@ Taft.
You write:
"I know what you mean by not believing professors, I take what they say with a grain of salt. However, I do believe this one professor's statement. I don't get what you are trying to prove with the "10% of US ..." statement, as the point you're making is a simple tweaking of some arithmetic. If those reserves could cover 1% of US Consumption, then it could last 200 years. That's not what I was trying to say. I was saying that if the US used only those reserves, and no imported oil, the country would tear through the reserves in two years. I was being purely theoretical. Now, of course, it's obvious the US will still import oil if/when the reserves are tapped, and therefore it will only make up a portion of the consumption, and the oil from those fields will last more than two years. I guess that's what you were trying to say, and it is true, but it does not refute the point I made in my first post."
ahhh, ok, you agree w/me about Professors. I dont even take it w/a grain of salt, but that is not important. I dont believe this professors statement at all. It was false, because I dont know a modern nation that uses only one source.
But...not important.
I dont get the point about 1% use of the field over 200 years either, thats not what I was trying to say.
I was tring to say that if the US used only 10% of their basic consumption, the Field would last 20 years at todays pumping ability of that field. I was being purely theoretical, using your Professors assumption.
Yes, I believe it IS obvious that the US will use other sources of Oil consumption, that was the reason for my statement up using an inflated total of 10% vs. that field.
Im glad you were able to "Guess" thats what I meant, because that EXACTLY what I meant. It means that your Professor, using Leftist Fuzzy Math, made an illogical, stupid, asinine assumption that would actually invade the mush minds of his mind numbed robot students. These same students would quote his asinine assumption, and look what happens, when that statement is parroted.
Yes, your point is still valid. Its absolutely and entirely illogical in it implementation, although it is true.
I would assume my statement is entirely off the mark as well, I would assume probably less than 10% total consumption would come from that field. Its just that my point it entirely more logically correct in its feasibility.
Would you agree ?
Ohhh...by the way, run my post through a spell checker for me.....I dont have the time to do it.
Come .......joust w/the master.
I'm always Right. You are just intellectually Left.....behind.
Individual patriot, and a REAGAN Conservative.