AdamT
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2011
- Messages
- 17,773
- Reaction score
- 5,746
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I think you summed up the left's problems on energy quite succinctly.
And vice versa.
I think you summed up the left's problems on energy quite succinctly.
And vice versa.
Did you get that deep thought from Wiki ??
So, your unproven claim is correct unless someone can prove it wrong -- that's your argument? :lamoHow 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?
[...] 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. [...]
[...] I dont have the answer to that question. [...]
So, your unproven claim is correct unless someone can prove it wrong -- that's your argument?
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.How much of your treasure trove of oil can you get out of the ground, suitable for refining, measured in barrels per day?
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
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.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
Deflection does seem to be your forte. Let's sum up your argument: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.
You have provided none, that I have seen (at least in textual form).Since you refuse to acknowledge information from credible sources, it is obvious that YOU are done.
Deflection does seem to be your forte. Let's sum up your argument:QUOTE]
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?
Wrong. Again.I was never asked this specific question [...][...] 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'm waiting on you.Is that it? Do you have anything intelligent to say? [...]
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). [...]
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.
(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?
(post 234) You repeatedly do not answer a question asking how much oil we import, in barrels per day
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).
I predicted -- more or less -- that you would eventually have to resort to magic to make your claim come true:Thos figures are based off old technology. It doesnt take into account the current level of tech, nor any future advancement. [....]
[...] 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).
I predicted -- more or less -- that you would eventually have to resort to magic to make your claim come true:
[...] 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).
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.You picked your nose, and thats about it. Your magic electric car scenario is as imaginary as my shale oil is reality.
Ah. A welcome change from deflection -- a strawman :roll:Repetative! Ugg. Shale oil is not a future invention.
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?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 [...]
Hey. Mr. Fusion. Now you're talking :mrgreen:[...] 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.
Too bad. We don't have it.[...] We need oil NOW because thats the stage of technology our world runs on right now, [...]
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.[....] by claiming otherwise does not make us any less dependent on it.
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.
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.
Which is exactly what I 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.
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.
No, this is what you said:
Which is exactly what your chart indicates.
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.
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.[...] 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.