Page 24 of 40 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 395

Thread: PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project

  1. #231
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    So, your unproven claim is correct unless someone can prove it wrong -- that's your argument?

    Your original claim:



    When asked for details on how that would work:



    I think we're done here...
    Since you refuse to acknowledge information from credible sources, it is obvious that YOU are done.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  2. #232
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project

    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
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #233
    Educator Dpetty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-05-17 @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    967

    Re: PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    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
    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.

  4. #234
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project

    Quote Originally Posted by Dpetty View Post
    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.
    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

    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 by Karl; 01-13-12 at 08:44 PM.

  5. #235
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    Since you refuse to acknowledge information from credible sources, it is obvious that YOU are done.
    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 by Karl; 01-13-12 at 11:12 PM.

  6. #236
    Educator Dpetty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-05-17 @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    967

    Re: PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project

    [QUOTE=Karl;1060109110]Deflection does seem to be your forte. Let's sum up your argument:QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    Deflection does seem to be your forte. Let's sum up your argument:
    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
    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).
    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
    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?

  7. #237
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project

    Quote Originally Posted by Dpetty, in post #236 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karl, in post #234, replying to Dpetty View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karl, in post #200 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dpetty, in post #193, replying to Karl View Post
    Is that it? Do you have anything intelligent to say? [...]
    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). [...]
    [...] 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).
    I was never asked this specific question [...]
    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 by Karl; 01-14-12 at 11:49 AM.

  8. #238
    Educator Dpetty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-05-17 @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    967

    Re: PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    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.
    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?
    And this:

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

  9. #239
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project

    Quote Originally Posted by Dpetty View Post
    Thos figures are based off old technology. It doesnt take into account the current level of tech, nor any future advancement. [....]
    I predicted -- more or less -- that you would eventually have to resort to magic to make your claim come true:

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl, in post #205, replying to Dpetty View Post
    [...] 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).

  10. #240
    Educator Dpetty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-05-17 @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    967

    Re: PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    I predicted -- more or less -- that you would eventually have to resort to magic to make your claim come true:
    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).
    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 by Dpetty; 01-14-12 at 01:28 PM.

Page 24 of 40 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •