Massive oil reserves found in the US

[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.

 

[deckart]

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.

Conservation and adapting different lifestyles is a tough sell, Sky. It's not just political will, it's public will. Start with the public and politics will follow.

 

[jimmie]

Start with the public and politics will follow.

Start with the individual, Me/you, and other individuals (public/politics) will follow.

 

[Skyhunter]

Conservation and adapting different lifestyles is a tough sell, Sky. It's not just political will, it's public will. Start with the public and politics will follow.

Kennedy didn't wait for the public to demand we go to the moon, he set us on the path, that is what leaders do, lead.

It is not as tough a sell as you think. When Americans are told the truth, they will do the right thing. The problem is that the vested interests, who have most of the power are lying to us. Telling us that we need oil, global warming is a myth, the Earth can absorb the pollution we are generating, Environmental practices will hurt us economically, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

 

[loseyourname]

It is not as tough a sell as you think. When Americans are told the truth, they will do the right thing. The problem is that the vested interests, who have most of the power are lying to us. Telling us that we need oil, global warming is a myth, the Earth can absorb the pollution we are generating, Environmental practices will hurt us economically, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Maybe you are too old to have experienced this, but public education bombarded me in elementary school with the three R's, with the policy of conservation, and with tales of global warming and overconsumption of resources. I also know that they're still doing it to kids today, as I volunteer with elementary schoolkids and see the material they're reading. That's twenty years at least that they've been doing this. The next generation of American leaders almost certainly will be different, unless they simply were not paying attention growing up.

 

[Smurf]

unless they simply were not paying attention growing up.

Ya think?

 

[Smurf]

Kennedy didn't wait for the public to demand we go to the moon, he set us on the path, that is what leaders do, lead.
It is not as tough a sell as you think. When Americans are told the truth, they will do the right thing. The problem is that the vested interests, who have most of the power are lying to us. Telling us that we need oil, global warming is a myth, the Earth can absorb the pollution we are generating, Environmental practices will hurt us economically, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Behind you 100% of the way Skyhunter. The problem is the government is a civilian government anymore, it's a corporate government. Almost our entire policy (and this goes for Canada but even more so the US) is decided on how the economy will do.

 

[Skyhunter]

Maybe you are too old to have experienced this, but public education bombarded me in elementary school with the three R's, with the policy of conservation, and with tales of global warming and overconsumption of resources. I also know that they're still doing it to kids today, as I volunteer with elementary schoolkids and see the material they're reading. That's twenty years at least that they've been doing this. The next generation of American leaders almost certainly will be different, unless they simply were not paying attention growing up.

We had a 2 cent deposit on bottles when I was growing up, theat was the closest thing to recycling we had. I am glad to hear that they are teaching the three R's in school.

 

[Skyhunter]

Behind you 100% of the way Skyhunter. The problem is the government is a civilian government anymore, it's a corporate government. Almost our entire policy (and this goes for Canada but even more so the US) is decided on how the economy will do.

Kennedy was a maverick politician, he and his brother bucked the system, and the mob. You see where it got them. I don't think we have any more "profiles in courage" today like what was demonstrated by Jack and Bobby Kennedy. Teddy isn't even a shadow of them.