Quote of the Century

I agree with part of what you are saying.  Shale is still in basic research.  We still don't know if this is feasible.  Oil sands are definitely feasible IF you have a source of low cost power to run the conversion process. 

Producing oil from coal is a well understood, well known process and the United States has the plans that the Germans used for the plants that produced oil from coal in WWII.  No one knows for sure what happened to these plants at the end of WWII.  Some think that the Americans dismantled them and brought them to the US.  The patents exist and the plans used to build the plants in Germany exist.

Neither shale, tar sands, or coal will or can replace oil in anything except the extremely long term.  However, in the short term, industrial scale facilities which are ready, willing, and able to produce large quantities of gasoline from tar sands, coal, and oil shale can put a damper on escalating oil prices.

The United States should develop high capacity industrial facilities to produce oil from coal, tar sands, and shale in the areas that contain large quantities of these resources.  This capacity would serve as a deterrence to oil companies arbitrarily raising the price of oil.  Also, the United States would be in a position to stop buying oil from its enemies.

The US should put together a Manhattan project style project to get industrial facilities for producing gasoline from tar sands, coal, and shale up and running as fast as possible.

be easy:

I scratch my head and wave the help flag too when having to engage people like 14road.

When challenged to present documentary evidence to support their claim, they jump over to google, type in their search, and then breathlessly copy-and-paste onto Covers the first 4 links that pop up...thinking they have scored some type of apparent argument victory.

What they don't do is read what they have linked and see if it even applies to the topic at hand.

Just like 14road did.

His first link in the defense of his argument was:

"Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US reserves by 10x"

followed by another link in a subsequent post:

The state also has been setting new production records almost every month, the report states. Studies conducted by the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources in 2008 and 2010 indicate 4 billion to 6.3 billion barrels of recoverable reserves in North Dakota, it said

If he had taken time to read what he linked, he would have found that the two articles are in direct contradiction to each other.

I recognized the first link even before opening it up. It originated as an scam oil investment opportunity in a cheesy newsletter.  Right-wing blogs then found it and not knowing the validity of the argument, spread it around the web and used it to bash Evil Obama as somehow it was evidence that the US was dripping with oil reserves that Obama would rather not develop.

So here you have a guy...14 road....calling me out...."people like kujayhwk have been wrong for 30 years" and then this troll puts together an invalid and wrong argument two minutes into the discussion.

Getting much past the basics of the oil supply issue with these types simply takes more time and energy than I want to waste on them.

 indeed.

"The US should put together a Manhattan project style project to get industrial facilities for producing gasoline from tar sands, coal, and shale up and running as fast as possible".

A Manhattan-style project to increase the amount of atmospheric-altering gases at even a greater rate than we already injecting?

You do realize that those industrial facilities you mention produce even more GHG's and lower even further the EROEI ratio for oil use, in addition to the GHG's that always result when you burn the product?

 

How about a Manhattan-style project to address the alternatives to using a 5000 lb steel and plastic device belching damaging fossil fuel emissions to transport 600-700 million individual occupants to and fro?

The goal is to eliminate dependency on imported oil. 

Many approaches will be needed.  I don't get why you insinuate that I am opposed to some technologies because I propose a different one.  Yes, you don't like anything that emits carbon, walk everywhere I guess.

100% clean technologies which can be mass produced and are affordable are decades away.  If you want to live in your pie in the sky bubble and complain about anything that is not 100% clean, that is your business.

But, in the interim the US must put itself in a position that our enemies cannot dictate to us.

I agree that we need modern, highly available. effective mass transit like the kind that France and Japan use where the trains can travel at hundreds of miles an hour.  I would support building such a system.  However, even the most effective mass transit system is not going to replace automobiles or trucks.

I lived in a suburb of Boston for a while and worked downtown.  Driving to downtown Boston during the early morning is totally out of the question.  But, the mass transit in Boston is abysmal.  I would support funding a real mass transit system in all major cities and in areas between cities where it makes sense, Baltimore to Washington DC for example.  But, even if these exist, the total  miles driven per year in the US is not going to be decreased very much.

And it is still in the best interests of the US to get us totally off of imported oil.

Yes...I, along with every US citizen with over 100 functioning brain synapses, agrees with your proposition that it is a good idea to get off  imported oil.

Where you miss the forest for the trees is your suggestion to invest more of the US National treasure (Manhattan-style) in projects that accelerate the demise of our biosphere even faster than we are doing now.

Where did I imply....."you don't like anything that emits carbon, walk everywhere I guess"

I have no problem with emitting carbon.  Carbon that is already a component of the natural carbon cycle. What I do have a problem with is emitting the fossil carbon stored in over 2 trillion barrels of oil...of which we have already emitted half of the Earth's endowment.

What you want to do is delve into the remaining several thousand gigatons of fossil carbon represented by coal and unconventional oil reserves,  converting those to liquids which will compound the release of GHG's due to the conversion processes, and all of which are energy-intensive industrial methods that eat into current energy supply.

Use more energy and more money to produce more of a liquid that only hastens the degradation of a rapidly degrading world-wide ecosystem.

Good plan.

 

He has everything to do with the USA not drilling for our own oil.

And you would leave us at the mercy of our enemies and relying on technologies which either are not feasible or have not been invented yet, so that we can adhere to your theories on the environmental impacts of fossil fuel use.

