Mark is a geologist...I'm sure he's read many on the subject!
More oil and clarification
- Thread starter Forest
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Forest
Read a book and get your hair cut.
Ummmm...No disrespect, but Mark knows more about this subject then the rest of the board combined. Including you.
Read a book and get your hair cut.
Ummmm...No disrespect, but Mark knows more about this subject then the rest of the board combined. Including you.
MarkC is one side of the extreme, but he is at least partially correct knowing that we can't possibly replace all our current oil imports with domestic production. What MarkC misses the boat on: With even today's technology with nukes, solar, wind, etc, drilling and extracting everywhere possible in the USA, and getting away from stationary power generating from NG - we could be GREATLY (easily more than 50%), safely, cleanly be free from thugs with oil (TWO). (No, Canadians are not thugs well maybe some are, but.....)
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Forest
Read a book and get your hair cut.
Ummmm...No disrespect, but Mark knows more about this subject then the rest of the board combined. Including you.
No he doesn't!! MarkC is smart but......
Originally Posted By: Forest
Read a book and get your hair cut.
Ummmm...No disrespect, but Mark knows more about this subject then the rest of the board combined. Including you.
No he doesn't!! MarkC is smart but......
Originally Posted By: Pablo
MarkC is one side of the extreme, - we could be GREATLY (easily more than 50%), safely, cleanly be free from thugs with oil (TWO). (No, Canadians are not thugs well maybe some are, but.....)
Well "Could" is the operative word.
Again Pabs..you (on the other extreme of Mark) miss the biggest source of energy that we could have..tomorrow, if we choose.... Its Called "Conservation". The cheapest BTU we can ever obtain is the one we don't use. And it can be obtained without saving a Speckled owl or saving a tree. I realize many in this country feel it is our God Given right to waste. And I have seen numbers in the past that indicate we waste somewhere north of 25% of our energy.
Its very frustrating to see one group of people who hate "Tree Huggers" never seem to be able to mutter the "C" word.
I of course do believe in replacing NG Generation with other sources like wind turbines (which were 30% of new added generation last year.) Using 43% of the worlds gasoline supply is not sustainable even for an other year or two, considering development in Russia, China, and India. It will change and there will be an associated body count as it does.
MarkC is one side of the extreme, - we could be GREATLY (easily more than 50%), safely, cleanly be free from thugs with oil (TWO). (No, Canadians are not thugs well maybe some are, but.....)
Well "Could" is the operative word.
Again Pabs..you (on the other extreme of Mark) miss the biggest source of energy that we could have..tomorrow, if we choose.... Its Called "Conservation". The cheapest BTU we can ever obtain is the one we don't use. And it can be obtained without saving a Speckled owl or saving a tree. I realize many in this country feel it is our God Given right to waste. And I have seen numbers in the past that indicate we waste somewhere north of 25% of our energy.
Its very frustrating to see one group of people who hate "Tree Huggers" never seem to be able to mutter the "C" word.
I of course do believe in replacing NG Generation with other sources like wind turbines (which were 30% of new added generation last year.) Using 43% of the worlds gasoline supply is not sustainable even for an other year or two, considering development in Russia, China, and India. It will change and there will be an associated body count as it does.
If Boone Pickens would build it and pay for it, I'd put a wind turbine in my back yard! 20K royalty check every year. I really think that's gonna be the future of our energy needs.
Quote:
Its Called "Conservation"
So what are you proposing?
Its Called "Conservation"
So what are you proposing?
Originally Posted By: Al
Well "Could" is the operative word.
Again Pabs..you (on the other extreme of Mark) miss the biggest source of energy that we could have..tomorrow, if we choose.... Its Called "Conservation". The cheapest BTU we can ever obtain is the one we don't use. And it can be obtained without saving a Speckled owl or saving a tree. I realize many in this country feel it is our God Given right to waste. And I have seen numbers in the past that indicate we waste somewhere north of 25% of our energy.
Its very frustrating to see one group of people who hate "Tree Huggers" never seem to be able to mutter the "C" word.
I of course do believe in replacing NG Generation with other sources like wind turbines (which were 30% of new added generation last year.) Using 43% of the worlds gasoline supply is not sustainable even for an other year or two, considering development in Russia, China, and India. It will change and there will be an associated body count as it does.
I simply left out conservation inadvertently. I should have included it. In may haste to post and run off I left it out. My apologies.
I doubt we could "conserve" our way to growth, and a lot of the low hanging fruit has been harvested - but we certainly could do a lot better, and to my point it will help us free ourselves of the TWO so much sooner.
As for the rest of your diatribe, I find it a bit offensive and very stereotypical. You've got to think outside your media given perceptions.
Well "Could" is the operative word.
Again Pabs..you (on the other extreme of Mark) miss the biggest source of energy that we could have..tomorrow, if we choose.... Its Called "Conservation". The cheapest BTU we can ever obtain is the one we don't use. And it can be obtained without saving a Speckled owl or saving a tree. I realize many in this country feel it is our God Given right to waste. And I have seen numbers in the past that indicate we waste somewhere north of 25% of our energy.
Its very frustrating to see one group of people who hate "Tree Huggers" never seem to be able to mutter the "C" word.
I of course do believe in replacing NG Generation with other sources like wind turbines (which were 30% of new added generation last year.) Using 43% of the worlds gasoline supply is not sustainable even for an other year or two, considering development in Russia, China, and India. It will change and there will be an associated body count as it does.
I simply left out conservation inadvertently. I should have included it. In may haste to post and run off I left it out. My apologies.
I doubt we could "conserve" our way to growth, and a lot of the low hanging fruit has been harvested - but we certainly could do a lot better, and to my point it will help us free ourselves of the TWO so much sooner.
As for the rest of your diatribe, I find it a bit offensive and very stereotypical. You've got to think outside your media given perceptions.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
As for the rest of your diatribe, I find it a bit offensive and very stereotypical.
Were you implying that I felt you didn't like "Tree Huggers"?
As for the rest of your diatribe, I find it a bit offensive and very stereotypical.
Were you implying that I felt you didn't like "Tree Huggers"?
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Pablo
As for the rest of your diatribe, I find it a bit offensive and very stereotypical.
Were you implying that I felt you didn't like "Tree Huggers"?
This area is yet another that it's very hard to paint broad brushed labels on people....just too many phony tree huggers and really earth friendly capitalists out there to make two neat little piles.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
As for the rest of your diatribe, I find it a bit offensive and very stereotypical.
Were you implying that I felt you didn't like "Tree Huggers"?
This area is yet another that it's very hard to paint broad brushed labels on people....just too many phony tree huggers and really earth friendly capitalists out there to make two neat little piles.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I doubt we could "conserve" our way to growth, and a lot of the low hanging fruit has been harvested - but we certainly could do a lot better, and to my point it will help us free ourselves of the TWO so much sooner.
Its not that we "could" do more. We do, or literally we collapse. Conserve means to use less [gas]. 3/4 of our vehicles on the road are not fuel efficient..they produce 20 mpg. China, India, and Russia will sell way more cars than U.S. this year. and they are building roads like gangbusters. They are in the 2nd inning of the game. To think we can continue to use 43% of the world's gasoline is no even plausible.- its idiotic to think that we can.
Using less gas can be accomplished by building cars that get twice the mileage. You said that we couldn't achieve growth by conservation. So is somehow building more hamburger stands "growth" and building things that "Conserve energy" not growth?
We needed to start picking the high hanging fruit yesterday. It seems pretty straight forward to me that driving in the U.S. will be increasing difficult to impossible for most folks. What's the solution? Its not in expanding supply. Begging the Saudi's to pump more oil when the estimated short term reserve capacity is only a few hundred thousand barrels/day out of 86.4 million barrels/day...Do the math.
BTW the last time the Saudi's said they would pump more oil...the price went up on fears that measures were desperate. That's exactly what will occur this time.
I doubt we could "conserve" our way to growth, and a lot of the low hanging fruit has been harvested - but we certainly could do a lot better, and to my point it will help us free ourselves of the TWO so much sooner.
Its not that we "could" do more. We do, or literally we collapse. Conserve means to use less [gas]. 3/4 of our vehicles on the road are not fuel efficient..they produce 20 mpg. China, India, and Russia will sell way more cars than U.S. this year. and they are building roads like gangbusters. They are in the 2nd inning of the game. To think we can continue to use 43% of the world's gasoline is no even plausible.- its idiotic to think that we can.
Using less gas can be accomplished by building cars that get twice the mileage. You said that we couldn't achieve growth by conservation. So is somehow building more hamburger stands "growth" and building things that "Conserve energy" not growth?
We needed to start picking the high hanging fruit yesterday. It seems pretty straight forward to me that driving in the U.S. will be increasing difficult to impossible for most folks. What's the solution? Its not in expanding supply. Begging the Saudi's to pump more oil when the estimated short term reserve capacity is only a few hundred thousand barrels/day out of 86.4 million barrels/day...Do the math.
BTW the last time the Saudi's said they would pump more oil...the price went up on fears that measures were desperate. That's exactly what will occur this time.
Quote:
China, India, and Russia will sell way more cars than U.S. this year
Sounds like they should be the ones building and buying more efficient cars. Are they?
China, India, and Russia will sell way more cars than U.S. this year
Sounds like they should be the ones building and buying more efficient cars. Are they?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
China, India, and Russia will sell way more cars than U.S. this year
Sounds like they should be the ones building and buying more efficient cars. Are they?
I guess that's their business. Hard for us to be critical when we have made our mark building gas guzzlers.
Quote:
China, India, and Russia will sell way more cars than U.S. this year
Sounds like they should be the ones building and buying more efficient cars. Are they?
I guess that's their business. Hard for us to be critical when we have made our mark building gas guzzlers.
Ummmm...No disrespect, but Mark knows more about this subject then the rest of the board combined. Including you.
None taken but it doesn't mean he's right. I'm not always right none of us are. Many (self-claimed-made) experts are wrong. Conservation is a Band-Aid not a long term solution. So called tree huggers are too extreme bringing growth in petroleum to a trickle. Do I hate them? No, nottttt.....really. No balance in their thinking, their way or no way. (opened minded? Naw.)
Drill more holes period, use our resources at the same time find alternative "long term" energy solutions. But all I hear are radicals whinning about carbon and global warming IMO is nonsense. If we could get all the carbon whiners to help find energy solutions instead of banning drift wood fires on Seattle beaches because it may warm up the planet, we might be able to solve our energy problems in a year or two. Too much time on their hands and wasted brain energy as they drive home whinning about gasoline prices.
I think I'm done with this thread. I believe in the free market system and success through innovation.
China, India, and Russia will sell way more cars than U.S. this year
Sounds like they should be the ones building and buying more efficient cars. Are they?
Yugos!
None taken but it doesn't mean he's right. I'm not always right none of us are. Many (self-claimed-made) experts are wrong. Conservation is a Band-Aid not a long term solution. So called tree huggers are too extreme bringing growth in petroleum to a trickle. Do I hate them? No, nottttt.....really. No balance in their thinking, their way or no way. (opened minded? Naw.)
Drill more holes period, use our resources at the same time find alternative "long term" energy solutions. But all I hear are radicals whinning about carbon and global warming IMO is nonsense. If we could get all the carbon whiners to help find energy solutions instead of banning drift wood fires on Seattle beaches because it may warm up the planet, we might be able to solve our energy problems in a year or two. Too much time on their hands and wasted brain energy as they drive home whinning about gasoline prices.
I think I'm done with this thread. I believe in the free market system and success through innovation.
China, India, and Russia will sell way more cars than U.S. this year
Sounds like they should be the ones building and buying more efficient cars. Are they?
Yugos!
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
Drill more holes period,
Why? To enable more of the same idiocy? Put the end of the gravy train out another few years? How old are you? This may give a clue to your motivations. That is, ..insight into your perspective.
Quote:
use our resources at the same time find alternative "long term" energy solutions.
..and the reason you need to maximize your yield is "?" while finding these long term energy solutions? Your convenience, perhaps? The is no reason to put off the inevitable because the future is NOW.
Quote:
If we could get all the carbon whiners to help find energy solutions instead of banning drift wood fires on Seattle beaches because it may warm up the planet, we might be able to solve our energy problems in a year or two.
..and if we could get all the carbon spend thrifts off of the juice ..even though they're junkies, we may stretch out the time line ..just in case the energy nut is a little tougher to crack than we thought. That is, a decade or two ..if at all.
Quote:
Too much time on their hands and wasted brain energy as they drive home whinning about gasoline prices.
Too little forethought as they drive along as though "something" should be done so that they can just keep on in ignorant bliss.
Drill more holes period,
Why? To enable more of the same idiocy? Put the end of the gravy train out another few years? How old are you? This may give a clue to your motivations. That is, ..insight into your perspective.
Quote:
use our resources at the same time find alternative "long term" energy solutions.
..and the reason you need to maximize your yield is "?" while finding these long term energy solutions? Your convenience, perhaps? The is no reason to put off the inevitable because the future is NOW.
Quote:
If we could get all the carbon whiners to help find energy solutions instead of banning drift wood fires on Seattle beaches because it may warm up the planet, we might be able to solve our energy problems in a year or two.
..and if we could get all the carbon spend thrifts off of the juice ..even though they're junkies, we may stretch out the time line ..just in case the energy nut is a little tougher to crack than we thought. That is, a decade or two ..if at all.
Quote:
Too much time on their hands and wasted brain energy as they drive home whinning about gasoline prices.
Too little forethought as they drive along as though "something" should be done so that they can just keep on in ignorant bliss.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Forest
Time for you and I going on an ultra slimfast diet to shave some weight and ride a bicycle. Give up your gas-hungry Vee-8 or diesel chipped with Banks, and get a life.
If you can't afford to travel from the suburbs, ever consider becoming an organic chicken farmer?
May be slim fast for you. I have a Honda and I do ride bicycles and hike but not my 100 mile commute. You can have the organic chicken scratchin'.
Sorry to have to tell you this Forest, but you are full of poo-poo.
Yeah, some tell me that.
Total, utter, and complete [censored]. Where do you come up with this stuff, and where is all this oil that we have hiding? It's news to the USGS.
Read a book and get your hair cut.
Dude, I probably read more books in a month than you do in a year or two. If you want me to cut my hair, come to Kirkland and have ago at cutting it yourself.
Not that any of that has anything to do with you ridiculous assertion about US oil reserves. Maybe you need to read a book, or even just take a peak at some actual facts.
Time for you and I going on an ultra slimfast diet to shave some weight and ride a bicycle. Give up your gas-hungry Vee-8 or diesel chipped with Banks, and get a life.
If you can't afford to travel from the suburbs, ever consider becoming an organic chicken farmer?
May be slim fast for you. I have a Honda and I do ride bicycles and hike but not my 100 mile commute. You can have the organic chicken scratchin'.
Sorry to have to tell you this Forest, but you are full of poo-poo.
Yeah, some tell me that.
Total, utter, and complete [censored]. Where do you come up with this stuff, and where is all this oil that we have hiding? It's news to the USGS.
Read a book and get your hair cut.
Dude, I probably read more books in a month than you do in a year or two. If you want me to cut my hair, come to Kirkland and have ago at cutting it yourself.
Not that any of that has anything to do with you ridiculous assertion about US oil reserves. Maybe you need to read a book, or even just take a peak at some actual facts.
Hey, if oil returns to 60 bucks a barrel, we'll do nothing about alternative/renewable energy just as we've done for the last 3 and a half decades.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Originally Posted By: GROUCHO MARX
Hey, if oil returns to 60 bucks a barrel, we'll do nothing about alternative/renewable energy just as we've done for the last 3 and a half decades.
Hey, if oil returns to 60 bucks a barrel, we'll do nothing about alternative/renewable energy just as we've done for the last 3 and a half decades.
