• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project

Dpetty said:
How can you be right about shale oil and oil shale when you havent said two words about it not being a viable option. Tell me Karl, why will shale not work? Its there, we can get it. Why wont it work?
Click to expand...
So, your unproven claim is correct unless someone can prove it wrong -- that's your argument? :lamo

Your original claim:

Dpetty said:
[...] There is more oil to be found within the borders of our own country than we could possibly hope to use in 1000 years of driving oil burning, piece of crap, pre emission regulated trucks! [...] We need to drill here, and drill now. [...]
Click to expand...

When asked for details on how that would work:

Dpetty said:
[...] I dont have the answer to that question. [...]
Click to expand...

I think we're done here... :doh
 
Karl said:
So, your unproven claim is correct unless someone can prove it wrong -- that's your argument?
Click to expand...

Hahahaha i could say the same thing about your electric car scenario! You wanna talk about unproven lets start there! And since shale oil IS a proven source, you have no point.

And dont start manipulating what i said Karl, i said i dont have the answer to the following question you asked:


How much of your treasure trove of oil can you get out of the ground, suitable for refining, measured in barrels per day?
Click to expand...
If you had any credibility to start with, you would have lost it right there. You cant take peoples comments and twist them to suit your needs. I cant answer such a vague question because there are a lot of variables involved and i dont work in the oil industry. If you want details as to the method of extraction, i can certainly provide those.

Just go home Karl, i dont see a lot of people agreeing with you here and your just talking yourself into a corner with your flagrant inability to carry on a conversation.
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
So, your unproven claim is correct unless someone can prove it wrong -- that's your argument? :lamo

Your original claim:



When asked for details on how that would work:



I think we're done here... :doh
Click to expand...

Since you refuse to acknowledge information from credible sources, it is obvious that YOU are done.
 
Hats off to Dpetty in this thread...Fantastic, and succinct lay out of your argument...Are you in the industry? If not, you should be.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Hats off to Dpetty in this thread...Fantastic, and succinct lay out of your argument...Are you in the industry? If not, you should be.


j-mac
Click to expand...
Hey thanks J-mac. No im not in the industry, i just feel that if we could change this one aspect of government and become our own producers of oil, it would free up the economy to work its magic in every other facet of our lives... We would all benefit as a nation if we can get back to where gas is simply something we put in our cars to make them go, instead of it being a monthly budget burden just to get back and forth to work.
 
Dpetty said:
Hahahaha i could say the same thing about your electric car scenario! You wanna talk about unproven lets start there! And since shale oil IS a proven source, you have no point.

And dont start manipulating what i said Karl, i said i dont have the answer to the following question you asked:

If you had any credibility to start with, you would have lost it right there. You cant take peoples comments and twist them to suit your needs. I cant answer such a vague question because there are a lot of variables involved and i dont work in the oil industry. If you want details as to the method of extraction, i can certainly provide those.

Just go home Karl, i dont see a lot of people agreeing with you here and your just talking yourself into a corner with your flagrant inability to carry on a conversation.
Click to expand...
Deflection does seem to be your forte. Let's sum up your argument:

1. You claim that we have enough of our own oil to last 1000 years while fueling any and all internal combustion vehicles we wish to drive (post #191).

2. You repeatedly do not answer a question asking how much oil we import, in barrels per day (which is rather easy to find, BTW).

3. You repeatedly do not answer a question asking how much oil we may be expected to produce from these wonderous, huge oil fields you spoke of, in barrels per day (which is not too hard to find, BTW). You finally admit that you do not have the answer to this question -- which makes one wonder how, then, you could possibly make the claim in item #1 above
confuse.gif


Instead of answering those rather basic questions, you instead challenge others to 'prove you wrong'. You seem to know nothing about oil shale other than how much there is, to the point of thinking it is simply a matter of "drilling enough holes" (post #207). You seem to know nothing about our current oil consumption or level of imports. And, of course, you resort to personal attacks (as we see above).

So -- tell us again why anyone should be expected to believe your claim in item #1?

==================================================================================

What is clear with this populist delusion that occupies the right wing talk media mind on this subject is that they simply cannot or will not think for themselves. The following mechanism is in play:

1. Right wing talk media -- in this case, probably Newt Gingrich (given the terminology parroted -- Drill here, Drill now) -- has made a pronouncement: that we have all the oil we could ever use.

2. Right wing talk media fans don't understand how that works.

3. Right wing talk media fans don't care that they don't understand how that works; they simply want to believe those that they admire (the right wing talk media heads in #1).

