News Massive oil reserves found in the US

[GENIERE]

Of course it is not a new discovery, the western Indian kept warm by burning rocks long before the white man set foot in the Americas.

In parts of Colorado there may be as much as a billion barrels of oil per square mile; the state has the largest fossil fuel deposits in the entire world and sufficient supply to satisfy demand for 200-300 years at present rates of consumption.

Previous attempts over the last century to extract the oil have not resulted in profitable operations due to the low price of well oil and the usual ineptness of the Carter administration (Synfuel Corp). Additionally, a means to prevent environmental damage by the extraction process was not available.

To encourage investment and production of extracted shale oil it is necessary for the investor to be reasonably sure that the price of well oil remains above $30.00 and the extraction process incurs minimal environmental damage. In the past the Saudis merely opened or closed the taps to maintain the price of oil at whatever level they chose. The explosive expansion of the economies of India and China will surely keep the price per barrel of oil above $30.00, investment in the production of shale oil is certain.

Shell Oil Corp. has apparently resolved the economic and environmental issues and may soon (2009) move from pilot operations to full production. The US is assured of ample energy for years to come. In fact the entire world is assured of an ample supply as the US has only about 1/3 of known shale oil reserves.

I am strongly against using shale oil to solve our energy needs in the long term although I am not against its use in the short term. While some recent studies show human influence on global warming may not be as great as previously thought and that global warming may marginally benefit the US, I believe smokestack industry and distillate powered transportation should eventually (quickly) go the way of the horse drawn carriage.

There are many non-fossil fuel sources of energy available to us. Of all the sources, only wind farms and nuclear power can provide more than a small fraction of our energy requirements. Wind farms apparently can provide as much as 30% of our needs if fully exploited. That leaves only nuclear power to provide for the rest of our needs, fission now, hopefully fusion later (ITER). Nuclear and wind power can generate hydrogen in an environmentally friendly manner and allow me to drive from point A to point B with only water dripping from my tail pipe.

The environmentalists have a choice; chose the least damaging energy source or chose to impede the construction of nuclear power plants and complain about birds flying into windmills.

Some info taken from: http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050901/COLUMNS03/509010309/1081/business

.

 

[sid_galt]

Nuclear and wind power can generate hydrogen in an environmentally friendly manner and allow me to drive from point A to point B with only water dripping from my tail pipe.

I don't think hydrogen will be a viable energy carrier for atleast 50 years. Too many storage problems. And if a way is found to extract shale oil cheaply or more oil wells are found, then you can say goodbye to hydrogen for atleast a century.

The environmentalists have a choice; chose the least damaging energy source or chose to impede the construction of nuclear power plants and complain about birds flying into windmills.

The way they talk, it seems the only thing they want to do is harm progress.
They are opposed to virtually every technology which uses fuel.

Besides, it shouldn't be upto the environmentalists to decide what energy source we are going to use.

 

[GENIERE]

I don't think hydrogen will be a viable energy carrier for atleast 50 years. Too many storage problems. And if a way is found to extract shale oil cheaply or more oil wells are found, then you can say goodbye to hydrogen for atleast a century.

If energy is cheap enough, hydrogen might be generated at point of use.

Besides, it shouldn't be upto the environmentalists to decide what energy source we are going to use.

They've stupidly and sucessfully blocked the construction of nuclear power plants for several decades. They've stupidly and successfully shut down wind mill operation during times of bird migration.

 

[hitssquad]

Nuclear power can be used to generate gasoline. Why would hydrogen be used instead of gasoline?

 

[pattylou]

While some recent studies show human influence on global warming may not be as great as previously thought ...
.

I'd like to see these studies. Can you point me towards them? I have not seen such studies in the peer-reviewed literature; I have only seen such things coming from places like The Marshall Institue (funded by ExxonMobil.)

Thank you Geniere.

 

[pattylou]

They've stupidly and sucessfully blocked the construction of nuclear power plants for several decades. They've stupidly and successfully shut down wind mill operation during times of bird migration.

Perhaps some environmentalists have - but it sounds as though you are painting with a very broad brush. Can you put a number on how much energy the environmentalists have prevented (the percentage of clean energy that they have prevented)? I expect there may have been some cases, but my guess is that (1)environmentalists have been *more* active in promoting clean energy than in impeding it and (2) that any cases of successfully impeding it, have represented a vanishingly small minority of the alternative energy sources that are out there.

It's even possible that for every case of shutting down a nuclear power plant or the like, that an alternative was propsed. It would be nice to see some actual cases.

 

[Mercator]

Oil

I agree with you Geniere. There is another reason why we should not burn oil: we should save it to manufacture chemicals. You cannot manufacture chemicals from wind or nuclear power. Hydrogen will be the power source of the future, probably in the form of methanol fed fuel cells (which produce H2). Methanol is easier and safer to transport. The whole distribution system that exists for gasoline can relatively easily be transformed for methanol. And methanol can be made from renewable sources, although f.e. here in China a lot of effort is put in the coal to methanol process technology. China has enormous coal reserves and little oil.
Besides it would be a good thing for the whole world to be less dependent on middle east oil and the undemocratic regimes controlling it.

 

[hitssquad]

You cannot manufacture chemicals from wind or nuclear power.

Nuclear power can be used to manufacture petrochemicals, even in the complete absence of petroleum feedstocks.

 

[Anttech]

Nuclear power can be used to generate gasoline. Why would hydrogen be used instead of gasoline?

Excuse my ignorance, but how does that work?

 

[Mercator]

Nuclear power can be used to manufacture petrochemicals, even in the complete absence of petroleum feedstocks.

Yes, in theory it's possible to manufacture any element if only you have enough energy. It may be even possible to imagine a world without plastics, and some other form of matter/energy being used to manufacture all items that we now use in our daily life. But in my humble opinion, that is much further away than the time to deplete our oilstocks. You will need fusion first and then decades of science and experimenting to make the molecules we need. In the meantime, I rest my case, it's more stupid to burn a perfectly good material than to use it in plastics and chemicals, much of which can be re-used.

 

[sid_galt]

Nuclear power can be used to manufacture petrochemicals, even in the complete absence of petroleum feedstocks.

But is that more or less expensive than manufacturing hydrogen?

 

[gravenewworld]

The internal combustion engine has been around for about 200 years, why are we still using gas? I find it hard to believe we can invent computers and advance them to where they are today in only about 50 years, but can't invent some other efficient way (that can also be mass produced easily) to power a car besides an internal combustion engine.

 

[hitssquad]

Nuclear power can be used to manufacture petrochemicals, even in the complete absence of petroleum feedstocks.

But is that more or less expensive than manufacturing hydrogen?

Hydrogen cannot directly replace most petrochemicals, so your question is irrelevant. Here is a short list of petrochemicals used in American industry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrochemical

 

[sid_galt]

Hydrogen cannot directly replace most petrochemicals, so your question is irrelevant.[/url]

I meant would a hydrogen powered car be cheaper to run than a petroleum powered car provided the efficiencies are the same and petroleum is sythesized rather than extracted.

 

[loseyourname]

I'd like to see these studies. Can you point me towards them? I have not seen such studies in the peer-reviewed literature; I have only seen such things coming from places like The Marshall Institue (funded by ExxonMobil.)

Thank you Geniere.

Come on, patty. He goes on to say that even though some studies have suggested global warming may not be as affected by humans as previously thought, we should still seek to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. Why do you want to see references to studies that he is dismissing and that have nothing to do with the case he is building? Remove that clause from his sentence, and it doesn't make any meaningful change to the paragraph or his larger argument.

 

[pattylou]

I'd like to see the study. Period.

Does it exist? I've never heard of it. The clause completely flies in the face of what I have read about our understanding of warming. I'll go do a quick search for relevant peer-reviewed articles published in the last month. (Edit: could not find a reliable search string to limit articles to the past month.)

If the study *doesn't* exist, then it is interesting that a segment of the population thinks it does.

 

[pattylou]

Here's the search string from google scholar I am using:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=climate+change+2005

Also this string from pubmed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=16177779

 

[pattylou]

Some come from prior to 2005, despite me including 2005 in the search.

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years
Thomas J. Crowley

Recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the past 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to those of control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ~1000-year time series results in a residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st-century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.

Nature. 2003 Mar 20;422(6929):292-4. Related Articles, Links


Detection of human influence on sea-level pressure.

Gillett NP, Zwiers FW, Weaver AJ, Stott PA.

School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, PO Box 3055, Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 3P6, Canada. gillett@uvic.ca

Greenhouse gases and tropospheric sulphate aerosols--the main human influences on climate--have been shown to have had a detectable effect on surface air temperature, the temperature of the free troposphere and stratosphere and ocean temperature. Nevertheless, the question remains as to whether human influence is detectable in any variable other than temperature. Here we detect an influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in observations of winter sea-level pressure (December to February), using combined simulations from four climate models. We find increases in sea-level pressure over the subtropical North Atlantic Ocean, southern Europe and North Africa, and decreases in the polar regions and the North Pacific Ocean, in response to human influence. Our analysis also indicates that the climate models substantially underestimate the magnitude of the sea-level pressure response. This discrepancy suggests that the upward trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation index (corresponding to strengthened westerlies in the North Atlantic region), as simulated in a number of global warming scenarios, may be too small, leading to an underestimation of the impacts of anthropogenic climate change on European climate.

The abstract below *might* imply that human activities have less to do with climate change than previously thought, but such a conclusion seems to be a real stretch. All the abstract seems to be saying along these lines is that simulations do not match observations as well as we might hope.

Science. 2002 Aug 30;297(5586):1497-502. Related Articles, Links


Dynamics of recent climate change in the Arctic.

Moritz RE, Bitz CM, Steig EJ.

Polar Science Center, Quaternary Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105-6698, USA. dickm@apl.washington.edu

The pattern of recent surface warming observed in the Arctic exhibits both polar amplification and a strong relation with trends in the Arctic Oscillation mode of atmospheric circulation. Paleoclimate analyses indicate that Arctic surface temperatures were higher during the 20th century than during the preceding few centuries and that polar amplification is a common feature of the past. Paleoclimate evidence for Holocene variations in the Arctic Oscillation is mixed. Current understanding of physical mechanisms controlling atmospheric dynamics suggests that anthropogenic influences could have forced the recent trend in the Arctic Oscillation, but simulations with global climate models do not agree. In most simulations, the trend in the Arctic Oscillation is much weaker than observed. In addition, the simulated warming tends to be largest in autumn over the Arctic Ocean, whereas observed warming appears to be largest in winter and spring over the continents.

The abstract below again seems to acknowledge human effects on climate.

Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2003 Sep 15;361(1810):1831-48; discussion 1848-9. Related Articles, Links


Palaeoclimatic insights into future climate challenges.

Alley RB.

Department of Geosciences, The Pennsylvania State University, 517 Deike Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA. ralley@essc.psu.edu

Palaeoclimatic data document a sensitive climate system subject to large and perhaps difficult-to-predict abrupt changes. These data suggest that neither the sensitivity nor the variability of the climate are fully captured in some climate-change projections, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers. Because larger, faster and less-expected climate changes can cause more problems for economies and ecosystems, the palaeoclimatic data suggest the hypothesis that the future may be more challenging than anticipated in ongoing policy making. Large changes have occurred repeatedly with little net forcing. Increasing carbon dioxide concentration appears to have globalized deglacial warming, with climate sensitivity near the upper end of values from general circulation models (GCMs) used to project human-enhanced greenhouse warming; data from the warm Cretaceous period suggest a similarly high climate sensitivity to CO(2). Abrupt climate changes of the most recent glacial-interglacial cycle occurred during warm as well as cold times, linked especially to changing North Atlantic freshwater fluxes. GCMs typically project greenhouse-gas-induced North Atlantic freshening and circulation changes with notable but not extreme consequences; however, such models often underestimate the magnitude, speed or extent of past changes. Targeted research to assess model uncertainties would help to test these hypotheses.

In my search, which yielded a number of papers that make no mention of human contribution or not, a number of papers that indicate human forcing via CO2, one abstract that indicates models are unsatisfactory---

I found *none* that said "Human contributions to warming are less than previously thought."

I *suspect* this sort of statement is propaganda (though not necessarily from the original poster.) This is why I'd like to see the study.

Make sense?

(Sorry that I couldn't stick to my "in the past month" criterion. I don't know how to constrain dates properly, and the search strings ended up pulling stuff from 2000 onwards.)

 

[Informal Logic]

...While some recent studies show human influence on global warming may not be as great as previously thought and that global warming may marginally benefit the US...

Realizing this is a snip, I agree with pattylou that if anything scientists are concerned that warming is occurring faster than originally predicted. In reference to benefits of warming for the US, the threat of rising sea levels to low lying cities like New Orleans, New York, Miami, etc., adverse affects of crops, etc. hardly seem beneficial.

Speaking of New Orleans, there were claims that the flooding occurred because of environmentalists. Environmentalists have long advocated preservation of the wetlands to prevent flooding, and the wetlands would provide a buffer from strong storms and hurricanes. Environmentalists are responsible in part for the lack of nuclear power plants, but mostly it is fear of the general populace who do not want these plants near their neighborhoods, and the same goes for refineries and other energy production or processing (even power lines, which is an eye sore that decreases property value). Once again, I agree with pattylou that claims should be substantiated with evidence, because many of the claims are anti liberal hype.

IMO the biggest reason we are still dependent on oil is because of the power of oil companies. In the meantime, what is the status of the oil reserves in Iraq? The Bush regime has their hands in all these things as well.

 

[loseyourname]

I'd like to see the study. Period.

Does it exist? I've never heard of it. The clause completely flies in the face of what I have read about our understanding of warming. I'll go do a quick search for relevant peer-reviewed articles published in the last month. (Edit: could not find a reliable search string to limit articles to the past month.)

If the study *doesn't* exist, then it is interesting that a segment of the population thinks it does.

Have your way then, but as far as I can tell, you've just seriously hijacked the thread. The point was not to discuss the reality of human contributions to global warming. The least you could so is put this stuff in a separate thread.

 

[pattylou]

Sorry. I have no intent to hijack.

I am used to threaded boards, where a related tangent goes under the initial post and creates its own spin off.

I *do* think if any part of a post is questionable, it is appropriate to point it out. I am not sure a separate thread is effective for that, as some people only follow certain threads.

I prefer threaded boards, probably for this reason.

 

[loseyourname]

You should suggest to Greg, sometime before the upgrade tonight, that he enable a threaded view option, which I do think vBulletin can support.

Anyway, my thing is just that if you take that clause out of the post, it does not alter the meaning at all. Geniere was not trying to say anything about global warming. What he was saying is that, even if it should prove true that human contributions are not as great as we currently think, we should still seek to eliminate greenhouse emissions. He can make such a hypothetical imperative statement, one that I think you would even agree with, without having to reference any studies. In general, I think it is a good practice to cite references when you are making a claim.

In short, if we was claiming that human contributions to global warming were not as significant as widely thought, then he should provide a source or two for why he thinks that. His claim, however, was that shale oil reserves can meet our energy needs until we are able to develop alternative energies. He did provide a source for that claim. And the thread seemed to be intended to discuss that claim.

 

[pattylou]

I'll apologise in advance for the thread I started on GD asking for clarification on protocol. It's going to sound harsh to you.

Sorry. It's not intended that way.

As far as a threaded option, I don't think that would change the problem here - it would only affect *my* screen, right?

 

[edward]

If this thread is about energy production, then yes Patty lou was off topic.
But if the thread is only about energy production, it is in the wrong forum.

It appears that the answer to the question of whether or not oil shale can be successfully and economically used is still a few years in the future. If it can be, it will as conventional petroleum has, deter the development of new energy sources.

We do need to know now if global warming is related to the use of hydrocarbon fuels. If it is so then we don't want to start production on another 100 year supply of something that will increase global warming.

 

[Skyhunter]

Speaking of New Orleans, there were claims that the flooding occurred because of environmentalists

Yes there were false claims started by the Justice department looking for cards to play in the "blame game" and then echoed by fox and other propaganda outlets.

The Clarion-Ledger has obtained a copy of an internal e-mail the U.S. Department of Justice sent out this week to various U.S. attorneys' offices: "Has your district defended any cases on behalf of the (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers against claims brought by environmental groups seeking to block or otherwise impede the Corps work on the levees protecting New Orleans? If so, please describe the case and the outcome of the litigation."

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050916/NEWS0110/509160369/1260

September 14, 2005
FOX News Tries To Blame Environmentalists For New Orleans Floods

Is there anyone besides the federal government that FOX News is not looking to blame for Hurricane Katrina? Maybe God. Everyone and everything else seems to be fair game. You could almost hear the glee coming from the FOX News producers as William La Jeunesse reported on the latest scapegoat for the destruction - the environmentalists. Unfortunately, a savvy environmentalist guest spoiled the plan.

La Jeunesse started the segment with a report that "some experts" said the floodng could have been avoided if environmentalists had not "interfered" in a project to build floodgates at the mouth of Lake Pontchartrain 25 years ago. Apparently, an environmental group sued to prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from going ahead with it.

Lajeunesse ended his report with this "fair and balanced conclusion: "And consider the cost. Reconstructing the Crescent City, about a hundred billion dollars. When proposed, the flood control project would have cost one-tenth as much."

A happy surprise was guest Valsin A. Marmillion, spokesperson for America's Wetlands, which was not the group who sued to stop the floodgate project. Hannity tried to get Marmillion to admit that the project would have prevented the flood but Marmillion, who remained calm and congenial, told him there was no way to know. Then, much to Hannity's chagrin, I'm sure, Marmillion added, "What I can say is that if the wetlands had not been disappearing at a rate that they have been, a football field every half-hour, it would be a different story." He explained that it's not an either/or proposition but that both have to be done. He said flood control and saving the wetlands "have to go in tandem."

Thwarted in his effort to blame the flood on environmentalists, Hannity attacked "environmental extremism" for being "the reason we can't drill anywhere, we can't do any coal mining, we haven't built any refineries, we don't support nuclear power" and for "greatly impacting American lives."

Marmillion answered pleasantly, "That's not the story tonight. The story tonight is more complex and I'm glad you raised what you did." He said that the issue has about 10 or 15 solutions "and what we need to do is marry the wetlands protection with flood protection in a comprehensive plan." He said the state has been working on it for 10 years and "we've been trying to get the attention..." He never said whose attention but it sounded a lot like he meant the federal government. He said that five days before the hurricane, the governor of Louisiana had asked the citizens to "start writing people" and tell them what a serious situation it was.

You go, Mr. Marmillion! Hannity didn't even have a chance to mention the mayor and the buses.

Now back on topic:

If Shell oil has developed an economical and environmentally sound method of extracting shale oil, does that mean we can bring our soldiers home now?

 

[Anttech]

If Shell oil has developed an economical and environmentally sound method of extracting shale oil

Well yes, but via The Netherlands to force democracy on the Royal Dutch Shell company... ;-)

 

[deckart]

No, that would be irresponsible at this point.

 

[deckart]

Yes there were false claims started by the Justice department looking for cards to play in the "blame game" and then echoed by fox and other propaganda outlets.



http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050916/NEWS0110/509160369/1260



Now back on topic:

If Shell oil has developed an economical and environmentally sound method of extracting shale oil, does that mean we can bring our soldiers home now?

