America's oil dilema - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - America's oil dilema (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 7/20/2008 3:42:51 PM EDT

[#1]

Oil was made from biomass, its energy is nothing more than fossilized solar energy. We can make diamonds so we should be able to make petroleum, that is the future.

Posted: 7/20/2008 3:45:00 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What oil subsidies?

If demand were cut and the price of oil went back to 20/barrel, would that allow foreigners to gain market share?

If the above happened then demand would skyrocket again and people would return to driving the big old gas hog SUVS and the cycle will repeat.

And as we can see the only thing that can curb demand is fuel prices doubling.So, if we want to curb demand further we need to double energy prices again. Amidst the suffering maybe everyone will get more focused on a real solution like increasing the supply side of the equation.

Posted: 7/20/2008 3:55:44 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
There is a lot of negativity to alternative energy here... like nothing will ever be as good as oil. I DO agree, we WILL NEED oil for a very long time. Transportation will depend on it.

But will we, as individuals, in our own homes NEED to stay dependent on getting energy from someone else? I think not. Solar and wind generation is making progress. Several great discoveries have been made in solar power just this year. Storage of energy is advancing. I read recently that Eestor says they will have a commercial product available by the end of this year.

Give those things a few years to mature and get into production, and the day will come when us homeowners can tap a little of our equity to have systems installed that can generate and store power for us, effectively unplugging us from the grid. Let larger scale wind, solar and NUKES (MOAR NOOOKZ!!) make up the rest.

With an abundance of electrical energy, we can then easily electrolyze water to generate hydrogen to use either in combustion or fuel cells for transportation.

Electrifying vehicles will start with small commuter types first. The USDOT finds that over 70% of people commute less than 40 miles total every day. There are electric cars that can do that NOW. Within a few years, there will be more. We will be able to move ourselves away from petroleum.

In spite of all the above, we'll still (as a nation) use a lot of oil. Big trucks will not be easy to fuel from any other source for a long time. Most of our economy will depend on these trucks for a LONG time. However, moving commuting and individual transportation to another power source, then that freed up oil should be cheaper again.

I have no problem with ANY energy generation methods. As long as they stand on their own economically. NO subsidies, NO trade barriers, NO stupid enviornmental regs.

Hydroelectric is maxed out here.

Wind is a ridiculous waste of resources, except to fill the cow pond.

Solar is at best worth 1% of our energy needs if required to compete on an even field.

Alcohol just doesn't have enough energy in it.

Oil and nukes are the ONLY economically viable energy resources right now.

The free market might come up with other in the next 100 years or so, but right now oil and nukes.

Posted: 7/20/2008 3:58:50 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What oil subsidies?

If demand were cut and the price of oil went back to 20/barrel, would that allow foreigners to gain market share?

If the above happened then demand would skyrocket again and people would return to driving the big old gas hog SUVS and the cycle will repeat.

And as we can see the only thing that can curb demand is fuel prices doubling.So, if we want to curb demand further we need to double energy prices again. Amidst the suffering maybe everyone will get more focused on a real solution like increasing the supply side of the equation.

"White folks' greed runs the world in need" B. Hussein Obama.

We will consume what we can afford. And what is consumed will be found. Demand dicates future supplies, only developing future supply takes time and money.

Posted: 7/20/2008 3:59:35 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Oil was made from biomass, its energy is nothing more than fossilized solar energy. We can make diamonds so we should be able to make petroleum, that is the future.

Or even better, why don't we make diamonds and then use them to buy oil.........oh......wait.

I'm getting confused.

Is this kinda like using water to run a car?

Posted: 7/20/2008 4:01:05 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What oil subsidies?

If demand were cut and the price of oil went back to 20/barrel, would that allow foreigners to gain market share?

If the above happened then demand would skyrocket again and people would return to driving the big old gas hog SUVS and the cycle will repeat.

You aren't hearing me. I'm concerned about another 1986 style bust that would kill the American oil industry and make us even more dependent on foreign sources.

We get about 70% of our current oil usage from foreign sources now.....any minor change in that in either direction would be essentially irrelevant. We need to be essentially independent of foregn energy sources. Even if we drilled the shit out of our available sources we would not become 100% independent if all we used was petroleum. We need multiple sources. And the more of them made and produced in America the better. Solar is expensive but once in place at the homeowner level
it is cheap, economical and viable. It then frees up non renewable resources for other
needs not so easily converted to renewable sources at this time.

Posted: 7/20/2008 4:03:52 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I am really angry with Tree Huggers and liberals over their stance on oil and drilling.

They use ridiculous arguements to prevent drilling. Their talk fo 10-13 years before it will affect anything is absurd. Maybe it will take that long , but if you don't do anything now, it will never resolve anything. There has to be a starting point.

We are so dependent on OIL we have few options available to resolve anything but to drill, again because our dependency. I am for alternative energy sources such as Nuclear plants, wind power, etc.... But these will take time to start up.

America's mistake has been neglecting energy for the past 20 years and taking oil for granted as a cheap commodity. Now it bites us in the butt and we are totally unprepared.

The nations economy and the worlds is hurting and I guess we are supposed to do nothing but keep paying higher prices.

I say let's upen up for drilling and look at other sources for energy as well.

Man do I hate Democrats and their bull! They are going to self destruct this country one day.

slasher

Some journalist NEEDS to fire back at Pelosi THIS:

"But extimates say it may take 10 years to develop hydrogen cards, should we throw up our hands?"

Posted: 7/20/2008 4:05:48 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
We will consume what we can afford. And what is consumed will be found. Demand dicates future supplies, only developing future supply takes time and money.

You're forgetting about the environmentalists and their tools in Congress prohibiting the producers from producing.

Posted: 7/20/2008 4:12:34 PM EDT

[#9]

We do need to develop more alternatives to fossil fuels where possible and feasable. Some things just cannot be currently done with alternative energy sources. Freight cannot move without diesel. Planes can't fly without jet fuel. Crops cannot be raised and harvested without diesel. The technology just ain't there yet.
There are, however many things that we now use fossil fuels for that can be done as, or nearly as, efficiently without fossil fuels. You can mow your yard with an electric lawnmower. You can, in many cases commute in an electric car. Water can be heated by solar, at least supplementally. Geothermal heat pumps can heat and cool your house. We have many options to cut, but not eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. Of course, nuclear power MUST be the most feasable option at this time.
We will also need to change our attitudes towards fossil fuels and conservation. Get a more fuel efficient car. Use mass transit if possible. Change light bulbs to more energy efficient ones. Insulate your house. Turn the thermostat down 2 degrees in winter and up 2 degrees in summer and dress appropriately. If you can afford the initial outlay, solar, wind, and geothermal energy can help you rely less on fossil fuels. There are many small things that if everybody does them can help drop our consumption of fossil fuels.
We still need to drill and do it now, but technology also needs to be developed to reduce, and eventually, eliminate our need for fossil fuels, but we will still need them for the forseeable future.

Posted: 7/20/2008 4:13:52 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We will consume what we can afford. And what is consumed will be found. Demand dicates future supplies, only developing future supply takes time and money.

You're forgetting about the environmentalists and their tools in Congress prohibiting the producers from producing.

There is a way to fight that.For the NIMBY's , you do just that, in your back yard!!!
-biodiesel from algae less than $1 gallon.

ETA- "fight fire with fire" metallica.

Posted: 7/20/2008 4:21:31 PM EDT

[#11]

I got this in my email yesterday. Just finished watching it. Very interesting.

www.restoretherepublic.com/content/view/1487/71/

ETA: IE 6 and 7 users may experience problems trying to view the link. Firefox is not affected.

Posted: 7/20/2008 4:27:34 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
I got this in my email yesterday. Just finished watching it. Very interesting.

www.restoretherepublic.com/content/view/1487/71/

Something about "you have been infected with a virus"

Posted: 7/20/2008 4:33:14 PM EDT

[#13]

Yes, we import 70% of our oil, only because that is the least expensive option. But the largest supplier is Canada. And they are growing with the addition of the Keystone Pipeline. This will eventually run all the way to Houston.

Second is Saudi Arabia but they are declining.

Posted: 7/20/2008 4:47:54 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
1) Fuel economy doubled between 1973 and 1983 and remained stagnant since then.

And your point is...? I already made my point - just because we doubled it once doesn't mean that we can double it again an arbitrary number of times. Efficiency is a game of diminishing returns.

2) LEED and Energy Star buildings typically use 30-50% less energy, and greater improvements are possible.

Less than what? Are they using some 50-year old building design as the reference? And who says that significantly greater improvements are possible? It's the same game of diminishing returns; you can save energy, but you save less and less the more time and money you spend on it. We can increase efficiency some, but not enough to offset increased consumption.

3) WAL-MART has committed to doubling the efficiency of their 18 wheelers in the next 10 years.
Well?

Oooh, they're committed, how cute. Let me know when they tell us how they actually plan to do it. Heavy truck economy has probably been pursued more thoroughly then any other vehicle fuel efficiency, since it makes up a big part of trucking companies' budgets and therefore is a huge factor in which trucks get purchased. There's not gonna be room to double the truck's fuel economy anytime soon just because Wal-Mart decrees it. There's probably more efficiency gains to be had from paying more attention to truck routing and packing so as to reduce total mileage.

Posted: 7/20/2008 4:56:14 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I got this in my email yesterday. Just finished watching it. Very interesting.

www.restoretherepublic.com/content/view/1487/71/

Something about "you have been infected with a virus"

My apologies. It seems there is some problem with people using IE 6 or 7 and the site, which they are working on resolving. Firefox (which I use) doesn't have a problem, and I forgot to mention that when I posted.

Posted: 7/20/2008 4:57:29 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
I read that Pelosi was going to be on CNN Late Edition this morning. Did she address whether they're going to pass drilling legislation?

She didn't even allow the proposal to get to the floor.
No drilling allowed in her state. Of course, $5.00/gal is still fricking dirt cheap for her.

Posted: 7/20/2008 5:06:08 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
1) Fuel economy doubled between 1973 and 1983 and remained stagnant since then.

And your point is...? I already made my point - just because we doubled it once doesn't mean that we can double it again an arbitrary number of times. Efficiency is a game of diminishing returns.

2) LEED and Energy Star buildings typically use 30-50% less energy, and greater improvements are possible.

Less than what? Are they using some 50-year old building design as the reference? And who says that significantly greater improvements are possible? It's the same game of diminishing returns; you can save energy, but you save less and less the more time and money you spend on it. We can increase efficiency some, but not enough to offset increased consumption.

3) WAL-MART has committed to doubling the efficiency of their 18 wheelers in the next 10 years.
Well?

Oooh, they're committed, how cute. Let me know when they tell us how they actually plan to do it. Heavy truck economy has probably been pursued more thoroughly then any other vehicle fuel efficiency, since it makes up a big part of trucking companies' budgets and therefore is a huge factor in which trucks get purchased. There's not gonna be room to double the truck's fuel economy anytime soon just because Wal-Mart decrees it. There's probably more efficiency gains to be had from paying more attention to truck routing and packing so as to reduce total mileage.

a) Sure we can double again. Lighter, diesel cars with improved aerodynamics. It can double again, probably twice, although the economic case won't always be there.

b) Over code baseline. And there will always be diminishing returns, but at this point it's still very cost efective to save energy.

c) They started with super singles and low rolling resistance tires. They're moving on with lighter trucks and tires, and eventually they are going to use hybrids.

Posted: 7/20/2008 5:13:12 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I got this in my email yesterday. Just finished watching it. Very interesting.

www.restoretherepublic.com/content/view/1487/71/

Something about "you have been infected with a virus"

My apologies. It seems there is some problem with people using IE 6 or 7 and the site, which they are working on resolving. Firefox (which I use) doesn't have a problem, and I forgot to mention that when I posted.

No prob, I did a 180.

Posted: 7/20/2008 5:16:23 PM EDT

[#19]

This bit of truth will probably get anyone who states it banned or locked on any 'net board in America!
It seems there is an unwritten law against stating this fact.

Illegals now comprise +- 15% of our population.
Some say fifteen million, some say thirty million, our total U.S. population is just over two-hundred and fifty million.

Deport ALL the illegals, no matter where they came from, and you will achieve the 20% reduction in energy usage that has been such a difficult goal to reach!

Without new tech, without new drilling, without more coal, Nuke plants, etc.

Of course that is only a temporary solution, our population will soon return to the two-hundred and fifty million plus, legal Americans have kids too.

In the mean time we can use the break in demand while planning and implementing the best mix of new tech, new drilling, new coal plants, Nuke plants, etc.

And best of all, it does not require any new laws, just sincere enforcement of the laws we already have.

Posted: 7/20/2008 5:16:47 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I read that Pelosi was going to be on CNN Late Edition this morning. Did she address whether they're going to pass drilling legislation?

She didn't even allow the proposal to get to the floor.
No drilling allowed in her state. Of course, $5.00/gal is still fricking dirt cheap for her.

This is why her congress has a single digit approval rating.Unfortunately , most people are ignorant of the fact that they pass the legislation and believe it is all the president's fault.

Posted: 7/20/2008 5:21:03 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
This bit of truth will probably get anyone who states it banned or locked on any 'net board in America!
It seems there is an unwritten law against stating this fact.

Illegals now comprise +- 15% of our population.
Some say fifteen million, some say thirty million, our total U.S. population is just over two-hundred and fifty million.

Deport ALL the illegals, no matter where they came from, and you will achieve the 20% reduction in energy usage that has been such a difficult goal to reach!

Without new tech, without new drilling, without more coal, Nuke plants, etc.

Of course that is only a temporary solution, our population will soon return to the two-hundred and fifty million plus, legal Americans have kids too.

In the mean time we can use the break in demand while planning and implementing the best mix of new tech, new drilling, new coal plants, Nuke plants, etc.

And best of all, it does not require any new laws, just sincere enforcement of the laws we already have.

Good point, add to that that they make up 1/3rd of our prison pop and they tend to be on the bottom rung of producers in that given their wages versus services used.

Posted: 7/20/2008 5:21:09 PM EDT

[#22]

What if...what if drilling here CAUSED a problem instead of alleviated it, but the politicians are too scared to say why, so instead talk tough and then stonewall? Wouldn't that answer a lot of questions as to why they behave the way they do?

IE issues aside, that video link I posted has some amazing info in it, that made a lot of sense to me once I watched it.

Posted: 7/20/2008 5:35:55 PM EDT

[#23]

1) Drill now - bring more oil online - drill everywhere that has potential - all oil produced in the US to be earmarked for domestic use only .

2) Construct three new super refineries, one on the west coast, one on the gulf coast, and one on the east coast.

3) Build 30-80 nuclear power facilities in the next 20 years

4) Develop the oil sand (Fort Dodge Formation) in Alberta with the Canadians (estimated 100 year supply of oil here at current consumption rate of US and Canada).

5) Develop additional natural gas resources

6) Explore wind, solar, and other biomass fuel projects (other than corn and food grains).

This plan would put a large segment of our population to work over the next 20 years in high tech jobs and eventually lead to our energy independence.

Posted: 7/20/2008 5:41:51 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Oil was made from biomass, its energy is nothing more than fossilized solar energy. We can make diamonds so we should be able to make petroleum, that is the future.

TCP.

Thermal Conversion Process, Changing World Technologies.

It works, there is/was a production plant in Carthage MO.

Their economic model was flawed when they made assumptions about future congressional action and the cost of source material.
They were also excluded from many of the subsidies and perks conventional oil gets.
Then there was their silly contract locking them into selling oil for only $30 a barrel.
Despite their location being literally next door to a slaughter house, they got all the blame for "smell's" in their area, now the plant is closed.

So they never made the money they should have, but the process is proven tech, they really can turn almost ANY waste product into oil and minerals.
The latest info I saw is that they are about to build several more plants, ALL in Europe!

Once again, invented here, but not implemented here, Europe benefits while we continue to lament the lack of solutions to our oil and waste problems.

Congress approval should not be in single digits, unless they are NEGATIVE digits!

Posted: 7/20/2008 5:49:15 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
An oil spill does not kill anyone, a coal mine collapse might kill 20 per year in bad times, refinery accidents might kill 10 per year, a nuclear incident at one of these plants has the potential to kill thousands. Habitability of the surrounding land after said incident notwithstanding then there is the waste issue which is two part, moving it then storing it since there is apparently no safe way to destroy it.

Our current transportation system DOES kill thousands EVERY YEAR and renders the land it uses uninhabitable.

Realistic appraisal of the risks of nuclear power falls squarely in the realm of marketing.

Posted: 7/20/2008 6:12:43 PM EDT

[#26]

hello;

you will NEVER see an interview with a drilling company ex. take it from someone in (was) in the drilling business. if you had a confirmed oil under your back yard and started drilling monday morning, it will take between 60-90 day to complete the well.

your problem is getting the oil from the well to refinery, that means pipelines. how long did take to build the alaska pipeline? @2-3 years? if someone throws around the 10 year number to produce more oil, they either don't know what they are talking about or lying through their teeth.

pipeline workers work. there are no such thing as feel good breaks! your are paid to lay pipeline or burn welding rods.

if someone says drill what is under lease first, the answers is "dry hole". when a well is punched today, there is almost no risk, ya gone'a hit!!! seismograph technology is that good. if these these seismograph studies say there is no oil or natural gas, there ain't none. = dry hole.

rp

Posted: 7/20/2008 6:27:06 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There is no substitute for petoleum. There never will be.

Nothing is so engergy dense, safe and easy to transport.

Fools.

Well "there never will be" is going a bit far, but oil is certainly without a good or even okay substitute now and for the foreseeable future.

Wind and solar have no chance of replacing a significant percentage of our energy usage. Biofuels and alcohols would soak up massive amounts of farmland to even start to reach 1% of our national energy consumption. No other scheme that I've heard of even comes close to these inadequate substitutes, much less our actual energy usage. Conservation doesn't have much more to give and hydropower works but we're already using as much as we possibly can.

Only coal and nuclear power have the ability to move more of our energy consumption away from oil.

You kind of made my point for me,

and it seems we are in agreement for the most part. It is wise to look to Nuclear. We should do reprocessing here in the US, use Breeder type reactors, and repeal Carter's Excecutive Order bans on the same.

Quoted:

Quoted:
There is no substitute for petoleum. There never will be.

Nothing is so engergy dense, safe and easy to transport.

Fools.

You better hope we find a technologically feasible substitute for petroleum.
Because drilling or no drilling, conserving or not conserving ....eventually we will
use up the available petroleum. The only question is when not if. If we are lucky we
might have 50+ years to find that replacement if we can find ways to extract more oil from more marginal sources. If we are not lucky we could find that we have only a couple more decades before petroleum becomes scarce. And once our technologically
advanced oil dependent society runs out of oil to drive it we will no longer be able
support the infrastructure to find the oil that is really really hard to get at, and the easily used oil will be gone.

The question is not will we run out of oil. The question is how long before we reach a point where we can no longer produce enough oil to maintain our current petroleum based infrastructure. There will probably always be oil available....in small amounts.
We need it in huge almost unfathomable large amounts....and in a continous stream.

An intelligent species would understand these facts and take advantage of our current
advanced technology to find and implement the replacement energy sources before
the current source collapse taking the entire infrastructure back a couple centuries.

Of course to date homo sapiens has not shown evidence of intelligence....just cleverness. There is a big difference.

We do agree, Fossil Fuels of any kind will eventually be consumed. As far as infrastucture to get to the difficult to reach oil. That is our dillema right now, and if we get a resession/depression we may never recover from it...we need to keep the economy growing NOW to pay for the research into engergy substitues of the future (None are likely to be a cheap, safe and easy as fossile fuels are today).

My fools comment was directed to the Envornmentalists noted in the OPs now deleted post and how they have made it nearly impossible to do what is needed here. Our energy infrastructure is in worse shape than most of us dare imagine. But I digress.

Whilst an intellegent species would...we may find we humans are not so salient, clever nor intelligent as we like to think. I often think we've approached the upper boundry between technological advancment & complexity and the human brain's ability to link all of our knowlege together. Our spcialization may be our ruination...

Sheesh, I do ramble...I should not post when tired...

Posted: 7/20/2008 6:36:11 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This bit of truth will probably get anyone who states it banned or locked on any 'net board in America!
It seems there is an unwritten law against stating this fact.

Illegals now comprise +- 15% of our population.
Some say fifteen million, some say thirty million, our total U.S. population is just over two-hundred and fifty million.

Deport ALL the illegals, no matter where they came from, and you will achieve the 20% reduction in energy usage that has been such a difficult goal to reach!

Without new tech, without new drilling, without more coal, Nuke plants, etc.

Of course that is only a temporary solution, our population will soon return to the two-hundred and fifty million plus, legal Americans have kids too.

In the mean time we can use the break in demand while planning and implementing the best mix of new tech, new drilling, new coal plants, Nuke plants, etc.

And best of all, it does not require any new laws, just sincere enforcement of the laws we already have.

Good point, add to that that they make up 1/3rd of our prison pop and they tend to be on the bottom rung of producers in that given their wages versus services used.

Incorrect information...

1) The population of the US is OVER 300 million. Illegal immigrants are, at best, not fully represented in that number - if represented at all...

2) They do NOT make up 1/3 of our prison population.

According to Federal statistics for the last year available (1997),

1.9 million Americans were under State or Federal jurisdiction for felony offenses (1yr +)

213,000 were Hispanic (legal and illegal combined)

That's nowhere near 1/3...

3) We should be looking at how to get to 600 million Americans, not how to get DOWN to 250 million...

Posted: 7/20/2008 6:37:48 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
hello;

you will NEVER see an interview with a drilling company ex. take it from someone in (was) in the drilling business. if you had a confirmed oil under your back yard and started drilling Monday morning, it will take between 60-90 day to complete the well.

your problem is getting the oil from the well to refinery, that means pipelines. how long did take to build the Alaska pipeline? @2-3 years? if someone throws around the 10 year number to produce more oil, they either don't know what they are talking about or lying through their teeth.

pipeline workers work. there are no such thing as feel good breaks! your are paid to lay pipeline or burn welding rods.

if someone says drill what is under lease first, the answers is "dry hole". when a well is punched today, there is almost no risk, ya gonna hit!!! seismograph technology is that good. if these these seismograph studies say there is no oil or natural gas, there ain't none. = dry hole.

rp

What did you do? Roughneck?

First of all wildcatters hit about 6 of 10 wells.

Then you have wells that collapse or simply won't flow to a profitable level.

One of my best friends builds gathering systems and then sells them. He makes millions doing it, but he could lose everything if one goes bad.

He is bidding on a system in the Dakota's right now.

In the last year, 12 in pipe went from $27/ ft to over $50/ft.

To transport that pipe from Galveston to S Dakota is $10,000 in freight alone. I'm not sure how many truckloads of pipe it takes for just a 20 mile pipeline, but it is a fucking bunch.

Building a pipeline system is NOT going to happen until a bunch of wells are drilled and completed.

The investments are huge and it take BIG MOTHERFUCKIN BALLS to un-ass the millions it takes to build that infrastructure.

Posted: 7/20/2008 6:42:18 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This bit of truth will probably get anyone who states it banned or locked on any 'net board in America!
It seems there is an unwritten law against stating this fact.

Illegals now comprise +- 15% of our population.
Some say fifteen million, some say thirty million, our total U.S. population is just over two-hundred and fifty million.

Deport ALL the illegals, no matter where they came from, and you will achieve the 20% reduction in energy usage that has been such a difficult goal to reach!

Without new tech, without new drilling, without more coal, Nuke plants, etc.

Of course that is only a temporary solution, our population will soon return to the two-hundred and fifty million plus, legal Americans have kids too.

In the mean time we can use the break in demand while planning and implementing the best mix of new tech, new drilling, new coal plants, Nuke plants, etc.

And best of all, it does not require any new laws, just sincere enforcement of the laws we already have.

Good point, add to that that they make up 1/3rd of our prison pop and they tend to be on the bottom rung of producers in that given their wages versus services used.

Incorrect information...

1) The population of the US is OVER 300 million. Illegal immigrants are, at best, not fully represented in that number - if represented at all...

2) They do NOT make up 1/3 of our prison population.

3) We should be looking at how to get to 600 million Americans, not how to get DOWN to 250 million...

I'm curious to hear why you think doubling the population of America is a good thing...even if we had plenty of resources to insure that all those people could live the
"american dream" lifestyle.

Just because we can support that many people (and the point is debatable) does not mean we should have that many people. Uncontrolled breeding and unchecked population is not a good thing unless the speicies doing that rabbit act has a lot of natural predators and disease processes to control numbers.

Posted: 7/20/2008 6:45:08 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
hello;

you will NEVER see an interview with a drilling company ex. take it from someone in (was) in the drilling business. if you had a confirmed oil under your back yard and started drilling Monday morning, it will take between 60-90 day to complete the well.

your problem is getting the oil from the well to refinery, that means pipelines. how long did take to build the Alaska pipeline? @2-3 years? if someone throws around the 10 year number to produce more oil, they either don't know what they are talking about or lying through their teeth.

pipeline workers work. there are no such thing as feel good breaks! your are paid to lay pipeline or burn welding rods.

if someone says drill what is under lease first, the answers is "dry hole". when a well is punched today, there is almost no risk, ya gonna hit!!! seismograph technology is that good. if these these seismograph studies say there is no oil or natural gas, there ain't none. = dry hole.

rp

What did you do? Roughneck?

First of all wildcatters hit about 6 of 10 wells.

Then you have wells that collapse or simply won't flow to a profitable level.

One of my best friends builds gathering systems and then sells them. He makes millions doing it, but he could lose everything if one goes bad.

He is bidding on a system in the Dakota's right now.

In the last year, 12 in pipe went from $27/ ft to over $50/ft.

To transport that pipe from Galveston to S Dakota is $10,000 in freight alone. I'm not sure how many truckloads of pipe it takes for just a 20 mile pipeline, but it is a fucking bunch.

Building a pipeline system is NOT going to happen until a bunch of wells are drilled and completed.

The investments are huge and it take BIG MOTHERFUCKIN BALLS to un-ass the millions it takes to build that infrastructure.

About 1/2 mile per truck load of 12" pipe. So that would be about 40 truck loads.

API 5L has gotten very expensive.

Posted: 7/20/2008 6:53:15 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This bit of truth will probably get anyone who states it banned or locked on any 'net board in America!
It seems there is an unwritten law against stating this fact.

Illegals now comprise +- 15% of our population.
Some say fifteen million, some say thirty million, our total U.S. population is just over two-hundred and fifty million.

Deport ALL the illegals, no matter where they came from, and you will achieve the 20% reduction in energy usage that has been such a difficult goal to reach!

Without new tech, without new drilling, without more coal, Nuke plants, etc.

Of course that is only a temporary solution, our population will soon return to the two-hundred and fifty million plus, legal Americans have kids too.

In the mean time we can use the break in demand while planning and implementing the best mix of new tech, new drilling, new coal plants, Nuke plants, etc.

And best of all, it does not require any new laws, just sincere enforcement of the laws we already have.

Good point, add to that that they make up 1/3rd of our prison pop and they tend to be on the bottom rung of producers in that given their wages versus services used.

Incorrect information...

1) The population of the US is OVER 300 million. Illegal immigrants are, at best, not fully represented in that number - if represented at all...

2) They do NOT make up 1/3 of our prison population.

3) We should be looking at how to get to 600 million Americans, not how to get DOWN to 250 million...

I'm curious to hear why you think doubling the population of America is a good thing...even if we had plenty of resources to insure that all those people could live the
"american dream" lifestyle.

Just because we can support that many people (and the point is debatable) does not mean we should have that many people. Uncontrolled breeding and unchecked population is not a good thing unless the speicies doing that rabbit act has a lot of natural predators and disease processes to control numbers.

Because population stagnation is not a 'good thing' - in fact, it's a pretty significant threat to our way of life... We are BARELY making replacement (maintaing our population) and that's *WITH* legal AND illegal immigration...

Especially when most of our potential 'competion' overseas has us WAY WAY outdone in the population department....

We have more than enough room in the US to fit that many people *IF* we do it by building new cities, not trying to cram them into the existing locations...

And the economic activity generated supporting such a population would handle *that* angle...

Throughout history, the US has maintained it's population primarily through immigration - one group moves up to the '1-2 kids and a dog' lifestyle, and a new immigrant class replaces them..

Since WWII, we have largely relied on reproduction for population growth... And as our society moves away from 3+ kid families, to DINKs & 1 'pet' kid families.... That is not working...

Posted: 7/20/2008 7:09:57 PM EDT

[#33]

Addressing the issue of maintaing an adequate population is one thing...Japan is dealing with somthing along those lines right now. But actually doubling our population
is a different thing. With todays technology we have trouble dealing adequately with
getting enough food and goods to everyone in America as it is. The issue of waste management is not getting significantly better. Pie in the sky something better will come along science is touch feely warm and fuzzy but it isn't real. Based on todays
tech, todays politics and todays mental limitations due to TV and crappy education we are barely able to support our present mass of quivering flesh. Until real tangible measurable improvements have been made in our abilities it is folly to continue to breed without thought or planning.

Posted: 7/20/2008 7:19:34 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This bit of truth will probably get anyone who states it banned or locked on any 'net board in America!
It seems there is an unwritten law against stating this fact.

Illegals now comprise +- 15% of our population.
Some say fifteen million, some say thirty million, our total U.S. population is just over two-hundred and fifty million.

Deport ALL the illegals, no matter where they came from, and you will achieve the 20% reduction in energy usage that has been such a difficult goal to reach!

Without new tech, without new drilling, without more coal, Nuke plants, etc.

Of course that is only a temporary solution, our population will soon return to the two-hundred and fifty million plus, legal Americans have kids too.

In the mean time we can use the break in demand while planning and implementing the best mix of new tech, new drilling, new coal plants, Nuke plants, etc.

And best of all, it does not require any new laws, just sincere enforcement of the laws we already have.

Good point, add to that that they make up 1/3rd of our prison pop and they tend to be on the bottom rung of producers in that given their wages versus services used.

Incorrect information...

1) The population of the US is OVER 300 million. Illegal immigrants are, at best, not fully represented in that number - if represented at all...

2) They do NOT make up 1/3 of our prison population.

According to Federal statistics for the last year available (1997),

1.9 million Americans were under State or Federal jurisdiction for felony offenses (1yr +)

213,000 were Hispanic (legal and illegal combined)

That's nowhere near 1/3...

3) We should be looking at how to get to 600 million Americans, not how to get DOWN to 250 million...

The fed pop for 2004 was 27% illegal-ETA(that rate is accelerating faster than the rest of the prison growth)
- not to be picky but, 600 mil Americans is one thing , taking 300 mil and adding 300mil illegals is another.

Posted: 7/20/2008 7:42:30 PM EDT

[#35]

10 years my ass!

All GWB had to do was lift the executive ban on drilling and the price of oil made a substantial decline.

If congress does the same, oil will plummet.

We have the means to be totally energy independent in this country. Petro tyrants are bastards but they aren't morons. They will do whatever it takes to keep the US dependant on their crude. Right now the democrats are carrying the water for them. If they ever decide to switch sides and become Americans the Petro tyrants will drop oil as low as it takes to prevent significant production in this country.

They know that oil dependance is pretty much the only thing that keeps us putting up with their shit. If we ever wake up and develop our own enery supply, there will be bugger all to prevent us from sending a variety of large bombs right up their terrorist supporting asses.

The fifth column in this country knows this too, that is why the democrats are doing everything in their power to keep us dependent on Comrade Chavez's oil.

Posted: 7/20/2008 7:51:36 PM EDT

[#36]

The only problem with increased production is refining capacity, or lack there of.

Posted: 7/20/2008 7:53:17 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
The only problem with increased production is refining capacity, or lack there of.

Thats actually an easy problem to fix....oncy you take nimby politics out of the equation and reign in the envirowienies and their impossible to meet "ecologic impact assessments" demands.

Posted: 7/20/2008 7:54:46 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
The only problem with increased production is refining capacity, or lack there of.

Refineries are running at 89% or less because of demand destruction. Margins are VERY TIGHT on the refinery side. Any new refinery construction must take that into account.

Valero, the nation's largest refiner, recently sold a refinery.

Posted: 7/20/2008 9:13:04 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There is no substitute for petoleum. There never will be.

Nothing is so engergy dense, safe and easy to transport.

Fools.

Alcohol based fuels could be but it would require the government to get out of the way as relates to farming and the revenue agencies.

You can't pipeline alcohol - it has to be trucked or rail-roaded, drastically increasing transport costs.

