• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Joint Venezuela-Russian naval exercises

PropStop

Kool-Aid free since 2001.
pilot
Contributor
That Kirov class is pretty badass, and F'ING HUGE! What a beast! It is armed to the f'ing teeth. Of course, it might just explode on its own accord, but impressive none-the-less.
 

fusu

New Member
yeah the BBC link had a short video touring around the ship and it looked giant.

The small size of the Russian fleet strikes me as significant. Seems as though they don't want to send too many ships too far away considering all the activity in the Black Sea and Korea.
 

JIMC5499

ex-Mech
That Kirov class is pretty badass, and F'ING HUGE! What a beast! It is armed to the f'ing teeth. Of course, it might just explode on its own accord, but impressive none-the-less.

I hope it doesn't blow up on its own.
The US would get blamed for sure and there are enough kool-aid drinkers who would believe it. There are still some who blame us for the Kursk.
 

Bevo16

Registered User
pilot
There is only 37 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. We can't drill our way out of our problems. Let's not even try.

There are only 8 billion barrels of oil in one tiny spot of Alaska. We can't drill our way out of our problems. Let's not even try.

There are only 18 billion barrels in Alaska. We can't drill our way out of our problems. Let's not even try.

There are only 36 billion barrels off the coast of Alaska and the Pacific OCS. We can't drill our way out of our problems. Let's not even try.

That's pretty much your arguements. Right?

Sorry folks. That's just stupid. Your numbers are not right. Your own statistics are and charts are lying to you, and you don't know enough about the reality of the situation to even see the cracks. The oil is not running out. Politicans are keeping it from us.

OBTW, it's on federal land. It's your resources and oil companies are more than willing to pay royalties to the federal government to go and get it. When you think about the BILLIONS of barrells of oil priced over 100$ each. That's a pretty decent penny for a nation that is hurting for cash right now. Think about that for a minute when you see how much of your money is being taken for taxes. Any creative politician could find another easy way to pay those bills, and keep american dollars here in the good old USA while producing american jobs at the same time.

oped033.jpg


http://www.nypost.com/seven/10112006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/americas_untapped_oil_supply_opedcolumnists_mackubin_t__owens.htm
 

mmx1

Woof!
pilot
Contributor
Sorry folks. That's just stupid. Your numbers are not right. Your own statistics are and charts are lying to you, and you don't know enough about the reality of the situation to even see the cracks. The oil is not running out. Politicans are keeping it from us.

Did you read the EIA report, or do you just throw out numbers you like and reject the ones you don't? Nobody disputes that there is an estimated 120 billion barrels there, physically present and capable of being removed. The same EIA study that you dismiss gives a figure of 60 billion barrels in OCS areas alone, matching the numbers you gave.

But out of the 120, only 20 billion or so are "proven", i.e. recoverable under current economic, technological, and regulatory circumstances, and relaxing regulations will not remove the economic and technical obstacles to extracting the remaining 100 billion.

You could wave a magic wand and say "well, there's a lot of it down there, I'm sure we can get it out", or you can quantitatively look at how much is actually recoverable, minus any regulatory obstacles.

The EIA.....did exactly that, and their conclusions were - 1.6% over 20 years, and 3% by 2030, with no impact on oil prices. Or you can join your Post commentator and wish the oil aboveground.

Who's lying to who?
 

Bevo16

Registered User
pilot
Did you read the EIA report, or do you just throw out numbers you like and reject the ones you don't? Nobody disputes that there is an estimated 120 billion barrels there, physically present and capable of being removed. The same EIA study that you dismiss gives a figure of 60 billion barrels in OCS areas alone, matching the numbers you gave.

But out of the 120, only 20 billion or so are "proven", i.e. recoverable under current economic, technological, and regulatory circumstances, and relaxing regulations will not remove the economic and technical obstacles to extracting the remaining 100 billion.

You could wave a magic wand and say "well, there's a lot of it down there, I'm sure we can get it out", or you can quantitatively look at how much is actually recoverable, minus any regulatory obstacles.

Taking a quantative look at the statistics and definitions and throwing your hands up is exactly what the greenies and the rest of the left want you to do.