No, that would be irresponsible at this point.

 

[Anttech]

No, that would be irresponsible at this point.

Becuase its really helping being there?

 

[deckart]

Because, if we had your way, we will have done a half-ass job that will wipe away any trust that the Iraqi public has placed in us. And those same people that placed their trust in us will be in great danger of certain death by those that oppose them. We need to stay and finish the job.

 

[edward]

Because, if we had your way, we will have done a half-ass job that will wipe away any trust that the Iraqi public has placed in us

On the other hand if we stay there is no certainty that we may end up only doing a quarter-ass job

 

[Anttech]

Because, if we had your way, we will have done a half-ass job

If we had it my way (dont presume to know what I would or wouldn't do, please) "we" wouldn't have been there in the first place... The course "we" are on is eveidently not working... An exit stratigy should be put in place.

wipe away any trust that the Iraqi public has placed in us. And those same people that placed their trust in us will be in great danger of certain death by those that oppose them

They didnt "Place there trust in you". You forced your ideals on them...

The Danger of "Death" in Iraq is far higher since America arrived than before, also the stability of the ME is less...

We need to stay and finish the job.

What job would that be? Plunge Iraq into cival war? Involve Iran in the War... Reap the ecconmic beniefts? Even the US Administrations reteric is changing towards Iraq, with more slant towards getting UN help...

Anyway this is off topic

 

[edward]

Oops sorry major topic change, so meanwhile back in Wyoming at the oil shale ranch.......

 

[deckart]

Don't forget all that oil in Alaska. If we can finally open up ANWR.

A question for people in the know: do we have enough oil in N America to satisfy our own demand?

As far as the other subject, regardles of how you feel, we are going to stay and finish we started in Iraq.

 

[GENIERE]

I'd like to see the study. Period…

Does it exist? I've never heard of it…

I’m sure you haven’t, why not type “global warming” in your search engine and press enter, it’s really very easy. Eliminate the results that appeal to your biased assumptions and…

The study, the most recent that I’m aware of, can be found here:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005.../2005GL023849.shtml

Since there’s charge for a download go here:

http://www.physorg.com/news6892.html

Any study, peer reviewed or not, that states human activity is the cause of global warming is a flawed study. Any study that states human activity is not the cause of global warming is a flawed study. Thaks to Fahrenheit and others we know global warming is occurring. No one, not even Pattylou, knows how much or how little can be attributed to human activity.

From the National Academy of Sciences report to the President:(I got carried away with the BOLD thingy)

"The most valuable contribution U.S. scientists can make is to continually question basic assumptions and conclusions, promote clear and careful appraisal and presentation of the uncertainties about climate change as well as those areas in which science is leading to robust conclusions, and work toward a significant improvement in the ability to project the future."

Key points:

. Uncertainties in climate science throw the question of human causality of climate change into doubt;
· Uncertainties in projecting future social trends make predictions of future climate conditions "tentative;"
· Political influences played a significant role in shaping the "Summary for Policymakers of the United Nations'
· Understanding of climate change science is far from complete and is, in fact, still rudimentary in many areas.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/060701F.html

The following excerpt from the “Heidelberg Appeal”, an appeal that was initially signed by more than 4000 scientists including 70 Nobel prize winners, was written in response to the sometimes very bad “science” re: global warming. Over 13000 more signatures have since been added:

“We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere, insofar as humanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse. We full subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved.

But we herewith demand that this stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational [/size]preconceptions. “

It would be nice to get back on topic.

.

 

[pattylou]

Thank you Geniere.

As you know, I google "Global Warming" on a regular basis.

I appreciate you acknowledging that your claim did not come from peer reviewed papers, and that a major source for your views on the contribution of humanity to climate change, is the Bush administration's statements on the matter.

You might check out a book titled "The Republican War on Science" to see how a segment of the administration tries to "blur" science that does not lie in line with their platform and agenda.

As far as getting back on topic, I'll do my bit:

I think extracting from shale carries a higher cost (eroei energy returned on energy invested) than cleaner sources. So whereas in the past we could use a barrel of oil (its equivalent in energy) to drill and get 20 barrels back (eroei = 1:20), extracting from shale has an eroei of around 1:2. It is such an energy - expensive method, to get that oil out of the shale, is more costly than solar, wind, and so on.

The oil industry wants the cheapest energy they can find. They won't be extracting from shale if they can switch over to nuclear, for example. At some point, it just doesn't make financial sense.

 

[Skyhunter]

Well as far as the Republican controlled House of Representatives is concerned, we are going to be dependent on oil for the foreseeable future.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-energy8oct08,0,3327801.story?coll=la-home-nation

I still wonder what $200 billion invested in solar technology instead of a frivolous war, would do to the price of PV solar panels.

 

[edward]

Originall posted by Geniere:

Any study, peer reviewed or not, that states human activity is the cause of global warming is a flawed study. Any study that states human activity is not the cause of global warming is a flawed study. Thaks to Fahrenheit and others we know global warming is occurring. No one, not even Pattylou, knows how much or how little can be attributed to human activity.

This flies in the face of the U.S. Ban on clorofluorocarbon refrigerants ie freon. 11 and 12.
We knew that the refrigerants must be affecting the Ozone layer, but we had no quantitative evidence. Yet they were banned, most likely because the ban did not cause a significant economic impact. And yes, there were those who were not in favor of the ban.

We do know exactly how much CO2 is spewed into the atmosphere from fossil fuels.
CO2 from human activity does not have to be the primary cause of global warming to be detrimental. We know that there have been warming periods in the past history of the earth. We also know that this is the first time in the history of the Earth that massive amounts of CO2 have been generated by non geological forces.

To wait until quantified emperical evidence can be produced is to take a very dangerous stance. The atomic bomb was created based on theory not on emperical evidence.

As far as oil shale as a topic goes; if it is a discussion on the development of an energy source, does it really belong in the political forum? There is no way to bring up fossil fuels on this forum without expecting to get some flak.

 

[Mercator]

A question for people in the know: do we have enough oil in N America to satisfy our own demand?

As far as the other subject, regardles of how you feel, we are going to stay and finish we started in Iraq.

Simple answer: No. A good illustration of that fact is that the US has always been the biggest importer of Iraqi oil. Legal and illegal. Before, during and after the Iraq invasion.

As far as the other subject is concerned: what did you start exactly in Iraq? A super recruiting center for terrorists?

 

[deckart]

Simple answer: No. A good illustration of that fact is that the US has always been the biggest importer of Iraqi oil. Legal and illegal. Before, during and after the Iraq invasion.

As far as the other subject is concerned: what did you start exactly in Iraq? A super recruiting center for terrorists?

I'm not convinced that "No" is the answer based on your reasoning. We started importing oil long before we realized our current oil producing potential. So my question is for those that know what that potential is and how much that could satisfy our demand.

As far as the other subject is concerned: I'm firm in my stand and I'm not debating it any further.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm not convinced that "No" is the answer based on your reasoning. We started importing oil long before we realized our current oil producing potential. So my question is for those that know what that potential is and how much that could satisfy our demand.

An example to clarify: If a man has a $10 million gold nugget buried in his backyard, but doesn't realize it is there, and then goes to the bank to ask for a loan to buy a car, it's not because he doesn't have a $10 million gold nugget buried in his backyard. It's because he doesn't realize the gold nugget is there.

 

[deckart]

An example to clarify: If a man has a $10 million gold nugget buried in his backyard, but doesn't realize it is there, and then goes to the bank to ask for a loan to buy a car, it's not because he doesn't have a $10 million gold nugget buried in his backyard. It's because he doesn't realize the gold nugget is there.

Great analogy! So, now that we have found the nugget(s), what's it worth in oil potential?

 

[Mercator]

I'm not convinced that "No" is the answer based on your reasoning. We started importing oil long before we realized our current oil producing potential. So my question is for those that know what that potential is and how much that could satisfy our demand.