Clearly #2 above is the problem. But it is a problem that cannot be solved because of #3. Anyone (such as myself) who attempts to rectify #2 will be vilified because the people in #1 are admired by the right wing talk media fans. If the people in #1 are shown to be wrong, the right wing talk media fans will become confused. So, that brings us back to #3, which we can now modify:

3. Right wing talk media fans don't care that they don't understand how that works; they simply want to believe those that they admire (the right wing talk media heads in #1). In fact, they don't want to understand how that works, since it would make those that they admire (the right wing talk media heads in #1) wrong.

=============================================================================

Of course it is easy to see where my argument was going earlier -- we consume imported oil faster than we can get it out of the shale deposits (by about tenfold). So it doesn't matter if there is 50 quadrillion barrels of it -- if we can only get it out of the ground at a snails pace (maybe a million bbls per day; it's been a while since I've done the research) it is of no effective use to us, and at that rate it most certainly cannot supply us for any period of time, much less 1000 years (we consume about 20 million bbls per day, at least half of it imported).

But using the deductive reasoning of the Drill Me Now crowd, we get scenarios like this:

1. How much water is in the ocean?

2. How much of it can we drink?

They only care about #1. They absolutely do not want to hear about #2. The end result? As a species, they would die of thirst during a prolonged drought.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
By the way -- at current consumption, we'd need 7.3 trillion bbls of crude to last us 1,000 years. Seems like you're wrong again...
 
Last edited:
Gill said:
Since you refuse to acknowledge information from credible sources, it is obvious that YOU are done.
Click to expand...
You have provided none, that I have seen (at least in textual form).

You did provide a link to a Rand report which confirms my argument -- i.e., shale cannot be extracted at a rate anywhere close to being sufficient to eliminate imports, nor is available in sufficient quantity to supply us, in lieu of imports, for 1,000 years.

So once again, it appears that understanding information is the problem on your side of the debating table.
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
Deflection does seem to be your forte. Let's sum up your argument:QUOTE]

Karl said:
Deflection does seem to be your forte. Let's sum up your argument:
Click to expand...

Ok Karl, this is getting Boring. I’m only going to go over this one more time, cause its obvious you have no interest in doing anything but argue. You don’t seem to have any particular stance on this thread other than everyone but you is wrong. You stated that everyone should go to electric cars to get off of our oil dependency, yet when asked valid questions about how the infrastructure with that would work, all you did was insult those who asked you. I could do a whole montage of you dismissing peoples questions without answering them. So let me answer your questions listed above one last time...

You repeatedly do not answer a question asking how much oil we import, in barrels per day
Click to expand...

I was never asked this specific question, but the answer is we consume just under 20 million barrels per day (that is our total including all petroleum based product manufacturing, i.e plastics etc). In 2009 we were importing around 60% of that figure, in 2010 that dropped to around 50% due to a few factors, such as the rising cost of gas, the weaker economy, and the more fuel efficient vehicles being sold.

You repeatedly do not answer a question asking how much oil we may be expected to produce from these wonderous, huge oil fields you spoke of, in barrels per day (which is not too hard to find, BTW).
Click to expand...

Your not going to be happy till i give you a number for this question. As i stated before, this answer depends on a lot of factors. It depends on the amount of permits the government is willing to issue since around 72% of the land containing oil shale is under their control due to the Pickett act passed by congress in 1910, and a whole host of other factors. As someone stated in an earlier post the first method of mining oil shale was to take the shale out of the ground and crush it, to extract Kerogen (the precursor to oil and gas), which then had to be further refined into petroleum. A new technology called thermally conductive in-situ conversion (just one of the new mining techniques being developed), allows the rock to be heated while still in the ground and the oil thins to the point that it seeps from the rock and can then be pumped from the ground. This new tech has not been used on a large scale, but is said to be able to produce over one million barrels of oil per acre of ground. The following companies are actively researching their own methods of oil shale mining and all of them have applied to the BLM for grants to start field tests:

•Natural Soda, Inc. of Rifle, Colorado.
•EGL Resources Inc. of Midland, Texas.
•Salt Lake City-based Kennecott Exploration Company.
•Independent Energy Partners of Denver, Colorado
•Denver-based Phoenix Wyoming, Inc.
•Chevron Shale Oil Company.
•Exxon Mobil Corporation.
•Shell Frontier Oil and Gas Inc

There is a lot of money being spent to make oil shale viable. Exxon alone is spending 1 billion dollars, according to the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). Shell, who is working with the in-situ method says when they start producing, they can provide oil at $30 a barrel. Since these new techniques have not been applied on a large scale, BBL estimates are inaccurate. Exxon estimated 8 million barrels a day using the older extraction technology of strip mining, which is far more labor intensive and expensive than the new methods. The mining going on in the Bakken is still only utilizing a tiny portion of the land and they have gone from producing 3000 barrels a day in 2005 to 225,000 BBL in 2010. Estimates are that this operation alone could be producing 1 Million BBL by 2020. Add to that the rate that this tech is being developed and the number of companies scrambling to get in on the action, and its not that hard to see that within a few years we COULD be seeing most, if not all of our oil needs being supplied from shale oil. Even if we used this oil to simply lessen the amount we have to import, we would see an increase in domestic jobs, as well as a drastic drop in the price of gas and petroleum based products. Whether you believe this can relieve our reliance on foreign imports or not, there is to much potential to simply dismiss the option altogether.