You don't understand what the definition of a "proven oil reserve" is and how it is being applied to the statistics. A "proven reserve" is not oil that we are 100% certain is there. It is a puddle of oil in the ground that has a pipe sticking in it and oil is currently being sucked out of that pipe. What is standing between the remaining 100 billion barrels of oil and the US consumer is not the need for a magic wand. The "technological obstacle" in this case is that THERE IS NO FUCKING PIPE STICKING INTO THE OCEAN OF OIL. Sorry, the oil industry has not yet developed technology to exctact oil from an ocean without the use of a pipe. We are not waiting on the oil industry to make some quantum leap in technology so they can stick a pipe into the ocean of off-shore oil, it's the "regulatory circumstances" (i.e. stupid laws that put the areas off limits) THAT PREVENT THEM FROM STICKING A GIANT PIPE IN THE OIL.

So, by the defined terms for the statistics that they are using, they omit 80+% of the oil that is there right off the top because it does not fit the definition of "proven reserve". Then they use some stupid ass outdated forumula for trying to say when some of this oil could make it to market. Keep in mind that the heads of these government agencies like the EIA are appointed by politicians. They are good for raw data, but their estimates on what the private sector can do if allowed are colored by politics and bend in the direction that will make the argument for those who gave them their jobs in the first place.

The United States is an oil producing nation. The primary supplier of US oil is the US itself, and the vast majority of our domestic oil reserves are off limits. This is not that hard folks.
 

mmx1

Woof!
pilot
Contributor
Taking a quantative look at the statistics and definitions and throwing your hands up is exactly what the greenies and the rest of the left want you to do.
So....don't take a quantitative look at the numbers? Take only a look at the numbers that you like?

You don't understand what the definition of a "proven oil reserve" is and how it is being applied to the statistics. A "proven reserve" is not oil that we are 100% certain is there.
No, its oil we're 90% certain we can recover.

It is a puddle of oil in the ground that has a pipe sticking in it and oil is currently being sucked out of that pipe.
That would be a subset deemed Producing Proved Developed Reserves - with the added caveat that there is a pipe there (developed).....and oil is being sucked out(producing).

Source:
http://www.spe.org/spe-site/spe/spe...troleumReserves-ResourcesDefinitions_2005.pdf

Keep in mind that the heads of these government agencies like the EIA are appointed by politicians. They are good for raw data, but their estimates on what the private sector can do if allowed are colored by politics and bend in the direction that will make the argument for those who gave them their jobs in the first place.
Good point! Those dirty Clinton appointees still screwing us.
In February 2002, President Bush nominated Guy F. Caruso to the position of Administrator of the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a statistical agency within the United States Department of Energy (DOE) that provides policy-independent data, forecasts and analyses regarding energy. Mr. Caruso has acquired over 30 years of energy experience, with particular emphasis on topics relating to energy markets, policy and security.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/contacts/Caruso.html
Wait, no. Shit. (He stepped down sometime this year but the report we're debating was published last year)
 

Bevo16

Registered User
pilot
Well, it looks like I was not the only one who saw the Democrats stupidity for exactly what it was. It seems that enough people with knowledge of the facts were able to put pressure in the right places.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_go_co/offshore_drilling

Maybe some of you can explain why the majority is conceding defeat to the minority in congress when all of the facts and the data are on their side.

Spin away.
 

Bevo16

Registered User
pilot
How many subs do you think we have in trail?

I'll bet that there are periscope shots of Peetie the Great flying around all over the bubble-head high side.
 

fusu

New Member
Not in a million years did I think this thread would get back on track. thanks for the update.
 

Bevo16

Registered User
pilot
We should invite them for a 6 day port call to San Diego. One look at $8.50 well drinks and $6 domestics in the Gas Lamp Quarter will do wonders for their perspective. None of their sailors could afford a night out in SD if they had 3 months salary saved up.

The Russian Navy is kind of like Ole' Miss existance in the SEC. Sure you were big in the 60's and you still have a team. Every once in a while can pull off something that the big boys do on a regular basis. It does not mean that you are great again. It just means that you still have a pulse.
 
Top