheaper than nuclear
produced electricity. We also know that this country still has an
abundant supply of coal. Something France doesn't have. But hey, if you
want to spend more for electricity, feel free, build yourself a nuke.

Bad oil price news...
 

Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:


Bert Robbins wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

Half of the North Slope oil production in Alaska is shutting down
today. That is about 8% of the US production.

Story he

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/...ield_shutdown_
7

$4 gas just around the corner?!

Yeah, but the envirofreaks claim that opening 7% of ANWR to oil
exploration wouldn't ease prices.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's
ass...congrats.

Either you want the oil to flow and the prices to go down or you want
to
stem the flow of oil and have the prices go up. I want the former.

What evidence do you have that the price will go down if we drill in
ANWR?

Ummm... didn't today's REDUCTION in supply result in a price INCREASE?

Nevermind... You're really too ****ing stupid to even know the answer that.

Hehe, you call me ****ing stupid, and you can't even realize that you
are talking apples and oranges. ANWR doesn't have a damned thing to do
with what is happening today. Your childish and petty name calling
proves to all that you don't have enough information to carry on a
debate. What about the costs associated with setting up, drilling,
building pipelines, staffing, roads, special drilling platforms for the
tundra, and on and on? Many many futures analysts are saying that
because of difficulties associated with getting the oil out of ANWR,
that it probably wouldn't affect price very much. Look back, how much
did the price per gallon at the pump go down when Prudoe Bay came
online?

Bad oil price news...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

If you look at figure 2 in the following link, you'll note that it's
the consumption side of the equation, not the production side, that
is causing most of our dependence on foreign oil.

The libfags' favorite country, France, gets 70% of its electricity
from nuclear. Know when the US built its last nuclear reactor? The
1970s. Why? Because of whining from you libfags.

This is YOUR fault and there is NO way to deny it.

Moron. Your comments have nothing to do with the article in the message
you responded to.

The morons are the folks at the NRDC.

Hey! Thanks for reminding me - their literature was hidden in my mail pile.
I just stuck a check for $100 in an envelope.

Thanks for reminding me, also, I just donated via there website!

Bad oil price news...
 

Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

If you look at figure 2 in the following link, you'll note that
it's the consumption side of the equation, not the production
side, that is causing most of our dependence on foreign oil.

The libfags' favorite country, France, gets 70% of its electricity
from nuclear. Know when the US built its last nuclear reactor?
The 1970s. Why? Because of whining from you libfags.

This is YOUR fault and there is NO way to deny it.

Moron. Your comments have nothing to do with the article in the
message you responded to.

The morons are the folks at the NRDC.

Hey! Thanks for reminding me - their literature was hidden in my mail
pile. I just stuck a check for $100 in an envelope.

Thanks for reminding me, also, I just donated via there website!

Since you don't know how to spell "their" I assume your check will be NSF.

Hmmm, can't comprehend what's written huh? IF you could actually read,
you'd see where I said I donated on the website. What do you think I
did, stuff a check through the internet somehow? People that actually
use their brains have this magical card, commonly called a *credit
card*.

Bad oil price news...
 

Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

Hehe, you call me ****ing stupid, and you can't even realize that you
are talking apples and oranges. ANWR doesn't have a damned thing to do
with what is happening today.

Closed pipeline = supply problem
ANWR = supply solution

It's not that they don't have a damned thing to do with eachother, it's
that you have no interest in pursuing solutions.

Look back, how much
did the price per gallon at the pump go down when Prudoe Bay came
online?

That's Prudhoe, dumb****.

Your childish name calling proves that you have NOTHING but what you
feel. Please show any and all hard data that you have that suggests
that by opening ANWR, thus supplying around 1 or 2 percent of our
energy demands will have an affect on the prices. Really, all you have
to do is show the data instead of the childish name calling and petty
insults, and then someone may actually take you as serious.

Bad oil price news...
 

Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

Hehe, you call me ****ing stupid, and you can't even realize that you
are talking apples and oranges. ANWR doesn't have a damned thing to do
with what is happening today.

Closed pipeline = supply problem
ANWR = supply solution

It's not that they don't have a damned thing to do with eachother, it's
that you have no interest in pursuing solutions.

Look back, how much
did the price per gallon at the pump go down when Prudoe Bay came
online?

That's Prudhoe, dumb****.

By the way, since you like to childishly show people's syntax errors,
there's no such word as dumb****. It would be dumb ****, two words. Why
would Prudoe be any different from ANWR? Same geology, same basic area,
same weather same issues.

Bad oil price news...
 

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:03:04 GMT, Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:

I don't know why we as a nation allow the energy providers to operate in
the unsupervised fashion they enjoy and use against us. It's not as if
they have ever been honest or trustworthy.

Yeah, we need honest and trustworthy people like Duke Cunningham and Bill
Clinton running the energy companies.

What we need is for you to take jps, bk, and anyone else who'll argue
politics with you over to 'a.politics' and have a regular ****in' contest!
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

Bad oil price news...
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:



Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.



You seem to be in contention for official newsgroup horse's ass...congrats.

But we all know your won't be relinquishing it...congrats.

-- Charlie

Bad oil price news...
 

Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:


Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

Please show any and all hard data that you have that suggests
that by opening ANWR, thus supplying around 1 or 2 percent of our
energy demands will have an affect on the prices.

Freshman economics class. Too bad you were smoking dope at the time (or
more likely, weren't even accepted to college).

Again, I can simply prove your ignorance. Please show what evidence you
have that I have ever smoked "dope".
Again, I'll ask you, please show any and all hard data that you have
that suggests that by opening ANWR, that price at the pump will go down.

If you don't understand supply and demand, there's no hope for you.

I fully understand supply and demand, much more so than you understand
the English language. I asked for, and have yet to receive from you,
any hard data that would suggest that drilling in ANWR will result in
lower prices at the pump. You've made that allegation, so back it up.
You've also made the allegation that I was "smoking dope". I'm also
waiting for that evidence. Do you have any or are you posting in blind
ignorance?

Bad oil price news...
 

basskisser wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:


Please show any and all hard data that you have that suggests
that by opening ANWR, thus supplying around 1 or 2 percent of our
energy demands will have an affect on the prices.

Freshman economics class. Too bad you were smoking dope at the time (or
more likely, weren't even accepted to college).


Again, I can simply prove your ignorance. Please show what evidence you
have that I have ever smoked "dope".
Again, I'll ask you, please show any and all hard data that you have
that suggests that by opening ANWR, that price at the pump will go down.


No $5MM challenge? Wimp.

Bad oil price news...
 

Dan Krueger wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:


Please show any and all hard data that you have that suggests
that by opening ANWR, thus supplying around 1 or 2 percent of our
energy demands will have an affect on the prices.

Freshman economics class. Too bad you were smoking dope at the time (or
more likely, weren't even accepted to college).


Again, I can simply prove your ignorance. Please show what evidence you
have that I have ever smoked "dope".
Again, I'll ask you, please show any and all hard data that you have
that suggests that by opening ANWR, that price at the pump will go down.


No $5MM challenge? Wimp.

And now YOUR ignorance is showing. Childish name calling.
And what's an "MM"?