Posted: 7/20/2008 9:14:32 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Nuclear is a can of worms that I usually don't like to open. I've been reading about the new reactors and I love them. I also think that we need a commercial reprocessing industry here, as well.

Human factor and the potential massive harm that might result.

Highly overstated. Highly. Chernobyl is an example of designing the worst reactor that you can, with no safety measures and no containment, then turning all the levers up to see what happens.

An oil spill does not kill anyone, a coal mine collapse might kill 20 per year in bad times, refinery accidents might kill 10 per year, a nuclear incident at one of these plants has the potential to kill thousands. Habitability of the surrounding land after said incident notwithstanding then there is the waste issue which is two part, moving it then storing it since there is apparently no safe way to destroy it.

Puh-lease. 3 Mile Island, (OLD tech), killed 1 LESS person than Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile.

Posted: 7/20/2008 9:16:23 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
The failure of our politicians to secure our energy supply to the degree it insulates us from volatile situations or hostile nations abroad is probably their greatest failure. Ever since Nixon and the Yom Kippur War, top American leaders have been calling for and promising to do something about this key vulnerability, and they have never done a thing. 35 years of failure year after year after year.

This could be a key strategy to make the GOP relevant again, because they support measures that will work, and liberals are only interested in indulging in fantasy and appeasing the environmentalists. We could utterly wipe the floor with them if the GOP could deliver long-term energy security to America, and it wouldn't be that hard to do if we finally got serious about accomplishing it.

Politicians don't, and can't deliver energy. The free market and energy companies do.

Posted: 7/20/2008 9:18:24 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The failure of our politicians to secure our energy supply to the degree it insulates us from volatile situations or hostile nations abroad is probably their greatest failure. Ever since Nixon and the Yom Kippur War, top American leaders have been calling for and promising to do something about this key vulnerability, and they have never done a thing. 35 years of failure year after year after year.

This could be a key strategy to make the GOP relevant again, because they support measures that will work, and liberals are only interested in indulging in fantasy and appeasing the environmentalists. We could utterly wipe the floor with them if the GOP could deliver long-term energy security to America, and it wouldn't be that hard to do if we finally got serious about accomplishing it.

Politicians don't, and can't deliver energy. The free market and energy companies do.

Politicians don't do much of anything except produce hot air. What they do excel at though is interfering with the ability of others to do things.

Posted: 7/20/2008 9:21:43 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
There is a lot of negativity to alternative energy here... like nothing will ever be as good as oil. I DO agree, we WILL NEED oil for a very long time. Transportation will depend on it.

But will we, as individuals, in our own homes NEED to stay dependent on getting energy from someone else? I think not. Solar and wind generation is making progress. Several great discoveries have been made in solar power just this year. Storage of energy is advancing. I read recently that Eestor says they will have a commercial product available by the end of this year.

Give those things a few years to mature and get into production, and the day will come when us homeowners can tap a little of our equity to have systems installed that can generate and store power for us, effectively unplugging us from the grid. Let larger scale wind, solar and NUKES (MOAR NOOOKZ!!) make up the rest.

With an abundance of electrical energy, we can then easily electrolyze water to generate hydrogen to use either in combustion or fuel cells for transportation.

Electrifying vehicles will start with small commuter types first. The USDOT finds that over 70% of people commute less than 40 miles total every day. There are electric cars that can do that NOW. Within a few years, there will be more. We will be able to move ourselves away from petroleum.

In spite of all the above, we'll still (as a nation) use a lot of oil. Big trucks will not be easy to fuel from any other source for a long time. Most of our economy will depend on these trucks for a LONG time. However, moving commuting and individual transportation to another power source, then that freed up oil should be cheaper again.

Until it takes LESS energy to manufacture a solar panel, and it generates more electricity in its lifetime than it costs, solar is a non-starter. Wind is a maintenenace hog, eyesore, and won;t work everywhere.

Posted: 7/20/2008 9:24:24 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Conservation doesn't have much more to give?

I just about spluttered when I heard you say that.

Why not double fuel economy in the next ten years, decrease the energy requirements of new buildings by 75% and reduce automobile passenger miles by 20%. I think that is all easily done and quite profitable.

I know that my company is taking steps to save money on energy, and that we aren't in a particularly intensive business.

Conservation is cheaper than consumption.

Conservation is TEMPORARY measure - eventually you have to have supply growth. What makes you think you CAN "double" fuel economy, etc. If it was "easily done, and quite rofitable", the free market would have already done it. If you "think" it is, why haven't you raised capitol and started a company to do it?

Posted: 7/20/2008 10:22:22 PM EDT

[#45]

Because people don't want them.

Holy shit.

Did I really have to point that out to you?

The free market can only be understood when viewed with a healthy does of game theory, and people aren't too keen to get into an aluminum or carbon fiber car that turns itself on and off.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - America's oil dilema (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us