BO has gas...

[pocketfullofshells]

I am sorry, but you have no clue what you are talking about.

I know you hate it that America uses more oil than all other nations. You would much prefer a communist dictatorship using more oil. Right?

Alternative energy sources are NOT viable. Why do lefties not know this. Or, could it be they want America to become a third world cesspool?

can you even speak without crying communist or Liberal? Thats all you have for debate and its pathetic.

 

[PLC1]

Since oil is a global market it doesn't matter if they drill here, there or everywhere. The US has a twenty years supply of oil at current consumption. ANWR has about a year and a half supply of oil. Bakken has a two year supply. Only complete idiots believe we can drill our way to lower prices or energy independence. The US is pretty much screwed.

Yes, it pretty much is screwed unless we actually develop some alternatives to gasoline and diesel. There is only just so much petroleum, and what we find is more and more difficult to retrieve, due both to politics (ME) and to geology. The time to have begun to work on alternatives was during the last man made gas crisis, back in the late '70s, the one that put our economy into a tailspin and that we forgot all about when it was over. Since we didn't, I suppose it is better late than never.

Or, we could just be screwed and become a third world backwater in the next few decades. It's our choice.

 

[Dr.Who]

Poking around on the net I found a number of estimates of how much oil the US has and could get easily.

Those estimates vary from enough for 60 years to enough for 400 years. Eliminating the sources that seem less credible or use math that is just too hinkey I guess that the best estimate is 160 years for oil and 90 years for natural gas.

As oil extraction technology increases that number will go up. Given how much oil and gas is is in the ground it is not unreasonable that energy needs could be fulfilled for way more than 400 years.

Yes it will run out some day. Yes we need to be more efficient with the energy we use and use renewable sources. But there is no rush - hence the need to call alarmist cries about global warming. Without the scare of global warming no one would care that we are using oil.

 

[PLC1]

Poking around on the net I found a number of estimates of how much oil the US has and could get easily.

Those estimates vary from enough for 60 years to enough for 400 years. Eliminating the sources that seem less credible or use math that is just too hinkey I guess that the best estimate is 160 years for oil and 90 years for natural gas.

As oil extraction technology increases that number will go up. Given how much oil and gas is is in the ground it is not unreasonable that energy needs could be fulfilled for way more than 400 years.

Yes it will run out some day. Yes we need to be more efficient with the energy we use and use renewable sources. But there is no rush - hence the need to call alarmist cries about global warming. Without the scare of global warming no one would care that we are using oil.

You found credible evidence that the US has, under its own soil, at least 60 years worth of economically recoverable petroleum? Wow. If that's true, then we could divorce ourselves from the Middle East easily. Somehow, I really have to question that. If we really had that kind of a resource, the motivation to develop it would be overwhelming. As for global warming, domestic oil doesn't create any more carbon dioxide than foreign oil, does it?

 

[Gipper]

Actually it is over 100 years of sufficent sources of oil and natural gas. This is well known by informed people, but many Americans are not informed or have bought the propaganda presented by the media.

This column in the WSJ yesterday clearly points this out. Information like this is readily available from multiple sources, but some Americans chose to live in the dark.

The planet is endowed with plentiful sources of natural gas and oil, conventional and unconventional. Some estimates place global unconventional gas resources at about 33,000 trillion cubic feet, or about five times the amount of proven reserves at the end of 2009. The outlook for liquids is no less promising. At current rates of global consumption, there are sufficient oil and gas supplies to last well into the next century.

What's missing is a coherent U.S. energy policy. At best, the Obama administration's approach to U.S. domestic oil and gas production can be characterized as a strategy of ambivalence, an uneasy equilibrium between desire to lessen the role of fossil fuels and the reality of their necessity in a functioning U.S. economy. Last year's Deepwater Horizon tragedy in the Gulf tilted the current administration's policies to an even more punitive posture vis-a-vis domestic energy production.

As the French philosopher Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wisely observed, "A goal without a plan is just a wish." Unfortunately for the U.S., there is not even a wish. The time to rethink and redesign our entire energy strategy is now.

The Obama administration must seriously ponder the following questions, because they relate directly to what the president likes to call "winning the future." What will be the make-up of the energy-supply pie, and how can we dramatically increase, even double, our energy efficiency? What exactly are our carbon emission goals? And how do we go from where we are today—importing about 20% of our daily energy supply—to where we want to be in 2026, perhaps even an energy exporter?

We've already entered a new energy era that is dramatically more competitive, diverse and high-tech than the past. The global consumer is king. The future energy picture for the U.S. or the planet is not constrained by the availability of supplies, either fossil or non-fossil, but by efficiency gains in generation and consumption.

This will require real leadership and the clear articulation of energy goals, costs and priorities. Ambiguity will not serve the best interests of future generations. The U.S. does not have an energy problem. It has an energy strategy problem.

Mr. Saleri, president and CEO of Quantum Reservoir Impact in Houston, was formerly head of reservoir management for Saudi Aramco
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703386704576186622682563228.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[Gipper]

problem solved..

There is not a single renewable source of energy that doesn't cause a BTU deficit with oil. So windmills and solar cells, ethanol, and presently hydrogen are out.

So what should we do to become independent from the oil market manipulation? That's easy.

We need to build 200 more nuclear reactors. This would supply 100% of electrical energy plus enough to expand industry in the US by 25%.

It is possible with nuclear to heat and cool an average sized home for 15 dollars a month discounting liberal hatred of nuclear. That would leave you with lots of spending cash each month. Further, you could easily plug in your own electric vehicle and that cost would equate to roughly 10 cents a gallon fuel.

So you see, the answer was invented in the USA in the 40s but the liberals are so stupid that they would rather go through energy driven recessions ever ten years than do something intelligent.

As for nuclear waste which is the mantra of the dopes. The earth acts as a trash compacter. The surface of the earth vibrates and is constantly rolled under to the center of the earth which is in fact a nuclear core. So what you do is drill very deep holes in the crust of the earth to the salt pours and you toss in your nuclear waste. Then you seal it up and over time it goes toward the center of the earth and is destroyed. Since the earths core is radioactive anyway, the time of decomposition is meaningless. Because man will have vanished from the earth right on schedule and the earth will swallow the nuclear waste and not give a krap.

Plus, the greens always give the impression that nuclear waste amounts to huge tonnage. This is of course absurd. It is essentially tiny.

China by the way is presently building 34 nuclear plants with another 300 on the drawing boards. They have no intention of buying oil till the last man dies.... or is that something I got from Gaddafi?

just sayin
doug

Yes, nuke plants has been the answer for decades. But, thanks to the sillies we do not have it.

Remember that stupid movie China Syndrome from all the back to 1979? (The left had control of Hollywood even before 1979.) That crazy traitorous ***** Hanoi Jane was in that movie.

What a dumb movie but it, along with the non-incident at Three Mile Island allowed the lib media and the greenies to ruin an energy source that would have reduced emissions (nuke generates little compared to coal) and provide cheap energy for ALL Americans.

Thanks again Libs.

 

[Dr.Who]

You found credible evidence that the US has, under its own soil, at least 60 years worth of economically recoverable petroleum? Wow. If that's true, then we could divorce ourselves from the Middle East easily. Somehow, I really have to question that. If we really had that kind of a resource, the motivation to develop it would be overwhelming. As for global warming, domestic oil doesn't create any more carbon dioxide than foreign oil, does it?

Actually no. I found both credible and not so credible. The 60 year figure was from the oil companies themselves and since you would find them to be not credible and since they may indeed have a reason to lowball the figure I rejected it.

But good job picking out what I did not emphasize in my post and ignoring what I did.

But suppose it were true. 60 years would indeed be short enough that we would need to develop alternatives but long enough that we would not need to ruin the economy in the process costing real people real jobs and real people real lives.

 

[Dr.Who]

Actually it is over 100 years of sufficent sources of oil and natural gas. This is well known by informed people, but many Americans are not informed or have bought the propaganda presented by the media.

This column in the WSJ yesterday clearly points this out. Information like this is readily available from multiple sources, but some Americans chose to live in the dark.

That is in fact a more accurate guess. What it fails to add is that with every other natural resource ever used by mankind we have always managed to find more or replace what we were using through natural economic pressures. Whale oil for example became scarce but was replaced by petroleum. In the history of natural resources we have never run out of one and suffered yet. I see no reason that we will not get better at extracting oil, and replace our use of oil with alternatives, and get more efficient at using energy all through natural market forces and with no need to wreck the economy or coerce people into doing things they don't want to do.


As oil gets scarce the cost will rise automatically. As the costs rise windmills Or whatever technology we have at the time, will replace oil naturally. This will happen without strain on the economy and without coercion.

In contrast if we force the use of windmills today, windmills that are not very good at extracting energy from the wind, are ugly, noisy, kill birds, and are monstrously expensive, then we will have invested in a technology that we will be stuck using long after newer and better windmills have been developed. I vote not to build thousands of millions of windmills at a cost of multiple billions that are doomed to be obsolete in just a few years.

 

[PLC1]

Actually it is over 100 years of sufficent sources of oil and natural gas. This is well known by informed people, but many Americans are not informed or have bought the propaganda presented by the media.

This column in the WSJ yesterday clearly points this out. Information like this is readily available from multiple sources, but some Americans chose to live in the dark.

Good article. According to that, more efficiency is a major concern:

What is less widely recognized is the overall inefficiency of energy utilization. According to a 2007 study by National Petroleum Council, at the request of the U.S. Department of Energy, approximately 61% of energy produced is lost due to factors such as poor insulation, gas-guzzling vehicles or suboptimal power plants. On average, only one out of three reservoir barrels is recovered, which translates to an overall efficiency of only 13% for oil that is converted to a usable form. Improving energy efficiency should be a top priority, not just in our surface usage but also at the point of extraction.

and it does give some hope that perhaps energy independence isn't an impossible dream.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Good article. According to that, more efficiency is a major concern:



and it does give some hope that perhaps energy independence isn't an impossible dream.

If oil was money they would say spend it better...but since its just a polluting hard to get limited resource that much of it lies outside our borders....

Just its ok to just wast as much as you wish....

 

[PLC1]

If oil was money they would say spend it better...but since its just a polluting hard to get limited resource that much of it lies outside our borders....

Just its ok to just wast as much as you wish....

Oil is money. Just look at what happens to the price of everything else when the price of oil goes up.

 

[Dr.Who]

Good article. According to that, more efficiency is a major concern:



and it does give some hope that perhaps energy independence isn't an impossible dream.

I think that increased efficiency is a good approach. But sometimes when you see a statistic you just have to question it.

61% loss due to insulation, gas guzzles, and sub-optimal power plants?

I don't buy that one, not for those reasons on that list.

 

[Phoenix68]

BO has gas...​

U.S. Gas Prices Fall To Lowest In MORE Than SIX YEARS
December 20, 2015​