I like how you act like I am some kind of retard and then you spout your green revolution nonsense. Talking to you is a waste of time, so I am out.

It's real ez to be brave from long distance, you'd never question my military service toe to toe. This ole former Marine might just slap the taste outta your mouth.

 

Where did I imply you are retarded?

Oh....You mean where you wrote twice..."And it is still in the best interests of the US to get us totally off of imported oil"

 A statement so naive most fifth grade 'Current Events" students would acknowledge as being painfully obvious.

And when you state that ...."relying on technologies which either are not feasible or have not been invented yet"  what the hell did you imply as your Manhattan-style project".

Manhattan-style projects are the embodiment of technologies that are not currently feasible or have not been invented yet.

Great discussion with you.....sorry I missed it.

 I'm glad he's gone, but BHO couldn't scatter water with a rake tied behind him. Your boy Clinton should have erased him.

Getting much past the basics of the oil supply issue with these types simply takes more time and energy than I want to waste on them.

Yet you can't seem to provide any facts to back up your assertions.

Want to take a guess as to why that is?

he would have found that the two articles are in direct contradiction to each other.

Something you couldn't possibly demonstrate.

I, along with every US citizen with over 100 functioning brain synapses, agrees with your proposition that it is a good idea to get off  imported oil.

I guess that is why you're for opening up ANWR and drilling in the Gulf of Mexico then?

 

From link #1...."Bakken will add 175 to 500 billion bbls to N.D. reserves"

From link #2...." Bakken will add from 4.0 to 6.3 billion bbls to N.D. reserves"

As I said...you did not even read what you linked.....or if you did, you do not understand what was written.

Either way..........

Come back when you have a cogent argument....one that doesn't fall apart after 5 sentences.

 

From link #1...."Bakken will add 175 to 500 billion bbls to N.D. reserves"

From link #2...." Bakken will add from 4.0 to 6.3 billion bbls to N.D. reserves"

This is "contradictory" how _____?

You appear to not be familiar with the term "contradictory" nor do you have a working understanding of the definition.

Come back when you have a cogent argument.

You have posted zero facts, just a bunch of baseless assertions.

As I said...you did not even read what you linked.....or if you did, you do not understand what was written.

Hysterical.

Um, can you show me all the facts you posted demonstrating oil reserves are declining?

Thanks in advance.

 

I guess in the alternative universe you inhabit, these two estimates represent the same quantities.

You are wearing me down with you 'spitballs of stupidity' ..fourteenroad.

guess in the alternative universe you inhabit, these two estimates represent the same quantities.

Um, nobody said they did.

You do understand there are not in direct contradiction, right?
You can go use a dictionary and understand what that means, correct?

PS, , can you show me all the facts you posted demonstrating oil reserves are declining?

Thanks in advance.

By the way, you asserted that oil is "a liquid resource that is being sucked dry around the globe"

Funny how you can't post any actual facts to match that assertion.

PS:
In November 2010, the US Energy Information Administration released its estimates for US oil and natural gas reserves for 2009. Comparing year-end 2009 to 2008 values, proved crude oil plus condensate reserves rose 8.6% to 22.3 billion bbl, the largest increase in over three decades. Dry gas reserves increased 11.4% to 272.5 Tcf, continuing the trend of the last several years.
...Proved reserves increased by 100 million bbl or more in California, North Dakota, Texas, Utah and the federal Gulf of Mexico in 2009. Texas had the largest increase of 529 million bbl, primarily in the Permian Basin. North Dakota recorded the second-highest increase, 481 million bbl

Come back when you have a cogent argument....one that doesn't fall apart after 5 sentences.

You are projecting.

One represents something on the order of 1.0 additional year to US oil consumption.

The other represents something on the order of 110.0 additional years to US oil consumption.

Yes I would have to say these numbers provide contradictory evidence to you lame argument.

Sorry dinner time.....maybe go google some more on historical production trends as they relate to oil supply.  And look up the year that world oil discoveries peaked.....look up the year that US production peaked.  Look up the year that UK production peaked.  Look up the year that 45 of the top 60 oil producing countries peaked.  Look up the last year that we found more oil than we used (as I asked you originally). Look up Hubbert.

That should last you awhile....although if you do not even bother reading your own links...I doubt you will do anything with these.

I would have to say these numbers provide contradictory evidence to you lame argument.

Actually, they do no such thing.
It is a fact that known fossil fuel reserves are soaring, as new finds of coal, natural gas, oil, tar sands, and oil shale keep growing, not shrinking.

Notice how you've provided no actual data to support your silly assertion. Want to guess why that is?

PS:
A new drilling technique is opening up vast fields of previously out-of-reach oil in the western United States, helping reverse a two-decade decline in domestic production of crude. Companies are investing billions of dollars to get at oil deposits scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California. By 2015, oil executives and analysts say, the new fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day — more than the entire Gulf of Mexico produces now.”

 Regardless of a politician's initial good intentions, almost all of them eventually get corrupted by money.   

You do know you are trying to debate this with a guy who has been involved in this for 30+ years and knows it back to front

You, on the other hand, cannot even read your own links. Other then a couple of Associated Press reports, what is your background in this issue?

Go back and read kujay's posts over the years, you may learn something about the issue instead of relying on talking points

Read the first line of your post. Now read your "PS:" in your post? See anything wrong there?

We are talking about the global use and reserves. Funny how you can't post any actual facts to match that assertion.