Anyway, here's where I'm coming from, despite Pablo's desire to paint me on an extreme edge.
All the various energy sources named above are good and can be worked, but I haven't noticed any big conservative/big business effort to get much started, and balming environmentalists for that is fairly silly.
Nukes will work, but our track record isn't very good, so why would anyone want less regulations there?
You also have to come up with a viable, safe, longterm plan about what to do with the waste. There are a few places in the US that need something to happen now, and that's been the case for years.
As for more drilling, my opinion is that unless someone has loads of oil deposits hidden and not telling anybody, what we have and what we know we have is going to be gone in ammatter of years, or decades at most, no matter if we drill and pump everything or not. The relativley small amount in ANWR would be gone a few decades at most down the line, and then we'd have oil rigs and the associated junk in place doing nothing, in what was once one of the last rleatively untouched wilderness areas we have left. This is best-case scenario, excluding any accidents, leaks or spills, which is probably overly optimistic.
Question: Who knows what happens to oil wells and the other equipment, etc, when the oil field is played out, such as Prudhoe Bay will be in a matter of years?
Another question: Is land here only for us to exploit? Is it really all about us and our ability to make more money, have more stuff, whatever?
Are a few years of trickling oil which will have very, very little effect on gas and oil prices worth putting our [censored] in places that might be better left as they are?
And finally, I'm very curious about where all this extra oil is hiding.
And I also wonder where the massive amounts of water necessary for processing oil shales is supposed to come from in a part of the country known for being prone to droughts.
There aren't a lot of easy answers and "Let's dig and drill everywhere" isn't one of them.
All the various energy sources named above are good and can be worked, but I haven't noticed any big conservative/big business effort to get much started, and balming environmentalists for that is fairly silly.
Nukes will work, but our track record isn't very good, so why would anyone want less regulations there?
You also have to come up with a viable, safe, longterm plan about what to do with the waste. There are a few places in the US that need something to happen now, and that's been the case for years.
As for more drilling, my opinion is that unless someone has loads of oil deposits hidden and not telling anybody, what we have and what we know we have is going to be gone in ammatter of years, or decades at most, no matter if we drill and pump everything or not. The relativley small amount in ANWR would be gone a few decades at most down the line, and then we'd have oil rigs and the associated junk in place doing nothing, in what was once one of the last rleatively untouched wilderness areas we have left. This is best-case scenario, excluding any accidents, leaks or spills, which is probably overly optimistic.
Question: Who knows what happens to oil wells and the other equipment, etc, when the oil field is played out, such as Prudhoe Bay will be in a matter of years?
Another question: Is land here only for us to exploit? Is it really all about us and our ability to make more money, have more stuff, whatever?
Are a few years of trickling oil which will have very, very little effect on gas and oil prices worth putting our [censored] in places that might be better left as they are?
And finally, I'm very curious about where all this extra oil is hiding.
And I also wonder where the massive amounts of water necessary for processing oil shales is supposed to come from in a part of the country known for being prone to droughts.
There aren't a lot of easy answers and "Let's dig and drill everywhere" isn't one of them.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Now you're getting deeper into it, Mark. We don't "need" more resource availability. We need sustainability ..and that's something oil or coal ..or any of the stuff you manage to pull out of the ground is NEVER going to manage. With them, it's just a matter of time before you pay the piper. Most of those who suggest paying the said piper are those who won't be around when the bill comes due.
That said, if there's some magical assumed confidence in "they'll" think of something
..well then let "them" think of something NOW before we're into crisis management on a global scale.
Now if that plague shows up ..or we have the will to take a shovel to about 2/3 of the planet (hmmmm...they're in close enough proximity ..maybe we can get them to duke it out with each other and just sit back and watch .. DRAT!! There's that "our interests" thing again ...
)
That said, if there's some magical assumed confidence in "they'll" think of something
Now if that plague shows up ..or we have the will to take a shovel to about 2/3 of the planet (hmmmm...they're in close enough proximity ..maybe we can get them to duke it out with each other and just sit back and watch .. DRAT!! There's that "our interests" thing again ...
- Status
Similar threads