As far as the other subject is concerned: I'm firm in my stand and I'm not debating it any further.

You did not see any reasoning, because I did not use any in this sentence. Mine was an illustration. If you come up with an easy and exact answer to your question about the potential, please let us know, the whole energy sector is trying to find out. If for example liquefaction of coal proves to be economically viable on a big scale, then it's a real big nugget. Problem is that the investments to dig up the nuggets will be huge, because a whole new infrastructure needs to be built and old infrastructure discarded. The problem is complex and has political consequences as well. Let's say that you decide to exploite coals and oilsands, because it's feasible with an oil cost of around 70 $ per barrel. Once that step is taken, the chances are that oil producing countries will lower the price of oil and your competitors, who did not invest heavily in the new technology and infrastructure will have a cost advantage over you. Therefore, while developing this new resource, your government will hold on to the control over substantial oil reserves abroad. In Iraq and if possible in Iran too. So yes, you will probably finish what you started there. You started by using 50 % of Iraq's oil output under the food for oil program. You bullied and bribed and frauded your way to Iraqi oil, while blaming the French and the Germans, who only used about 10 % of what you got out of Iraq. You used European straw men to get what you wanted and to be able to put the blame on them. And when that did not work anymore, you used brute force.

 

[edward]

oil shale potential

Is just that, potential

Only Shell has a small operation which appears to economically produce a usable produst. Google around a bit and you will notice that a lot of the, "oil shale potential talk", Is being done by companies looking for investors.

The term "oil shale" is a misnomer. It does not contain oil nor is it commonly shale. The organic material is chiefly kerogen, and the "shale" is usually a relatively hard rock, called marl. Properly processed, kerogen can be converted into a substance somewhat similar to petroleum. However, it has not gone through the "oil window" of heat (nature’s way of producing oil) and therefore, to be changed into an oil-like substance, it must be heated to a high temperature. By this process the organic material is converted into a liquid, which must be further processed to produce an oil which is said to be better than the lowest grade of oil produced from conventional oil deposits, but of lower quality than the upper grades of conventional oil.

There are two conventional approaches to oil shale processing. In one, the shale is fractured in-situ and heated to obtain gases and liquids by wells. The second is by mining, transporting, and heating the shale to about 450oC, adding hydrogen to the resulting product, and disposing of and stabilising the waste. Both processes use considerable water. The total energy and water requirements together with environmental and monetary costs (to produce shale oil in significant quantities) have so far made production uneconomic. During and following the oil crisis of the 1970’s, major oil companies, working on some of the richest oil shale deposits in the world in western United States, spent several billion dollars in various unsuccessful attempts to commercially extract shale oil.

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/shale/shale.asp

A good read on oil shale potential is at:

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf

 

[Entropy]

Damnit, people just don't get it. If we keep using oil as a major energy source we will only further screw up the planet. It is completely possible to switch to a cleaner alternative energy source in 10 years, so why not just get it over with?

 

[hitssquad]

oil [...] It is completely possible to switch to a cleaner alternative energy source in 10 years

Which energy source is that?

 

[deckart]

Which energy source is that?

What he said...

 

[Entropy]

Hydrogen or ethanol.

 

[deckart]

Both hydrogen and ethanol require a lot of energy to manufacture. Until we find a cheaper source of fuel, the world is running on oil.

http://www.chemguide.co.uk/organicprops/alcohols/manufacture.html"


http://www.uigi.com/hydrogen.html"

 

[Skyhunter]

Damnit, people just don't get it. If we keep using oil as a major energy source we will only further screw up the planet. It is completely possible to switch to a cleaner alternative energy source in 10 years, so why not just get it over with?

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, by setting the goal of putting a man on the moon in less than a decade, demonstrated that if we have the will we can find the way. We can solve all our energy problems through conservation, innovation, adapting different lifestyles, redesigning our cities, etc. All we are lacking is the political will.