• 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

You are extremely wrong.

I love to drive, aways have. Just an hour ago I returned from 11 hour round trip, much of it through the desert. Few things are more enjoyable and on days like today when I can get out of the office and drive through the desert alone I love my job. I love to drive fast. My wife and I have cars and a truck, motorcycles and scooters. If it burns oil we love it.

The world is likely beyond peak oil. Oil sand development is an excellent indication that the world now consumes more oil than the earth can produce. Consumption is going to increase as China and India replace the US in demanding oil. There are a number of other indicators, but I assume you know all this and there's no sense in posting it.

As much as I hate it, we no longer joyride on motorcycles. In fact, they are all for sale with the exception of one scooter. We have been trying to cut down on gasoline consumption in general. Not because our lower consumption is going to make a difference in the world but because we know that sooner rather than later we are all going to have to make major oil consumption sacrifices. Petroleum may sputter and fart a bit, but the price of oil is going to go up and up and up and so is damn near everything we use or consume from food to medicine to garbage bags to fertilizer to damn near anything you can name. At the present alternative fuel is not going to provide an option for any number of things petroleum related. You also seem to think that viable alternatives will be available before petroleum scarcity forces petroleum sky high. I'd be happy if you'd share a few timelines with us because I don't know about any favorable ones.

You claim the FD is astoundingly naive but you fail to mention exactly how and, as important, why.

Washington has no balls. That includes your beloved and worshipped conservatives in Congress. If Obama had balls, if Congress had balls, they would tell the nation the good times are gone. As much as I feckin hate to say it, they should drop the speed limit nationally. I hate that. Washington needs to have a frank discussion with the nation and explain that we can party on until until the lights go out or that we can conserve, seriously conserve, while we seriously work on alternative fuels. That's a plural, as in fuels. There is no one solution. "The clock is ticking and as there are variables beyond our control we don't really know how much time is left so it is better to sacrifice on the front end" - that kind of discussion. They need to have the kind of discussion that suggests people like commercial freight (shipping, rail, trucking and air) gets a price and/or tax break while the rest of us curtail our petroleum usage or pay much higher transportation taxes.

Alternative energy is much more viable when we aren't talking about transportation. When you talk about "billions" the government is spending you haven't been specific as to which type of energy you are referring, for what purpose, and you neglected to give us any real comparisons. How do you know that FD is naive?

Even if all Americans put away their cars, motorcycles, etc and all started riding bicycles like the Chinese once did, it would still not save the world. It would only mean America would be a third world country still trillions of dollars in debt and with everyone else using the oil Americans rejected.
 
Actually the capitalists ('banksters') are in charge; the idiots are merely the front men used to present a false facade of democracy.

Since the modern capitalist is a multi-national, the fate of individual countries -- once the maximum return is extracted -- is irrelevant to them.

The fate of many indivdual countries seems irreverent to its inhabitants. Many Europeans countries gave up much of their soviereignty to join the EU, people are turning on each other in the Middle East and threatening other nations, political unrest and instability in Asia and Africa continues and the United States has crippled its economy and its future with debt.

It seems if we don't have problems we create them, just to keep things interesting.
 
Even if all Americans put away their cars, motorcycles, etc and all started riding bicycles like the Chinese once did, it would still not save the world. [...]
Why are you trying to save the world, and what are you trying to save it from?
 
Why are you trying to save the world, and what are you trying to save it from?

Perhaps some remedial reading classes might be in order. Where did i say I was trying to save the world?

However there are those who insist "saving the planet" and restricting energy sources is one of them.
 
Perhaps some remedial reading classes might be in order. Where did i say I was trying to save the world? [...]
Here:

Even if all Americans put away their cars, motorcycles, etc and all started riding bicycles like the Chinese once did, it would still not save the world. [...]

Since no one else in this thread has said that they want to eliminate motorized transportation in order to save the world, I thought it was your idea. Are you saying it was just a strawman?
 
Here:



Since no one else in this thread has said that they want to eliminate motorized transportation in order to save the world, I thought it was your idea. Are you saying it was just a strawman?

Nowhere did i say I was trying to save the world. If you knew what straw-man meant you wouldn't be bothering with this silliness.
 
Even if all Americans put away their cars, motorcycles, etc and all started riding bicycles like the Chinese once did, it would still not save the world. It would only mean America would be a third world country still trillions of dollars in debt and with everyone else using the oil Americans rejected.

U.S. oil consumption has decreased year-over-year, every year, (IIRC) since the 1990's.
 
U.S. oil consumption has decreased year-over-year, every year, (IIRC) since the 1990's.

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.
 
U.S. oil consumption has decreased year-over-year, every year, (IIRC) since the 1990's.

And what have epa, and other regulations done to pricing since that time? Telling half the story doesn't win you anything...

J-mac

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
 
And what have epa, and other regulations done to pricing since that time? Telling half the story doesn't win you anything...

J-mac

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

Apparently they've made gas a lot cheaper here than it is in most of the civilized world.
 
The designers must have hit paydirt with the "ugly look". Jezus that thing's horrid.

I'll take an old Rancharo or El Camino that spits plumes of blue smoke and backfires first.

Jeez, ain't that the truth !!!

Don't think it can haul many sheets of plywood either.
 
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.
Irrelevant, because

Even if all Americans put away their cars, motorcycles, etc and all started riding bicycles like the Chinese once did, it would still not save the world. [...]
 
Irrelevant, because

My post would have been irrelevant if I'd been replying to the member you quoted. Unfortunately for you, I wasn't so your post is irrelevant.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Maybe now the US will get serious about getting off oil and moving toward a renewable energy source we can make in-house.

The handwriting has been on the wall for decades - Jimmy Carter saw it back in the 1970s and tried to implement a plan to avert the US being hostage to countries that control oil. The oil industry was not having it and started contributing heavily to political campaigns creating a second mess we are still dealing with today.

The idea that oil can only be found in other countries is a hoax perpetuated by those who simply dont want us to use oil, regardless of the cost to our economy and way of life... 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 are only hostages to other countries because we have allowed ourselves to become that way. We need to drill here, and drill now. If some democrat environmentalist (Al Gore) wants to get rich and be remembered forever, he will invent a car that runs off his own sense of self satisfaction. Until then, we need oil. Claiming we dont will not lessen our needs.

P.s. Jimmy Carter was a Terrible President.
 
[...] 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. [...]
:lamo Please. Step away. From the Kool Aid.
 
: Please. Step away. From the Kool Aid.
Is that it? Do you have anything intelligent to say? Have you even seen the numbers of barrels waiting to be tapped in Alaska alone? Now look at the shale rock in southern Utah.... We are talking BILLIONS of barrels. PLease respond with more than a clever Kool aid, or sheep remark.
 
Last edited:
Is that it? Do you have anything intelligent to say? Have you even seen the numbers of barrels waiting to be tapped in Alaska alone? Now look at the shale rock in southern Utah.... We are talking BILLIONS of barrels. PLease respond with more than a clever Kool aid, or sheep remark.

8 Billion in Alaska, perhaps 5 billion that is recoverable in North Dakota with current technology

Shale oil is not recoverable at this time from an economic standpoint
 
8 Billion in Alaska, perhaps 5 billion that is recoverable in North Dakota with current technology

Shale oil is not recoverable at this time from an economic standpoint

Under normal circumstances you would be right, but with current gas prices, it makes shale oil more competitive of an option. It is more costly to recover which makes it less profitable, but even if we focused on Alaska while we developed better retreival methods for shale, its still a win win.
 
Apparently they've made gas a lot cheaper here than it is in most of the civilized world.


No, that has NOTHING to do with regulation here in America...If anything regulation has prevented us from tapping our own resources, and made us more dependent on foreign oil. Our low cost has much more to do with the fact that the dollar is the currency that oil pricing is pegged to.

But you know that.

j-mac
 
Is that it? Do you have anything intelligent to say? Have you even seen the numbers of barrels waiting to be tapped in Alaska alone? Now look at the shale rock in southern Utah.... We are talking BILLIONS of barrels. PLease respond with more than a clever Kool aid, or sheep remark.

I have to retract that statement. I just checked and the total ESTIMATED shale oil in America alone is between 1.5 and 2.6 trillion barrels... not billions...
 
I have to retract that statement. I just checked and the total ESTIMATED shale oil in America alone is between 1.5 and 2.6 trillion barrels... not billions...


You know it is amazing to see these, what I think are anti American proclivities that rail against anything that involves us drilling our own oil, or even getting imported Canadian oil to refinery. The idea born in Cas Sustien's book 'Nudge' was that in order for people to get used to paying more for energy, and force a move to technology that is yet unproven, and now unreliable that they have to force pricing up, and make supply of existing energy non existent.

The problem with this is two fold, 1. The ideas that they have for replacing fossil fuels, although some of them are interesting, none of them are proven that they can totally replace oil. Thus you get something analogous to say having ten projects started in your house, and none of them completed, leaving you with little more than a gutted house. 2. How far do 'we the people' want to let government, and this minority of people go in controlling our lives, and power to force us through the threat of big government into something we don't want, and in reality at this moment in time don't need.

Everything in this administration to date has been categorized as a 'crisis' of one sort or another. That is for one reason, because if thought out rationally no one would EVER grant liberal progressives that much control over anything.


j-mac
 
You know it is amazing to see these, what I think are anti American proclivities that rail against anything that involves us drilling our own oil, or even getting imported Canadian oil to refinery. The idea born in Cas Sustien's book 'Nudge' was that in order for people to get used to paying more for energy, and force a move to technology that is yet unproven, and now unreliable that they have to force pricing up, and make supply of existing energy non existent.

The problem with this is two fold, 1. The ideas that they have for replacing fossil fuels, although some of them are interesting, none of them are proven that they can totally replace oil. Thus you get something analogous to say having ten projects started in your house, and none of them completed, leaving you with little more than a gutted house. 2. How far do 'we the people' want to let government, and this minority of people go in controlling our lives, and power to force us through the threat of big government into something we don't want, and in reality at this moment in time don't need.

Everything in this administration to date has been categorized as a 'crisis' of one sort or another. That is for one reason, because if thought out rationally no one would EVER grant liberal progressives that much control over anything.


j-mac

I agree. I dont think anyone would be against and alternative energy source if it could provide the same energy for the same cost as oil. I am all for the research in those fields. But as you stated, we need to rely on our current technology (oil) until there is something tangible to replace it, not the promise of something. I have said all along that capitalism is the engine of inovation. Future energy sources will be discovered because there is money in it, and because some clever inventor will put his mind to it. Its not going to come about simply because a hand full of activists in the white house try to hold the American people hostage with inflation and unemployment.
 
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).

However, I must warn you -- Kool Aid withdrawal may not be pleasant ;)


P.S. Assume a sale price of $200/bbl if you think that will help the estimated production figures.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom