• 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

Karl said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting these numbers from??? You are trying to tell me that it is cheaper to have a super tanker haul crude oil across the ocean to be refined here in America, than it is to take oil already found in America and refine it in those same refineries? Granted if we were to switch to American oil only, there would need to be added infrastructure but that would happen almost overnight and would not prevent us from being completely self sufficient.
If you are referring to the estimated production figures for existing and operating oil fields then i agree, its not currently enough to supply our demand, but that is because we are importing so much unrefined from overseas. That’s why i want to drill MORE oil fields~! Drill Drill Drill!
 
Karl said:
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.
Click to expand...
While oil shale is found in many places worldwide, by far the largest deposits in the world are found in the United States in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, the estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from the Green River Formation would last for more than 400 years.
Click to expand...
About Oil Shale

Production of oil from shale is currently around $60/bll
 
Dpetty said:
Where are you getting these numbers from???
Click to expand...
What numbers?

Dpetty said:
You are trying to tell me that it is cheaper to have a super tanker haul crude oil across the ocean to be refined here in America, than it is to take oil already found in America and refine it in those same refineries?
Click to expand...
I'm trying to tell you that you are going to lose your argument (despite how many strawmen you introduce in lieu of providing the data requested).

Dpetty said:
If you are referring to the estimated production figures for existing and operating oil fields then i agree, its not currently enough to supply our demand, but that is because we are importing so much unrefined from overseas. [...]
Click to expand...
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).
 
Dpetty said:
Isnt that we have been saying??
Click to expand...
The evidence is that you have no idea what you're saying...

I asked for production in barrels per day, and 'your' answer is cost per barrel? :screwy
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
The evidence is that you have no idea what you're saying...

I asked for production in barrels per day, and 'your' answer is cost per barrel? :screwy
Click to expand...

Again, are you asking for current production? It would be difficult to give you possible projected Barrels per day because that would depend on how many fields were established (regulated by the government)... There are to many variables to give an acurate estimate. The oil is there, thats already been established, the rate at which we take it from the ground is simply dependant on the amount of holes we dig... And i never gave you an estimated cost per barrel.
 
Karl said:
What numbers?
Click to expand...

forget so quickly? These numbers!

Assume a sale price of $200/bbl if you think that will help the estimated production figures.
Click to expand...

You pulled that estimate out of your butt.

I'm trying to tell you that you are going to lose your argument (despite how many strawmen you introduce in lieu of providing the data requested).
Click to expand...
nobody ever won an argument by saying they were right over and over. This is a terrible and childish way to have a debate. (as proof, reference your future response to this comment)


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...

We have already shown that there is enough oil in the United States to provide for our current and future projected oil consumption for hundreds of years. Trillions and trillions of barrels... As i said we would need to increase our infrastructure to make up for the oil that is no longer coming from overseas, but we could more that provide for ourselves... I really dont see where your going with this argument. No one has ever claimed we didnt have enough oil here, they just dont want us to use it for some reason...
 
AdamT said:
The Oil Drum | Is "shale oil" the answer to "peak oil"?
Click to expand...

That link is full of misleading information. It says we are running out of places to drill and therfore looking to shale deposits. Thats not even remotly true, there are plenty of places left to drill, but the government has said no to most of them. It sites that American oil production has been on the decline since the 1970's. Conveniently around the same time the left started its crusade against oil...
 
Dpetty said:
That link is full of misleading information. It says we are running out of places to drill and therfore looking to shale deposits. Thats not even remotly true, there are plenty of places left to drill, but the government has said no to most of them. It sites that American oil production has been on the decline since the 1970's. Conveniently around the same time the left started its crusade against oil...
Click to expand...

That's fairly irrelevant. Our proven reserves, discounting shale, are insufficient even if there were no limits on drilling.
 
AdamT said:
That's fairly irrelevant. Our proven reserves, discounting shale, are insufficient even if there were no limits on drilling.
Click to expand...

The fact that you posted a link with misleading information is irrelevant??? Insufficient for what? If there were no limits on drilling we wouldnt need to rely on our reserves. Did you read the comments before you started posting? And why are you discounting shale when it holds the potential for trillions of barrels of oil alone?
 
Last edited:
Dpetty said:
The fact that you posted a link with misleading information is irrelevant??? Insufficient for what? If there were no limits on drilling we wouldnt need to rely on our reserves. Did you read the comments before you started posting? And why are you discounting shale when it holds the potential for trillions of barrels of oil alone?
Click to expand...

It isn't misleading to distinguish between areas that can be drilled and areas that can't. And again, eve if we could drill everywhere, it would not make us energy independent. Not by a mile.
 
Dpetty said:
[...] the rate at which we take it from the ground is simply dependant on the amount of holes we dig... [...]
Click to expand...
:lamoPlease. Step away. From the Kool Aid.
 
Dpetty said:
[...] You pulled that estimate out of your butt. [...]
Click to expand...
I was trying to help your argument with that figure, but even that escapes you :lamo
 
Karl said:
I was trying to help your argument with that figure, but even that escapes you :lamo
Click to expand...

How is that helping my argument?
 
Dpetty said:
nobody ever won an argument by saying they were right over and over. This is a terrible and childish way to have a debate. (as proof, reference your future response to this comment)
Click to expand...
Everyone who knows the details of shale oil, and oil shale (they are not the same), already knows that I am right. A childish way to debate is to regurgitate right wing populist propaganda and then evade technical questions that would disprove their claims.

Dpetty said:
We have already shown that there is enough oil in the United States to provide for our current and future projected oil consumption for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...
That is a claim borne of delusion.... which is one reason you can only mindlessly (childishly?) repeat it, over and over, instead of providing facts and figures to prove it.

How much of your treasure trove of oil can you get out of the ground, suitable for refining, measured in barrels per day?
 
AdamT said:
It isn't misleading to distinguish between areas that can be drilled and areas that can't. And again, eve if we could drill everywhere, it would not make us energy independent. Not by a mile.
Click to expand...

Im not sure why you say it wouldnt, because we deffinatly could, but even for arguments sake, is it not in our best interest to become as energy independent as possible?
 
Dpetty said:
Im not sure why you say it wouldnt, because we deffinatly could, but even for arguments sake, is it not in our best interest to become as energy independent as possible?
Click to expand...

No, it is not in our best interest to become as energy independent as possible to the exclusion of all other considerations.
 
Karl said:
Everyone who knows the details of shale oil, and oil shale (they are not the same), already knows that I am right. A childish way to debate is to regurgitate right wing populist propaganda and then evade technical questions that would disprove their claims.
Click to expand...

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?


That is a claim borne of delusion.... which is one reason you can only mindlessly (childishly?) repeat it, over and over, instead of providing facts and figures to prove it.
Click to expand...

And yet you yourself provide nothing...

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...

I dont have the answer to that question. I could make something up but that wouldnt accomplish anything. Instead why dont you show my the proof you claim to have that says we cannot keep up with our own demand?
 
AdamT said:
No, it is not in our best interest to become as energy independent as possible to the exclusion of all other considerations.
Click to expand...

All other considerations?? It may be to the exclusion of environmentalists, but not all other considerations. And especially if the alternative is to be at the mercy of a foreign government for our energy. They can and do fluctuate their prices to suit their whims. Its killing our economy.
 
Last edited:
It looks to me like the Chinese are using their trade surpluses in fiat currencies to acquire assets, commodities, future needs, in forms less volatile and more useful than the lovely, printing with tricks and pretty monies of "faith," that are accumulating in their vaults. Trees (lumber), tar sands (energy), mines (metals), etc. are far better investment strategies for a dynamic, growing country, than souvenirs of past greatness that most "fiat" currencies represent. Since we or Canada passed these "notes" in the form of "fiat" currency to the Chinese, we are honor bound to accept them in good faith when they return to our or Canada's shores. Don't you think?
 
AdamT said:
No, it is not in our best interest to become as energy independent as possible to the exclusion of all other considerations.
Click to expand...

I think you summed up the left's problems on energy quite succinctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom