Seven States Running Out of Water

There are too many people living at a high standard of living, combined with too many profiteering corporations who are sucking the life out of the ground with zero regard for future generations. When the CEO of Cenovus in Canada was asked what kind of planet he would be leaving his own children in 40-50 years, his reply was, "My sons will be in a better position to figure that out than I would."

These people are borderline. All they care about is money and nothing else. They were raised by baby boomers who had nothing and so all they see the planet as is one big thing to acquire.

American said:

How come this isn't in the news? Either they're covering up or (shall we say) you are incorrect. I think we should shut Big Oil down in California and other low water states, and kill all the associated jobs. What do you think?

Click to expand...

That is if you buy the idea that the oil companies are destroying the aquifers.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Oh, where to start...there's so much fun stuff in here!
Well I guess if you're the kind who thinks opinions are the same thing as facts, but I harbor no hatred of wealth as my own economic health is in good standing. So why would I practice self-hatred?



We're all over the map today, aren't we? Al Gore's in the oil business? Soros? Hmmm, maybe he is, could you find a link to that for me please?



Here is a fire hydrant ON FIRE - your argument is invalid.
View attachment 67167516



Hey I support all forms of energy because I am realistic enough to understand that even petroleum will be here for quite some time to come.
My issue has more to do with the fact that the petroleum business wishes to maintain a monopoly on things like transportation fuel, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing wealthy players doing their level best to kill off alternatives, would we?

We wouldn't have seen BP, Shell and Exxon manipulating oil prices for well over a decade, we wouldn't see further manipulation by speculators aimed at slowing the growth of alternatives. We wouldn't see state after state lining up to pass bills aimed at stopping Tesla direct sales.
Oh wait, isn't that big government stepping in to regulate? Uh ohhh, guess it's okay when it protects established interests like car dealers and oil companies.



You know, the funny thing is, fracking, like all other forms of oil and natgas exploration, CAN be done in a SAFER manner.
I didn't say that there's a 100% safe method, I am saying that there are safer "best practices" and methodologies.
And oil companies would adhere to those best practices if they had to, except that they got a sweetheart deal that exempted them from nearly ALL regulations back around the turn of the millenium, so now individual entities are having to sue them one by one instead, to force them to adopt best practices.
But it's like so many other aspects of big business.
See, I do understand the nature of corporations. They by their very nature cannot HAVE a conscience.
Regulations function as a de facto substitute for a conscience and, while I can name lots of examples of unnecessary regulations, the fact is, some regulations ARE necessary.



Well, that's good. I wouldn't dare suggest that you step away from your self interests because I know that your mentor would be very upset with you. :lamo View attachment 67167518



Uhhhhh....we all do, we don't have much choice in the matter. It's the sole source, or damn close to it, for transportation energy.
That's going to change soon of course. Electric cars are today roughly where the home VCR was in 1972 when Sony gave us the BetaMax, a $3500 playtoy for rich folks. Five years later they were under $499, ten years later they were under a hundred bucks, with better features, performance and mature technology.


As I said above in so many words, it's the lifeblood of modern industrial civilization.



Whoa, did you just say that oil is "renewable"?
So you're not only a Rand worshipper, you're also a believer in abiogenic oil too? :lamo

Click to expand...

Oil is renewable - that is a basic fact if you understand what oil actually is - which is nothing more than decomposed organic material.

Also, no true libertarian would worship Rand. She did not create the idea of individualism - nor is she a political libertarian "biblical" figure. I disagree with some of Rands ideas, however she is hardly a "leader" or her philosophy is hardly comparable to the Ten Commandments.... However, my political philosophy hardly has anything to do with this issue - if you want to discuss my politics then start a thread in a different forum and I would be glad to debate or discuss my politics.

As far as oil and oil prices, well I think the federal government prevents oil from being a cheap commodity - so you can blame the federal government for the 3.80/gallon gas.... What do you really expect with all these regulations, fines, lawsuits and excess taxation - not to mention limitations on where one can drill?

If you haven't figured it out yet it's the federal government that has their hands in everything - they're like the mafia, and as a result of taxation, regulation and fines the prices of goods and services will be reflected.

As far as electric cars - they're a joke, the funniest part is they haven't even been able to build a viable electric car yet because they're not thinking in the right direction because all the engineers are all on the same page going forward. They're wasting energy with those junk cars, not to mention some of their designs could seriously turn a car into an inferno.

These engineers are wasting about 95% of the energy a moving care displaces.

To compare an electric car to a VCR is a joke.... An electric car is NOT even close to an innovation - as a matter of fact Tesla created an electric car that worked. However the technology has never been the issue - the viability has.

Presently gas/oil is the cheapest way to power a car... Until electric can make gas obsolete then it will always be that way.

Also, I don't appreciate the gigantic picture of Ayn Rand either. If you want to accuse me of being an Ayn Rand worshiper - fine - but I don't need a ****ing picture. Save the memes for the 12-year-olds you talk to, who need common core logic to understand concepts.

American said:

How come this isn't in the news? Either they're covering up or (shall we say) you are incorrect. I think we should shut Big Oil down in California and other low water states, and kill all the associated jobs. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Gee, I don't remember saying that I think we should shut down Big Oil in California.
Is that what you want to do?

And, if you're looking for information about aquifers at risk due to fracking, you needn't look far.

Here's one article from that well known librul bastion of lefty propaganda - Scientific American:
Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom - Scientific American

But as I said earlier, there are best practices which could definitely make fracking safer.
If oil co's were obligated to follow them we might see a drastic reduction in groundwater contamination incidents and
the aquifers might not be at so much risk.

But I guess it's like the cycle we've observed in a lot of major industries over the years.
Take seat belts, for instance. When they were mandated in 1964 the car makers screamed bloody murder.
They wanted everyone to believe they would go bankrupt if they were forced to put them in.
Same with safety glass, redundant braking system hydraulics, collapsible steering columns (aka "energy absorbing"),
and tons of other safety equipment. Eventually they survived (whew!) and cars got better.
That's why a 2009 Malibu can cut through a 59 Bel-Air like it's made of butter in a head on crash.
One might be inclined to think the opposite but the fact is, the myth of the heavy lead sled being safer is just that, a myth.

So, fracking CAN be done in a safer manner but we're either going to have to watch an endless stream of individual lawsuits
or maybe work for a REPEAL of the EPA exemptions granted the industry by Cheney in order to see oil co's adopt those safer methods.

American said:

Let me tell you something, I've been to Arizona tons of times, and there's plenty of grass being watered. That includes the public common areas. That photo is a half-truth.

Click to expand...

Let me tell you something, that photo makes a lot more sense than this one does;

Dittohead not! said:

Probably because it would require a separate set of pipes for the flushing of toilets, and what else? No one bathes, washes dishes, or anything like that with salt water.
Also because salt water is corrosive and would do considerable damage to any plumbing that wasn't all plastic.

Click to expand...

Our governments love to waste money on bull**** all the time - they just throw money at anything. Why not use the money they waste on a project that could help millions of people? I mean presently they're rebuilding roads that have nothing wrong with them just to create "union jobs."Also, the project wouldn't even be that difficult - pipes have already been laid, the plumbing system would have to be reworked - but it wouldn't really be that difficult of a job - complex to some extent - sure but not a major job.

But like I said in a previous post - people like you WANT a crisis because it's something you can bitch about and gives you a reason to point fingers. You don't want a solution because that would destroy your reasons to hate.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Gee, I don't remember saying that I think we should shut down Big Oil in California.
Is that what you want to do?

And, if you're looking for information about aquifers at risk due to fracking, you needn't look far.

Here's one article from that well known librul bastion of lefty propaganda - Scientific American:
Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom - Scientific American

But as I said earlier, there are best practices which could definitely make fracking safer.
If oil co's were obligated to follow them we might see a drastic reduction in groundwater contamination incidents and
the aquifers might not be at so much risk.

But I guess it's like the cycle we've observed in a lot of major industries over the years.
Take seat belts, for instance. When they were mandated in 1964 the car makers screamed bloody murder.
They wanted everyone to believe they would go bankrupt if they were forced to put them in.
Same with safety glass, redundant braking system hydraulics, collapsible steering columns (aka "energy absorbing"),
and tons of other safety equipment. Eventually they survived (whew!) and cars got better.
That's why a 2009 Malibu can cut through a 59 Bel-Air like it's made of butter in a head on crash.
One might be inclined to think the opposite but the fact is, the myth of the heavy lead sled being safer is just that, a myth.

So, fracking CAN be done in a safer manner but we're either going to have to watch an endless stream of individual lawsuits
or maybe work for a REPEAL of the EPA exemptions granted the industry by Cheney in order to see oil co's adopt those safer methods.

Click to expand...

The early auto airbag were put in by the auto manufacturers, and people didn't want to buy them. So they were discontinued till years later.

Mr.Nick said:

Oil is renewable - that is a basic fact if you understand what oil actually is - which is nothing more than decomposed organic material.

Click to expand...

I'm saving this GEM, your assertion that oil is renewable, for a special occasion.
It's going to be a lot of fun to destroy it. I want to get all my friends in here to watch first.
Among them you can count a gentleman named Robert Rapier. Look him up.

Mr.Nick said:

Also, no true libertarian would worship Rand. She did not create the idea of individualism - nor is she a political libertarian "biblical" figure. I disagree with some of Rands ideas, however she is hardly a "leader" or her philosophy is hardly comparable to the Ten Commandments.... However, my political philosophy hardly has anything to do with this issue - if you want to discuss my politics then start a thread in a different forum and I would be glad to debate or discuss my politics.

Click to expand...

Not the least bit interested in discussing libertarian politics. Not with you, not with anybody.
Libertarianism, at least as practiced by most right leaning Americans, is just anarchy for wealthy folks.
I understand the wisdom of reining in government overreach where appropriate.
I also understand that most of America's libertarians have some of the most inappropriate concepts of what defines government overreach.
So when it comes to discussing libertarianism with me, save your breath, you'll need it to blow up your date.

Mr.Nick said:

As far as oil and oil prices, well I think the federal government prevents oil from being a cheap commodity - so you can blame the federal government for the 3.80/gallon gas.... What do you really expect with all these regulations, fines, lawsuits and excess taxation - not to mention limitations on where one can drill?

Click to expand...

Roughly 12 percent of every gallon of gas has taxes attached to it:

Of course since libertarians do not believe in taxes, I understand the roots of your theory, but it's still just about 12 percent.
Do the math. A forty-five cent discount isn't going to rock the world. And it won't do anything to stop market speculators, whose job it is to bid on oil futures to make a profit, from doing what speculators do. You discount forty-five cents, they see wiggle room to drive it up forty-five cents.
There is a well established formula for gasoline price demand destruction in every market on the planet and the USA is no exception.
When gasoline FIRST went up over four bucks a gallon Americans didn't have fleet fuel economy as good as they do now, so the response was for them to drive less, significantly less. So much less that the speculators actually burned themselves a little.

If you haven't figured it out yet it's the federal government that has their hands in everything - they're like the mafia, and as a result of taxation, regulation and fines the prices of goods and services will be reflected.

Click to expand...

Bla bla bla anti-government rant. Do you ever have anything else in that Ayn Rand jukebox of yours?
Put on a different record please...or not :soap

As far as electric cars - they're a joke, the funniest part is they haven't even been able to build a viable electric car yet because they're not thinking in the right direction because all the engineers are all on the same page going forward. They're wasting energy with those junk cars, not to mention some of their designs could seriously turn a car into an inferno.

Click to expand...

What's the right direction, please...enlighten me.
And, as far as them catching on fire, you are required to back that up with some facts, please.
I can't wait to lay waste to them.

These engineers are wasting about 95% of the energy a moving care displaces.

Click to expand...

95 percent? Uhhhhhh NO, that would be piston engine cars doing that.

To compare an electric car to a VCR is a joke.... An electric car is NOT even close to an innovation - as a matter of fact Tesla created an electric car that worked. However the technology has never been the issue - the viability has.

Click to expand...

Please don't confuse lead-acid or Edison battery tech with current Li-Ion and NiMh tech.(the latter being mostly displaced by the former)

Presently gas/oil is the cheapest way to power a car... Until electric can make gas obsolete then it will always be that way.

Click to expand...

Price of batteries, speed of charging, and both are coming way way down, and if anything it's happening much faster than the price of VCR's.
I actually tried to be conservative. Industry analysts have all made the same prediction as to charge rates and the general consensus is that, in about ten years it will be common to see charging stations which replace 80 to 90% of a car's charge in about as much time as it takes to fill a gas tank. There goes the range anxiety argument.

Also, I don't appreciate the gigantic picture of Ayn Rand either.

Click to expand...

Too bad. Sucks to be you I guess. You're the one saying you're John Galt.
(Mumble mumble stop the motor of the world mumble mumble Reardon Metal, mumble mumble Galt's Gulch)

If you want to accuse me of being an Ayn Rand worshiper - fine - but I don't need a ****ing picture. Save the memes for the 12-year-olds you talk to, who need common core logic to understand concepts.

Click to expand...

Speaking of concepts, Ayn Rand never worked a single labor job in her entire miserable life but for some reason she expected people to swallow a story about a man who invents perpetual motion machines, static electricity generators, magical metals and irritable architects who blow up buildings to stoke their tantrums, and this has become the BIBLE for a generation of angry people who want a scapegoat.

Thus we hear:

"What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?"
From We the Living

Click to expand...

So who was it again who had trouble with common core logic and concepts? Your hero engaged in flights of fancy that surpass L. Ron Hubbard for laugh content and, it would be funny if her acolytes weren't working feverishly to make her books a neo-Mein Kampf for the 21st century.

PS: The actual picture of Rand I selected was rather small.
I can't help it the site blew it up in size.
I was actually rather surprised it was that large.

Do I need a tutorial on how to manipulate image sizes on DP?
Point me to it please somebody :newhere:

American said:

The early auto airbag were put in by the auto manufacturers, and people didn't want to buy them. So they were discontinued till years later.

Click to expand...

The "early" auto airbag?

A little help please, I would be very grateful if you felt like filling me in on the early auto airbag because I am only aware of the mandated design we see in today's cars, not an optional extra designed years earlier. The auto companies did have to make a hefty investment to develop the current designs in ways which were safe enough to be feasible.

Educate me, if you feel like it, on the EARLY airbag, because on that one thing I am apparently clueless and I would love to learn something today.
No really, I am not being sarcastic, I really do mean what I said.

But anyway, it doesn't change the fact that businesses tend to react negatively to mandates.
I am not a knee jerk reactionary who automatically paints all of that in a manner which blames business exclusively.
Sometimes government thinks it has a great idea but has no clue about the execution of it, sometimes they get it right.

For instance, overreach by the EPA initially drove ALL LCD manufacturing OUT of the United States.
If memory serves me right there are currently four or five major LCD mfrs stateside now, one of them being exclusively involved in very high end
broadcast and digital film production equipment.

But the whole gist of what I am getting at here is fracking. The EPA cannot regulate fracking methods and there are no other ways to regulate it so
we are at the mercy of the companies that do it and they are not interested in pursuing safe methodologies for the obvious reason that it adds to the costs.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I'm saving this GEM, your assertion that oil is renewable, for a special occasion.
It's going to be a lot of fun to destroy it. I want to get all my friends in here to watch first.
Among them you can count a gentleman named Robert Rapier. Look him up.



Not the least bit interested in discussing libertarian politics. Not with you, not with anybody.
Libertarianism, at least as practiced by most right leaning Americans, is just anarchy for wealthy folks.
I understand the wisdom of reining in government overreach where appropriate.
I also understand that most of America's libertarians have some of the most inappropriate concepts of what defines government overreach.
So when it comes to discussing libertarianism with me, save your breath, you'll need it to blow up your date.



Roughly 12 percent of every gallon of gas has taxes attached to it:
View attachment 67167520
Of course since libertarians do not believe in taxes, I understand the roots of your theory, but it's still just about 12 percent.
Do the math. A forty-five cent discount isn't going to rock the world. And it won't do anything to stop market speculators, whose job it is to bid on oil futures to make a profit, from doing what speculators do. You discount forty-five cents, they see wiggle room to drive it up forty-five cents.
There is a well established formula for gasoline price demand destruction in every market on the planet and the USA is no exception.
When gasoline FIRST went up over four bucks a gallon Americans didn't have fleet fuel economy as good as they do now, so the response was for them to drive less, significantly less. So much less that the speculators actually burned themselves a little.



Bla bla bla anti-government rant. Do you ever have anything else in that Ayn Rand jukebox of yours?
Put on a different record please...or not :soap



What's the right direction, please...enlighten me.
And, as far as them catching on fire, you are required to back that up with some facts, please.
I can't wait to lay waste to them.


95 percent? Uhhhhhh NO, that would be piston engine cars doing that.



Please don't confuse lead-acid or Edison battery tech with current Li-Ion and NiMh tech.(the latter being mostly displaced by the former)


Price of batteries, speed of charging, and both are coming way way down, and if anything it's happening much faster than the price of VCR's.
I actually tried to be conservative. Industry analysts have all made the same prediction as to charge rates and the general consensus is that, in about ten years it will be common to see charging stations which replace 80 to 90% of a car's charge in about as much time as it takes to fill a gas tank. There goes the range anxiety argument.



Too bad. Sucks to be you I guess. You're the one saying you're John Galt.
(Mumble mumble stop the motor of the world mumble mumble Reardon Metal, mumble mumble Galt's Gulch)



Speaking of concepts, Ayn Rand never worked a single labor job in her entire miserable life but for some reason she expected people to swallow a story about a man who invents perpetual motion machines, static electricity generators, magical metals and irritable architects who blow up buildings to stoke their tantrums, and this has become the BIBLE for a generation of angry people who want a scapegoat.

Thus we hear:

So who was it again who had trouble with common core logic and concepts? Your hero engaged in flights of fancy that surpass L. Ron Hubbard for laugh content and, it would be funny if her acolytes weren't working feverishly to make her books a neo-Mein Kampf for the 21st century.

PS: The actual picture of Rand I selected was rather small.
I can't help it the site blew it up in size.
I was actually rather surprised it was that large.

Do I need a tutorial on how to manipulate image sizes on DP?
Point me to it please somebody :newhere:

Click to expand...

The simple fact you don't comprehend that oil is renewable is enough for me to disregard and not even bother to read your post.

Seriously???

Do they teach the world is flat now too?

Where do you think oil comes from anyway - just out of personal curiosity?

And you think I'm funny or stupid?

Does the Earth revolve around the Sun or does the Sun revolve around the Earth?

Mr.Nick said:

The simple fact you don't comprehend that oil is renewable is enough for me to disregard and not even bother to read your post.

Click to expand...

The "not even going to bother to read your post" response is typical of someone who feels that they might have painted themselves into a corner.
You posted that it's renewable, so you OWN it and since you own it YOU must back up your assertions.

If you don't want to back up your assertion that oil is renewable with references to a theory that supports it, that's fine but please don't attempt to use personal attacks as a means of pretending that I don't know anything about the subject.
I do not claim to be an expert but I know a few, and I am simply waiting for the meat behind your claim.
Then I will be glad to respond.

Sorry, those cheap parlor tricks don't work with me Mr. Nick.
If you claim oil is renewable, support your claim or admit you don't know about the subject. :waiting:

Checkerboard Strangler said:

The "not even going to bother to read your post" response is typical of someone who feels that they might have painted themselves into a corner.
You posted that it's renewable, so you OWN it and since you own it YOU must back up your assertions.

If you don't want to back up your assertion that oil is renewable with references to a theory that supports it, that's fine but please don't attempt to use personal attacks as a means of pretending that I don't know anything about the subject.
I do not claim to be an expert but I know a few, and I am simply waiting for the meat behind your claim.
Then I will be glad to respond.

Sorry, those cheap parlor tricks don't work with me Mr. Nick.
If you claim oil is renewable, support your claim or admit you don't know about the subject. :waiting:

Click to expand...

Decomposing matter turns to oil eventually, since we have layers of decomposing matter decomposing that matter will eventually turn to oil.

Now the real question is - are we overusing oil (or decomposed matter) faster than it can decompose and turn into oil???? that is the question and the answer is yes we are. At the same time tho we have only tapped 10% of our "dinosaur juice" so there is plenty left... But at the same time organic matter is turning into oil as we speak.

Oil isn't finite.....

is that a good enough explanation?

I can't say it's the best, but I think it's certainly blunt. I have no desire to write a thesis on organic decomposition. I suppose I could add a little bit more of substance but why? everyone except for a few knows what I'm talking about.

Decomposing matter turns to oil eventually, since we have layers of decomposing matter decomposing that matter will eventually turn to oil.

Now the real question is - are we overusing oil (or decomposed matter) faster than it can decompose and turn into oil???? that is the question and the answer is yes we are.

Click to expand...

Sigh, Mr. Nick, or Nick (may I call you Nick or do you prefer MISTER Nick exclusively?) at first I was sure you were going to posit the abiotic or "abiogenic" oil theory advanced by, among others, Thomas Gold and a certain group of Russians and their associated Russo-philes.

But we're in uncharted territory or...we would be if your logic wasn't so flawed.
The accepted definition of non-renewable is tied mostly to TWO things, one being the rate of renewal and the other being OUR LIFETIME.

Since it took MILLIONS of years for that organic matter to decompose, get squeezed by MILLIONS of tons of pressure and heat brought on by the steady accumulation of mineral deposits which eventually turned to ROCK and CLAY, it's safe to say that, in our lifetime we will not be able to expect seeing any substantial "renewal" of petroleum resources. Neither will our children, their children, their children's children ad infinitum to the 27th generation and beyond.

By YOUR logic, Mister Nick, DICED LIONS are also a renewable resource.
May I politely offer that you "have no desire to write a thesis on organic decomposition" because you can't write one.

And the abiotic oil theory is widely debunked. Cornucopean theories that suggest that there is an unlimited amount of oil constantly replenishing in the bowels of Earth are also bunk.
And, while we may have only extracted a certain percentage of our "dinosaur juice" there is a pesky thing called EROEI or
Energy Returned On Energy Invested and, once a resource (like petroleum, for the sake of the discussion) reaches a sufficiently negative EROEI
it can safely be declared UNRECOVERABLE.

In the beginning of the petroleum era it only took about one barrel of oil's worth of energy to recover over a HUNDRED barrels in most drilling sites.
Today that figure is closer to an average of about ten or fifteen, maybe twenty on a good day.

The EROEI of crude oil is what's finite, it is a finite number as far as economics are concerned.
All of the low hanging fruit was picked a while ago and what remains will continue to become more energy intensive and more expensive
to explore for, to extract, to refine and to distribute.

That's not from some genius in the oil industry, it's basic Petroleum 101.
You might have noticed that my avatar is an amusing picture of a V-8 engine with arms on it.
That should clue you in on the fact that I am not some hippie communist oil hater.
I simply don't see much in the way of petroleum's assured future as a monopoly commodity, that's all.
It will continue to be around for quite some time but as the EROEI decreases, other forms of energy will become more practical.

And, you might know this or you might not, but the price we pay at the pump isn't the real price either.
You'd be shocked to know what the real figure is.

And, to swing the discussion back to the main subject, the oil industry is using several HUNDRED TIMES more WATER to GET the remaining oil out right now, and they're using it in a manner which renders that water UNRECOVERABLE by standard water treatment methodologies too, because they are tainting it with poisonous chemicals which are too expensive to remove by practical means.

The second half of the list (it's too long - exceeds site character limit) is here:

http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used

Mr.Nick said:

Our governments love to waste money on bull**** all the time - they just throw money at anything. Why not use the money they waste on a project that could help millions of people? I mean presently they're rebuilding roads that have nothing wrong with them just to create "union jobs."Also, the project wouldn't even be that difficult - pipes have already been laid, the plumbing system would have to be reworked - but it wouldn't really be that difficult of a job - complex to some extent - sure but not a major job.

But like I said in a previous post - people like you WANT a crisis because it's something you can bitch about and gives you a reason to point fingers. You don't want a solution because that would destroy your reasons to hate.

Click to expand...

Flushing our toilets with salt water is not a solution.
And continuing wasteful government spending on projects that won't work is not a solution either.
And there are no people like me. I'm unique.

mbig said:

Please spare me the faux-macho "you're an alarmist" claim.
No one is going to go thirsty anytime soon, but this is a serious issue already affecting food prices nationwide.
Summer, oft the driest season is approaching in many places, it could get worse. It could go on for years more in some of these areas too.
This also is a big issue in the arid states viability.
Texas is booming with plenty of oil but little water.

Seven states running out of water
Alexander E.M. Hess and Thomas C. Frohlich
USA Today via 24/7 Wall St.
6:30 a.m. EDT June 1, 2014
Seven states running out of water

Click to expand...

Perhaps we should not have put large populations in desert areas?!

Mr.Nick said:

Decomposing matter turns to oil eventually, since we have layers of decomposing matter decomposing that matter will eventually turn to oil.

Now the real question is - are we overusing oil (or decomposed matter) faster than it can decompose and turn into oil???? that is the question and the answer is yes we are. At the same time tho we have only tapped 10% of our "dinosaur juice" so there is plenty left... But at the same time organic matter is turning into oil as we speak.

Oil isn't finite.....

is that a good enough explanation?

I can't say it's the best, but I think it's certainly blunt. I have no desire to write a thesis on organic decomposition. I suppose I could add a little bit more of substance but why? everyone except for a few knows what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

Since it takes millions of years for organic matter to turn into oil, I'd say offhand that we're over using it.

There was an attempt to speed up mother nature by making oil from turkey guts, but the plant went out of business.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

In the beginning of the petroleum era it only took about one barrel of oil's worth of energy to recover over a HUNDRED barrels in most drilling sites.
Today that figure is closer to an average of about ten or fifteen, maybe twenty on a good day.

The EROEI of crude oil is what's finite, it is a finite number as far as economics are concerned.
All of the low hanging fruit was picked a while ago and what remains will continue to become more energy intensive and more expensive
to explore for, to extract, to refine and to distribute.

That's not from some genius in the oil industry, it's basic Petroleum 101.
You might have noticed that my avatar is an amusing picture of a V-8 engine with arms on it.
That should clue you in on the fact that I am not some hippie communist oil hater.
I simply don't see much in the way of petroleum's assured future as a monopoly commodity, that's all.
It will continue to be around for quite some time but as the EROEI decreases, other forms of energy will become more practical.

And, you might know this or you might not, but the price we pay at the pump isn't the real price either.
You'd be shocked to know what the real figure is.

Click to expand...

You bring up valid points, all of which point to man made hydrocarbon fuels,
Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Audi opens 6 MW power-to-gas facility: pv-magazine
The cost of using organic oil as the feedstock for refineries will eventually exceed the cost
of the refinery making their own feedstock from water, air, and energy.
From there the refining and distribution infrastructure is already in place.
Organic oil will still have many uses, like plastics and medicine, just not fuel.
The man made fuels can be carbon neutral.
It may help to think of the hydrocarbons as a better battery, that we are already set up to use.
Surplus solar electricity is sold at very low rates (In Texas $.0192/Kwh)
The refineries could offer a higher rate.

beefheart said:

Well, it was 108 here yesterday, and we are looking at temps over 110 degrees for the next few weeks. Water is pretty important here, of course, all the good water goes to the golf courses..crazy. I am an avid gardener, but I don't grow a lawn. Plus, we follow the old "if it is yellow, let it mellow, if it's brown, flush it down" rule. Wasting water in a desert is criminal.

Click to expand...

Today should be our first 100* day here in SW OK. Between a late freeze and low rainfall the wheat crop is bad, now early heat could hurt our cattle numbers as we need rain to run cattle on pasture, ponds are mud holes or dry, hauling water. Got to stay positive but at times I wonder, If there is a God, why is She such a bitch at times.....

Dittohead not! said:

We don't have good weather around here, at least not in the summer time. The heat is unbearable at times. On the other hand, there isn't much in the way of winter. But people don't come here to enjoy the dirty air and hot weather. People are here because we have some of the most productive farmland in the country. Now, people do come to the California coast because of the climate. It never gets cold, seldom gets hot, and hardly ever rains. That last one can be a bit of a problem however.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the population shift to AZ, and Texas. Any arable land can be some of the most productive farmland in the world these days. Arizonan desert can be extremely productive- IF it gets water. Most natural soil fertility is long gone. These days if you don't use fertilizer you don't get a profitable crop. Pre-dustbowl Oklahoma wheat averaged 12 bushels an acre, now the norm is 35 and the soil certainly didn't get any better...

But back to my point, in areas of very limited rainfall trying to pretend man can reshape the arid landscape to look like Lancaster Pa. is insane, but 'we' have been attempting that for decades.

Those folks who think if climate change is real man will simply adapt are clueless just how much of the food that hits their table require the climate we have, not a new more extreme one. Floods in Iowa are as bad as droughts in the rolling southern plains. Early and late freezes are just annoying to an office worker, a disaster to crops.

man may adapt, his food not so much...Soylent Green- IS PEOPLE!!!!!

American said:

Let me tell you something, I've been to Arizona tons of times, and there's plenty of grass being watered. That includes the public common areas. That photo is a half-truth.

Click to expand...

Let me tell you something, I've been to Arizona tons of times, and there is plenty of water being wasted pretending a desert can be made into Virginia Piedmont without serious consequences.

One biggie these days is salt accumulation. More and more water is needed to drive the salts back down only to have evaporation draw them back up.

But for some, as long as the 19th hole has ice they are content... eace

I see fresh water as a much more pressing problem than CO2.
We are using up the aquifers, faster that they are recharging.
Sooner or later we will not be able to sustain our crops.

longview said:

I see fresh water as a much more pressing problem than CO2.
We are using up the aquifers, faster that they are recharging.
Sooner or later we will not be able to sustain our crops.

Click to expand...

Yes, I remember these concerns talked about in the 80's when I lived in Arizona. I forget how many years they predicted they had then. I will simply call it the price people pay for living in such areas. Choose to move elsewhere, or you future water and electric bills may dramatically increase.