Instead of answering those rather basic questions, you instead challenge others to 'prove you wrong'. You seem to know nothing about oil shale other than how much there is, to the point of thinking it is simply a matter of "drilling enough holes" (post #207). You seem to know nothing about our current oil consumption or level of imports
Click to expand...

If i have made any mistakes above, i would be more than happy to have them corrected. But correct them with facts not with denial. And where drilling is concerned, it sometimes is simply a matter of drilling enough holes... That seems pretty straightforward but a can draw you a picture if you want... I have answered your questions, now i challenge you to prove me wrong with logic and reason, im not going to keep running in circles with you, so unless you respond with something intelligent, im not going to reply.


P.s. Are you not expecting our cars to get any better mileage in the future?
Click to expand...
 
Dpetty said:
Karl said:
Karl said:
Dpetty said:
Is that it? Do you have anything intelligent to say? [...]
Click to expand...
I'm waiting on you.

I'd suggest you start with estimated production figures of refineable crude from the fields you mention, in bbls per day, vs. current crude importation levels (also in BPD). [...]
Click to expand...
[...] 2. You repeatedly do not answer a question asking how much oil we import, in barrels per day (which is rather easy to find, BTW).
Click to expand...
I was never asked this specific question [...]
Click to expand...
Wrong. Again.

You continue with deflection instead of proving your original claim. Understandable, since it is laughingly false.

The estimated shale production figures are in the Rand study that Gill linked to... 1 million BPD in 20 yrs, perhaps 3 million BPD in 30 yrs.

Versus 20 million BPD current consumption (over half of that imported).

Epic. Fail.
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
Wrong. Again.

You continue with deflection instead of proving your original claim. Understandable, since it is laughingly false.

The estimated shale production figures are in the Rand study that Gill linked to... 1 million BPD in 20 yrs, perhaps 3 million BPD in 30 yrs.

Versus 20 million BPD current consumption (over half of that imported).

Epic. Fail.
Click to expand...

Thos figures are based off old technology. It doesnt take into account the current level of tech, nor any future advancement.


Also:

(post 218) How much of your treasure trove of oil can you get out of the ground, suitable for refining, measured in barrels per day?
Click to expand...

And this:

(post 234) You repeatedly do not answer a question asking how much oil we import, in barrels per day
Click to expand...

Are two different questions. I love that you actually put in this:

I'd suggest you start with estimated production figures of refineable crude from the fields you mention, in bbls per day, vs. current crude importation levels (also in BPD).
Click to expand...

Which is not actually a question, so why would i be avoiding answering it?

On you next post make things interesting by putting info of your own, rather than just focusing on one liners aimed at nothing more than avoiding an actual rebuttal.
 
Dpetty said:
Thos figures are based off old technology. It doesnt take into account the current level of tech, nor any future advancement. [....]
Click to expand...
I predicted -- more or less -- that you would eventually have to resort to magic to make your claim come true:

Karl said:
[...] Let's say it became illegal to import oil. Could your domestic sources then provide enough (at current consumption rates)? If so, please explain how. I'll accept engineering studies (but not magic or supposed future inventions).
Click to expand...

psychic_anim.gif
 
Karl said:
I predicted -- more or less -- that you would eventually have to resort to magic to make your claim come true:
Click to expand...

You picked your nose, and thats about it. Your magic electric car scenario is as imaginary as my shale oil is reality.

[...] Let's say it became illegal to import oil. Could your domestic sources then provide enough (at current consumption rates)? If so, please explain how. I'll accept engineering studies (but not magic or supposed future inventions).
Click to expand...

Repetative! Ugg. Shale oil is not a future invention.

I have never advocated that we should stay on oil forever and ever, i have already stated that electric cars have potential. Even your outlandish and expensive solar idea could work SOMEDAY.

What im advocating for, is the unlimited use of the oil we need now to get our economy to where it can operate without gas being a cheif source of overhead, so that we can make the advancements needed to get to the next stages of technology. Be it electric cars, or flying cars that run off trash and can travel through time. We need oil NOW because thats the stage of technology our world runs on right now, by claiming otherwise does not make us any less dependent on it.

Your to busy trying to argue my 1000 year comment which is a number i threw out there for the sake of discussion. You would rather avoid the actual discussion completely, in favor of attacking a hyperbole.

(for those bothering to read these comments, i make a prediction. Karl will respond with some type of smiley face intended to "embarrass" me, and a comment consisting of no more than 20 words, and will not even address the post written above...)
 
Last edited:
Dpetty said:
You picked your nose, and thats about it. Your magic electric car scenario is as imaginary as my shale oil is reality.
Click to expand...
Deflection, deflection, deflection. Since you've belatedly discovered that oil shale can contribute relatively little to our oil import problem, you spend a lot of time talking about things other than oil shale.

Dpetty said:
Repetative! Ugg. Shale oil is not a future invention.
Click to expand...
Ah. A welcome change from deflection -- a strawman :roll:

Dpetty said:
What im advocating for, is the unlimited use of the oil we need now to get our economy to where it can operate without gas being a cheif source of overhead [...]
Click to expand...
And you now realize that oil shale can contribute very little to that, right? You now realize that "drill here, drill now" and "drill, baby, drill" are populist mantras designed for morons, right? That what remaining oil we have is either extremely slow to extract (oil shale) or relatively small compared to our consumption rate, right? That the roughly 8 billion bbls of oil in ANWR would last for 400 days if we could pump it out as fast as we use it, right?

Dpetty said:
[...] that we can make the advancements needed to get to the next stages of technology. Be it electric cars, or flying cars that run off trash and can travel through time.
Click to expand...
Hey. Mr. Fusion. Now you're talking :mrgreen:

Dpetty said:
[...] We need oil NOW because thats the stage of technology our world runs on right now, [...]
Click to expand...
Too bad. We don't have it.

Dpetty said:
[....] by claiming otherwise does not make us any less dependent on it.
Click to expand...
And by claiming that we do have it -- as you originally did -- doesn't make it so.... although it serves to put a roadblock of ignorance in the path of alternatives.

Here's a shocking idea -- instead of strip mining half a state in order to obtain 5% of our current oil consumption (one method of oil shale extraction), why not reduce the gasoline we consume by 10% by simply driving 10% less than we do now? Or getting 10% better gas mileage? :doh
 
Last edited:
Gill said:
Not true. U.S. oil consumption has dropped since the recession began in 2007, but had increased every year before that except for additional brief drops during previous recessions.
Click to expand...

MTTUPUS2a.jpg


After checking the data, U.S. declines in consumption occurred in 2001 and then from 2005 to 2009. On a per capita basis, consumption declined between 1999 and 2002, and then from 2004 to 2009.
 
Kushinator said:
MTTUPUS2a.jpg


After checking the data, U.S. declines in consumption occurred in 2001 and then from 2005 to 2009. On a per capita basis, consumption declined between 1999 and 2002, and then from 2004 to 2009.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I said.
 
Gill said:
Which is exactly what I said.
Click to expand...

No, this is what you said:

Gill said:
Not true. U.S. oil consumption has dropped since the recession began in 2007, but had increased every year before that except for additional brief drops during previous recessions.
Click to expand...
 
Karl said:
You have provided none, that I have seen (at least in textual form).

You did provide a link to a Rand report which confirms my argument -- i.e., shale cannot be extracted at a rate anywhere close to being sufficient to eliminate imports, nor is available in sufficient quantity to supply us, in lieu of imports, for 1,000 years.

So once again, it appears that understanding information is the problem on your side of the debating table.
Click to expand...

If I had claimed that shale oil would replace imports 100%, you would have a point. Since I didn't, you wasted time posting this.

We are currently the third largest producer of oil in the world and shale will make sure our standing remains at or near the top. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see us move up since Saudi Arabia's fields are dwindling down.
 
Gill said:
Which is exactly what your chart indicates.
Click to expand...

No it does not! Oil consumption started to decline in 2004 (during the beginning of the housing bubble). On a per capita basis, oil consumption began to decline in 1999, only to following the recession of 2001.
 
Kushinator said:
No it does not! Oil consumption started to decline in 2004 (during the beginning of the housing bubble). On a per capita basis, oil consumption began to decline in 1999, only to following the recession of 2001.
Click to expand...

Learn how to read a chart, then get back to me.
 
Gill said:
[...] We are currently the third largest producer of oil in the world and shale will make sure our standing remains at or near the top. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see us move up since Saudi Arabia's fields are dwindling down.
Click to expand...
Even if your claims come to fruition, it will not mean that we have become anywhere even close to self-sufficient in crude oil, nor would it have any significant effect on oil prices -- both being the rallying cries of the right wing populist politicians trying to sell Drill Me Now to the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom