# Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming  Equal to Entire Worlds Proven Oil Reserves



## Jroc

Energy and Jobs..




> The Green River Formation, a largely vacant area of mostly federal land that covers the territory where Colorado, Utah and Wyoming come together, contains about as much recoverable oil as all the rest the worlds proven reserves combined, an auditor from the Government Accountability Office told Congress on Thursday.
> 
> The GAO testimony stressed that the federal government was in a unique position to influence the development of oil shale because the Green River deposits were mostly beneath federal land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also noted that developing the oil would pose socioeconomic challenges, which included bringing a sizable influx of workers who along with their families put additional stress on local infrastructure and making planning for growth difficult for local governments.
> 
> The Green River Formation--an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming--contains the world's largest deposits of oil shale,Anu K. Mittal, the GAOs director of natural resources and environment said in written testimony submitted to the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
> 
> USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about* 3 trillion barrels of oil*, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions,


GAO: Recoverable Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming 'About Equal to Entire World


----------



## uscitizen

I recall the great shale oil debacle here in KY a few decades ago.


----------



## uscitizen

We gonna strip mine all of those states?


----------



## Mr. H.

When we don't have access to conventional reserves, what good are these?


----------



## Jroc

Mr. H. said:


> When we don't have access to conventional reserves, what good are these?



We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?


----------



## starcraftzzz

Jroc said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we don't have access to conventional reserves, what good are these?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
Click to expand...


Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko


----------



## Moonglow

they are fracking many areas of these states, that is why they want to build pipelines to the soujthern coast for refining.There is an oil glut currently in the USA


----------



## Zander

starcraftzzz said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we don't have access to conventional reserves, what good are these?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
Click to expand...


Pollution? Oil is as natural as wind or solar. The only pollution is in your mind.


----------



## Mr. H.

Jroc said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we don't have access to conventional reserves, what good are these?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
Click to expand...


My point was to infer what you just stated.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Zander said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pollution? Oil is as natural as wind or solar. The only pollution is in your mind.
Click to expand...


ROTFL yep and cigarettes dont cause cancer either its just in your mind


----------



## Wry Catcher

Jroc said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we don't have access to conventional reserves, what good are these?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
Click to expand...


How do you define an environmental wack job?


----------



## starcraftzzz

Wry Catcher said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we don't have access to conventional reserves, what good are these?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you define an environmental wack job?
Click to expand...


Anyone who thinks polution is bad


----------



## Mr. H.

I think pollution is bad, and I'm in the business of generating it.


----------



## code1211

starcraftzzz said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we don't have access to conventional reserves, what good are these?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
Click to expand...




i would assume that not everything in your life is absolutely absolute.

How clean must be the energy that you and the other 7 billion people on the planet use?  Can there be any resulting change in the planet to create energy for people to use?

What are you willing to compromise or are you against any compromise at all?


----------



## bripat9643

starcraftzzz said:


> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko



CO2 isn't a pollutant, numbnuts.

Only imbeciles believe we can live in an industrialized world with zero pollution.  The only question: what is the acceptable level?   Any rational person should be perfectly satisfied with curent levels.


----------



## bripat9643

Wry Catcher said:


> How do you define an environmental wack job?




An environment wack job is anyone who agrees with anything you post.


----------



## Middleoftheroad

Jroc said:


> Energy and Jobs..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Green River Formation, a largely vacant area of mostly federal land that covers the territory where Colorado, Utah and Wyoming come together, contains about as much recoverable oil as all the rest the worlds proven reserves combined, an auditor from the Government Accountability Office told Congress on Thursday.
> 
> The GAO testimony stressed that the federal government was in a unique position to influence the development of oil shale because the Green River deposits were mostly beneath federal land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also noted that developing the oil would pose socioeconomic challenges, which included bringing a sizable influx of workers who along with their families put additional stress on local infrastructure and making planning for growth difficult for local governments.
> 
> The Green River Formation--an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming--contains the world's largest deposits of oil shale,Anu K. Mittal, the GAOs director of natural resources and environment said in written testimony submitted to the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
> 
> USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about* 3 trillion barrels of oil*, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions,
> 
> 
> 
> GAO: Recoverable Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming 'About Equal to Entire World
Click to expand...


Green River is Shale Oil.  No one wants to invest in Shale Oil as it is unprofitable.  There are currently  10 different testing sites in the Green River Formation, to see if they can do it economically.  So far no company has stepped up to the challenge.
  This is not to be confused with Oil bearing Shale, which is completely different.  Oil bearing shale is expensive but still profitable with today's prices.  Oil Shale is not.  In truth it is not even Oil Shale, that is a misnomer.  its true name is Kerogen Shale, which is no more oil then Corn is.


----------



## code1211

Wry Catcher said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we don't have access to conventional reserves, what good are these?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you define an environmental wack job?
Click to expand...





I define someone as that when they are unreasonably committed to things they think are important somehow related to nature that are in conflict with reality.

In Tombstone AR, a fire burned the all of the underbrush and wooded areas on a hill nearby which formerly was the habitat for three endangered species.  The subsequent monsoons washed away the top soil and destroyed the piped springs which provide water to Tombstone.

All of the individuals of the endangered species are dead and gone, but the Environmental Whack Jobs say that the area is a protected reserve even though they were burned or drowned and the wasteland that remains cannot support the.

A wheel barrow has been cited as being over mechanized to effect repairs on the pips to the springs.

Tombstone, Water, and the Bureaucrat Standing In Between &#8211; Tenth Amendment Center

<snip>
The town currently relies on ground wells to survive, but there is an insufficient supply to protect the town in the event of more disasters. City manager George Barnes said their present situation &#8220;doesn&#8217;t allow for a building fire, a well-pump failure; it doesn&#8217;t allow for much of anything.&#8221;

At issue for the feds is the spotted owl, and other endangered species, whose habitat is in the mountains near Tombstone. Of course the fires and floods destroyed their habitat, but rules are rules, right?
<snip>


----------



## Annie

starcraftzzz said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we don't have access to conventional reserves, what good are these?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
Click to expand...


Caring more about unproven over the needs of folks today is whacko. Contrary to your beliefs, AGW is unproven. By a longshot.


----------



## Star

Annie said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Caring more about unproven over the needs of folks today is whacko. Contrary to your beliefs, AGW is unproven. By a longshot.
Click to expand...

 

If I agreed with what you're saying we'd both be wrong, but then, even head Republican, Mitt Romney, agrees with President Obama on this issue. 




<snip>


*"I don't speak for the scientific community*, of course," Romney said at a Town Hall-type meeting in New Hampshire. "But I believe the world's getting warmer."

Romney then added, "And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that."

That's heresy in many GOP circles - and a position the other Republican candidates have not taken in public.
But the former Massachusetts governor was just getting warmed up.

The Republican front-runner said he wanted to wean the U.S. off its dependence on foreign oil by seeking alternative sources of energy - something President Obama has also called for.

Romney did not call for more oil drilling in the U.S., as Sarah Palin and other Republicans have been doing. Instead, Romney said Americans should do more to conserve energy.

"I'm told that we use almost twice as much energy per person as does a European and more like three times as much energy as does a Japanese citizen," he said. "We can do a lot better."

Romney wrapped up his remarks by calling for cooperation with other countries in combating global warming.

"We don't call it America warming, we call it global warming," he said. "And if there's going to be an effort in this, it has to be global in scope."


<snip>


----------



## mskafka

Jroc said:


> Energy and Jobs..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Green River Formation, a largely vacant area of mostly federal land that covers the territory where Colorado, Utah and Wyoming come together, contains about as much recoverable oil as all the rest the worlds proven reserves combined, an auditor from the Government Accountability Office told Congress on Thursday.
> 
> The GAO testimony stressed that the federal government was in a unique position to influence the development of oil shale because the Green River deposits were mostly beneath federal land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also noted that developing the oil would pose socioeconomic challenges, which included bringing a sizable influx of workers who along with their families put additional stress on local infrastructure and making planning for growth difficult for local governments.
> 
> The Green River Formation--an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming--contains the world's largest deposits of oil shale,Anu K. Mittal, the GAOs director of natural resources and environment said in written testimony submitted to the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
> 
> USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about* 3 trillion barrels of oil*, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions,
> 
> 
> 
> GAO: Recoverable Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming 'About Equal to Entire World
Click to expand...


Then drag your ass there and pump it up.


----------



## Old Rocks

Zander said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pollution? Oil is as natural as wind or solar. The only pollution is in your mind.
Click to expand...


Cancer and pneumonia are both natural. 

If oil is so natural, I think you should drink a couple of pints tonight.


----------



## Old Rocks

Annie said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Caring more about unproven over the needs of folks today is whacko. Contrary to your beliefs, AGW is unproven. By a longshot.
Click to expand...


Annie, would you care to post something from a Scientific Society that backs your viewpoint? How about from a National Academy of Science? Perhaps you should look at what the Saudi Arabian National Academy of Science has to say on the subject.

In the meantime, here is a site from the American Institute of Physics. They are the biggest scientific society in the world, a scientific society made of of scientific societies.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now if you would like, I can post the positions of the American Geophysical Union, and the Geological Society of America.


----------



## Old Rocks

This 'oil' that is being discussed is not oil, it is coragen. It would require an enormous amount of energy and water just refine it to the oil stage. Water that is in short supply in those areas. And the pollution from the process would be enormous. A lose-lose situation for all.


----------



## Jroc

Wry Catcher said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we don't have access to conventional reserves, what good are these?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you define an environmental wack job?
Click to expand...


Anyone who believes Carbon dioxide is a pollutant is a whack job


----------



## Mr. H.

Old Rocks said:


> This 'oil' that is being discussed is not oil, it is coragen. It would require an enormous amount of energy and water just refine it to the oil stage. Water that is in short supply in those areas. And the pollution from the process would be enormous. A lose-lose situation for all.



That's just incoragenable.


----------



## Jroc

Old Rocks said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caring more about unproven over the needs of folks today is whacko. Contrary to your beliefs, AGW is unproven. By a longshot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Annie, would you care to post something from a Scientific Society that backs your viewpoint? How about from a National Academy of Science? Perhaps you should look at what the Saudi Arabian National Academy of Science has to say on the subject.
> 
> In the meantime, here is a site from the American Institute of Physics. They are the biggest scientific society in the world, a scientific society made of of scientific societies.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> Now if you would like, I can post the positions of the American Geophysical Union, and the Geological Society of America.
Click to expand...


 Useless bull Science is not proving something you want to prove, and working towards proving it. There is no evidence of *man made* climate change. Climate change is natural. And with the modernization of our societies because of the discovery of oil and use of fossil fuels we actually live in a much cleaner world than we would have without their use.


----------



## rdean

You need "science" to get the oil.

Republicans don't believe in "science".


----------



## mskafka

Zander said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pollution? Oil is as natural as wind or solar. The only pollution is in your mind.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is natural...but gasoline and diesel fumes are known carcinogens.  

Not a bleeding heart.  I believe that we need to be doing everything that we can to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, but it's worth noting that lung cancer is a painful way to die.  Just sayin'...


----------



## PoliticalChic

rdean said:


> You need "science" to get the oil.
> 
> Republicans don't believe in "science".



*Bulletin: Liberals believe that science is only for white kids....*

1. Berkeley High School is considering a controversial proposal to* eliminate science labs and the five science teachers who teach them to free up more resources to help struggling students.*

The proposal to put the science-lab cuts on the table was approved recently by Berkeley High's School Governance Council, a body of teachers, parents, and students who oversee a plan to change the structure of the high school to address *Berkeley's dismal racial achievement gap, where white students are doing far better than the state average* while black and Latino students are doing worse.
Berkeley High May Cut Out Science Labs | News | Oakland, Berkeley, Bay Area & California | East Bay Express


2. This breakdown of students proves the lamentable gap spoken of by Berkeley commandants isnt in enrollment, but in grades. *The white kids are doing better* in excess of what is acceptable  or the non-white kids are doing worse, depending on your perspective  such that the heart-warming state of equality is absent.      PJ Media » Out-of-Control Multiculturalism at Berkeley High School



OK...your turn, deanie...


----------



## mskafka

Jroc said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you define an environmental wack job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes Carbon dioxide is a pollutant is a whack job
Click to expand...


No, it's not a pollutant.  It's a natural chemical.  My renowned pulmonologist friend agrees with you....it's not a pollutant.  Morphine is also derived from a natural chemical.  Too much of it, and the individual stops breathing.  Too much aspirin-nothing like bleeding from the inside out.  Sodium bicarbonate-chemical compound-it works well for heartburn, baking,  teeth whitening, and metabolic acidosis, in an emergency setting.

Hypothetically, a slow painful death would be eating a few boxes of baking soda.  One would then put themselves into metabolic alkalosis.  Think of the name ALKA-SELTZER.  Basically the same thing.   

Drinking too much water will kill you.  Eating too much (obesity) will kill you.   So, in my mind, it stands to reason that too much CO2 would kill..the Earth.  It certainly kills people.  This is why people die of drowning.  HYPERCARBIA-(too much CO2).  

So...Moses...is this a words game with you?  Is it a pollutant or a natural chemical?  I've seen CO2 kill people.  Or rather, an EXCESS of CO2 as opposed to O2, as there has to be a pH balance.  

Are you playing games, or are you serious?


----------



## Jroc

mskafka said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pollution? Oil is as natural as wind or solar. The only pollution is in your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is natural...but gasoline and diesel fumes are known carcinogens.
> 
> Not a bleeding heart.  I believe that we need to be doing everything that we can to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, but it's worth noting that lung cancer is a painful way to die.  Just sayin'...
Click to expand...


*Hypochondriasis or hypochondria* (sometimes referred to as health phobia or health anxiety) refers to excessive preoccupation or worry about having a serious illness. This debilitating condition is the result of an inaccurate perception of the body&#8217;s condition despite the absence of an actual medical condition.An individual suffering from hypochondriasis is known as a *hypochondriac.*


Hypochondriasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mskafka

Jroc said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pollution? Oil is as natural as wind or solar. The only pollution is in your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is natural...but gasoline and diesel fumes are known carcinogens.
> 
> Not a bleeding heart.  I believe that we need to be doing everything that we can to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, but it's worth noting that lung cancer is a painful way to die.  Just sayin'...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hypochondriasis or hypochondria* (sometimes referred to as health phobia or health anxiety) refers to excessive preoccupation or worry about having a serious illness. This debilitating condition is the result of an inaccurate perception of the bodys condition despite the absence of an actual medical condition.An individual suffering from hypochondriasis is known as a *hypochondriac.*
> 
> 
> Hypochondriasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Indeed.  Because I've worked in healthcare and taken care of ungrateful people like yourself.....I'm a hypochodriac.  You're probably one of those Rhodes' Scholars who believe that homosexuality can be cured.

Delusional disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following can indicate a delusion:[6]

The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force. 
That idea appears to exert an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent. 

Narcissistic personality disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder[1] in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity.

You're comical at best; because you clearly have NO idea what you're talking about.


----------



## mskafka

Ladies and Gentlemen:  I have been labeled as a "loon", by Moses.  Why?  Because I understand gas exchange and pH balance.  

Moses has questionable allegience.  

I'm a hypochodriac, because I understand hyper and hypocarbia.  He's angry at me because he "believe$" these politicians who say that carbon dioxide is "harmless".  Not in your bu$ine$$ interest, Moses?  

Since Michele Bachmann is one of the imbeciles (regarding science) who started this myth, (CO2 is harmless) I would like to see her volunteer to place a plastic bag over her head, and see how long she can endure hypoxia before she passes out, or suffocates.  And afterward, I would like to hear her give the same speech proclaiming that CO2 is harmless.  Oh, and her laughable estimation of the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.  A quoted percentage that is incompatible with human life.  That was the moment that I stopped taking her seriously.  

Just like Moses, who didn't do his homework.  He doesn't understand pH acidosis/alkalosis very well, or he wouldn't attack me by telling me that I'm crazy.


----------



## Douger

bripat9643 said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CO2 isn't a pollutant, numbnuts.
> 
> Only imbeciles believe we can live in an industrialized world with zero pollution.  The only question: what is the acceptable level?   Any rational person should be perfectly satisfied with curent levels.
Click to expand...

Or maybe a flag waving imbecile like you.
Amazon destruction threatens Enawene Nawe tribe on Vimeo
Chevron challenges $18bn Ecuador fine - Americas - Al Jazeera English
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5aXo87N6nU&feature=related]Tar Sands in Alberta - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcWpkWBX04E]Air Pollution - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## mskafka

Oh, and by the way, Moses; the air doesn't contain 100% oxygen.  Did you know that?

Respiratory ALKALOSIS has many causes, ranging from psychiatric to brain bleed.  It will also kill you.  Did you know that?  Ever hyperventilated?  That's respiratory alkalosis. This is why when a drama queen hyperventilates, a paper bag is placed over his/her mouth-to increase the CO2 level, as this balances the pH.  

You had to spend a LOT of hours repping people to get back around to negative repping me.  2 times in 2 days.  Obsessed are you?  

Death is basically caused by too much or too little of something.  Life in general, is about balance.  So what is your motive?  If you want to drill, go drill.  Put your money where your mouth is.  You may know about guns and business, but unless you're holding out on us-you don't know jack shit about science.  You know nothing about life and death.  But, I suspect that if you could give two shits about life and death, as long as it doesn't pertain to you.  

People are catching on.  We won't remain blind forever.


----------



## Douger

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHDVab1BJg8&feature=related]TOP 10 MOST POLLUTED CITIES IN THE WORLD - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## uscitizen

Ohh btw the shale oil is expensive to extract it will have to be sold for around $4/gal as gas.

We were extracting shale oil back a long time ago then we found convenient pools of liquid oil under the ground and abandoned the practice.


----------



## Mr. H.

uscitizen said:


> Ohh btw the shale oil is expensive to extract it will have to be sold for around $4/gal as gas.
> 
> We were extracting shale oil back a long time ago then we found convenient pools of liquid oil under the ground and abandoned the practice.



Unless the retail market for gasoline drops below $4/gallon. Then it would be sold at a loss, which often happens.


----------



## mskafka

starcraftzzz said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pollution? Oil is as natural as wind or solar. The only pollution is in your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROTFL yep and cigarettes dont cause cancer either its just in your mind
Click to expand...


Ah, yes.  There was a time, when Kool cigarettes were advertised on TV as being a physician's cigarette of choice-because they were so good for you.


----------



## Jroc

mskafka said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen:  I have been labeled as a "loon", by Moses.  Why?  Because I understand gas exchange and pH balance.
> 
> Moses has questionable allegience.
> 
> I'm a hypochodriac, because I understand hyper and hypocarbia.  He's angry at me because he "believe$" these politicians who say that carbon dioxide is "harmless".  Not in your bu$ine$$ interest, Moses?
> 
> Since Michele Bachmann is one of the imbeciles (regarding science) who started this myth, (CO2 is harmless) I would like to see her volunteer to place a plastic bag over her head, and see how long she can endure hypoxia before she passes out, or suffocates.  And afterward, I would like to hear her give the same speech proclaiming that CO2 is harmless.  Oh, and her laughable estimation of the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.  A quoted percentage that is incompatible with human life.  That was the moment that I stopped taking her seriously.
> 
> Just like Moses, who didn't do his homework.  He doesn't understand pH acidosis/alkalosis very well, or he wouldn't attack me by telling me that I'm crazy.




 Loons like you have an inflated view of man's ability to change the climate,  the more we squeeze business here in the U.S. the more manufacturing will be sent over to countries that have less stringent regulations thus defeating the purpose. Yes you're a loon and most people who read these posts can see it 



> The seasonal cycle clearly shows a terrestrial biomass (vegetation) source, as we expect from the seasonal cycle in Northern Hemispheric vegetation growth. The interannual variability looks more like it is driven by the oceans. The trends, however, are weaker than we would expect from either of these sources or from fossil fuels (which have a C13 signature similar to vegetation).












> Secondly, the year-to-year increase in atmospheric CO2 does not look very much like the yearly rate of manmade CO2 emissions. The following figure, a version of which appears in the IPCCs 2007 report, clearly shows that nature has a huge influence over the amount of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere every year















If temperature is indeed forcing CO2 changes, either directly or indirectly, then there should be a maximum correlation at zero months lag for the change of CO2 with time versus temperature (dCO2/dt = a + b*T would be the basic rate equation). And as can be seen in the above graph, the peak correlation between these two variables does indeed occur close to zero months.



> And this raises an intriguing question:
> 
> If natural temperature changes can drive natural CO2 changes (directly or indirectly) on a year-to-year basis, is it possible that some portion of the long term upward trend (that is always attributed to fossil fuel burning) is ALSO due to a natural source?
> 
> After all, we already know that the rate of human emissions is very small in magnitude compared to the average rate of CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the surface (land + ocean): somewhere in the 5% to 10% range. But it has always been assumed that these huge natural yearly exchanges between the surface and atmosphere have been in a long term balance. In that view, the natural balance has only been disrupted in the last 100 years or so as humans started consuming fossil fuel, thus causing the observed long-term increase.



Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade


----------



## bripat9643

Douger said:


> TOP 10 MOST POLLUTED CITIES IN THE WORLD - YouTube



Did you notice that none of these cities were in the United States or Western Europe?  In fact, most of them were in the Socialists paradises that left-wing turds like you have been defending for decades.


----------



## bripat9643

Douger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CO2 isn't a pollutant, numbnuts.
> 
> Only imbeciles believe we can live in an industrialized world with zero pollution.  The only question: what is the acceptable level?   Any rational person should be perfectly satisfied with curent levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or maybe a flag waving imbecile like you.
> Amazon destruction threatens Enawene Nawe tribe on Vimeo
> Chevron challenges $18bn Ecuador fine - Americas - Al Jazeera English
> Tar Sands in Alberta - YouTube
> Air Pollution - YouTube
Click to expand...


What does any of your propaganda have to do with the United States?  If you're so concerned about mining tar sands, then go to Canada and whine to them about it.  I'm sure they will have a good laugh after they run you out of the country at gun point.


----------



## mskafka

Jroc said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and Gentlemen:  I have been labeled as a "loon", by Moses.  Why?  Because I understand gas exchange and pH balance.
> 
> Moses has questionable allegience.
> 
> I'm a hypochodriac, because I understand hyper and hypocarbia.  He's angry at me because he "believe$" these politicians who say that carbon dioxide is "harmless".  Not in your bu$ine$$ interest, Moses?
> 
> Since Michele Bachmann is one of the imbeciles (regarding science) who started this myth, (CO2 is harmless) I would like to see her volunteer to place a plastic bag over her head, and see how long she can endure hypoxia before she passes out, or suffocates.  And afterward, I would like to hear her give the same speech proclaiming that CO2 is harmless.  Oh, and her laughable estimation of the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.  A quoted percentage that is incompatible with human life.  That was the moment that I stopped taking her seriously.
> 
> Just like Moses, who didn't do his homework.  He doesn't understand pH acidosis/alkalosis very well, or he wouldn't attack me by telling me that I'm crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loons like you have an inflated view of man's ability to change the climate,  the more we squeeze business here in the U.S. the more manufacturing will be sent over to countries that have less stringent regulations thus defeating the purpose. Yes you're a loon and most people who read these posts can see it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The seasonal cycle clearly shows a terrestrial biomass (vegetation) source, as we expect from the seasonal cycle in Northern Hemispheric vegetation growth. The interannual variability looks more like it is driven by the oceans. The trends, however, are weaker than we would expect from either of these sources or from fossil fuels (which have a C13 signature similar to vegetation).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, the year-to-year increase in atmospheric CO2 does not look very much like the yearly rate of manmade CO2 emissions. The following figure, a version of which appears in the IPCC&#8217;s 2007 report, clearly shows that nature has a huge influence over the amount of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere every year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If temperature is indeed forcing CO2 changes, either directly or indirectly, then there should be a maximum correlation at zero months lag for the change of CO2 with time versus temperature (dCO2/dt = a + b*T would be the basic rate equation). And as can be seen in the above graph, the peak correlation between these two variables does indeed occur close to zero months.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this raises an intriguing question:
> 
> If natural temperature changes can drive natural CO2 changes (directly or indirectly) on a year-to-year basis, is it possible that some portion of the long term upward trend (that is always attributed to fossil fuel burning) is ALSO due to a natural source?
> 
> After all, we already know that the rate of human emissions is very small in magnitude compared to the average rate of CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the surface (land + ocean): somewhere in the 5% to 10% range. But it has always been assumed that these huge natural yearly exchanges between the surface and atmosphere have been in a long term balance. In that view, the natural balance has only been disrupted in the last 100 years or so as humans started consuming fossil fuel, thus causing the observed long-term increase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade
Click to expand...


Oh, Jesus!  That's also a sign of borderline personality disorder.  Everything is black and white with you.  I would vote for Paul, if he had a snowball's chance in winning.  But I strongly suspect that you don't want that nomination. Am I right?  Auditing the Federal Reserve.  Not asking Israel "how high?" when they tell 300 million people to jump.

You want to explain to me why your bretheren are killing paramedics in Palestine?  I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around that one; since you are "the chosen ones".  

A scientist, you are not.  A bully, you are.  And little by little, Americans are catching on and growing weary of it.  I don't give a fuck who is causing the increase in carbon dioxide-whether it's humans, Michele Bachman running her mouth, or the Almighty Himself.  

You said that it isn't a pollutant.   And the rest of you who've never seen a cyanotic person (outside of Law and Order) believe UNDERQUALIFIED people, when they tell you that too much CO2 isn't harmful.  I don't give a rat's ass where it comes from or how it got there.  Stop lying to people and telling them that CO2 is a natural chemical that isn't to be concerned about.  Helium is natural also, but we wouldn't survive breathing it.

My Gawd, your ego is the size of Texas.  Get down there with the "roughnecks" and drill.  They would eat your pansy ass for lunch on the first day of the job.


----------



## Jroc

mskafka said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ladies and Gentlemen:  I have been labeled as a "loon", by Moses.  Why?  Because I understand gas exchange and pH balance.
> 
> Moses has questionable allegience.
> 
> I'm a hypochodriac, because I understand hyper and hypocarbia.  He's angry at me because he "believe$" these politicians who say that carbon dioxide is "harmless".  Not in your bu$ine$$ interest, Moses?
> 
> Since Michele Bachmann is one of the imbeciles (regarding science) who started this myth, (CO2 is harmless) I would like to see her volunteer to place a plastic bag over her head, and see how long she can endure hypoxia before she passes out, or suffocates.  And afterward, I would like to hear her give the same speech proclaiming that CO2 is harmless.  Oh, and her laughable estimation of the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.  A quoted percentage that is incompatible with human life.  That was the moment that I stopped taking her seriously.
> 
> Just like Moses, who didn't do his homework.  He doesn't understand pH acidosis/alkalosis very well, or he wouldn't attack me by telling me that I'm crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loons like you have an inflated view of man's ability to change the climate,  the more we squeeze business here in the U.S. the more manufacturing will be sent over to countries that have less stringent regulations thus defeating the purpose. Yes you're a loon and most people who read these posts can see it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If temperature is indeed forcing CO2 changes, either directly or indirectly, then there should be a maximum correlation at zero months lag for the change of CO2 with time versus temperature (dCO2/dt = a + b*T would be the basic rate equation). And as can be seen in the above graph, the peak correlation between these two variables does indeed occur close to zero months.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this raises an intriguing question:
> 
> If natural temperature changes can drive natural CO2 changes (directly or indirectly) on a year-to-year basis, is it possible that some portion of the long term upward trend (that is always attributed to fossil fuel burning) is ALSO due to a natural source?
> 
> After all, we already know that the rate of human emissions is very small in magnitude compared to the average rate of CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the surface (land + ocean): somewhere in the 5% to 10% range. But it has always been assumed that these huge natural yearly exchanges between the surface and atmosphere have been in a long term balance. In that view, the natural balance has only been disrupted in the last 100 years or so as humans started consuming fossil fuel, thus causing the observed long-term increase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Jesus!  That's also a sign of borderline personality disorder.  Everything is black and white with you.  I would vote for Paul, if he had a snowball's chance in winning.  But I strongly suspect that you don't want that nomination. Am I right?  Auditing the Federal Reserve.  Not asking Israel "how high?" when they tell 300 million people to jump.
> 
> You want to explain to me why your bretheren are killing paramedics in Palestine?  I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around that one; since you are "the chosen ones".
> 
> A scientist, you are not.  A bully, you are.  And little by little, Americans are catching on and growing weary of it.  I don't give a fuck who is causing the increase in carbon dioxide-whether it's humans, Michele Bachman running her mouth, or the Almighty Himself.
> 
> You said that it isn't a pollutant.   And the rest of you who've never seen a cyanotic person (outside of Law and Order) believe UNDERQUALIFIED people, when they tell you that too much CO2 isn't harmful.  I don't give a rat's ass where it comes from or how it got there.  Stop lying to people and telling them that CO2 is a natural chemical that isn't to be concerned about.  Helium is natural also, but we wouldn't survive breathing it.
> 
> My Gawd, your ego is the size of Texas.  Get down there with the "roughnecks" and drill.  They would eat your pansy ass for lunch on the first day of the job.
Click to expand...


It doesn't take much to draw out people like you, what does the fact that I'm a Jew have to do with anything? Whatever...no need to answer that.. Thanks for your input loon.


----------



## starcraftzzz

bripat9643 said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CO2 isn't a pollutant, numbnuts.
> 
> Only imbeciles believe we can live in an industrialized world with zero pollution.  The only question: what is the acceptable level?   Any rational person should be perfectly satisfied with curent levels.
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe a flag waving imbecile like you.
> Amazon destruction threatens Enawene Nawe tribe on Vimeo
> Chevron challenges $18bn Ecuador fine - Americas - Al Jazeera English
> Tar Sands in Alberta - YouTube
> Air Pollution - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does any of your propaganda have to do with the United States?  If you're so concerned about mining tar sands, then go to Canada and whine to them about it.  I'm sure they will have a good laugh after they run you out of the country at gun point.
Click to expand...

If you want the short version of britparts post its "I am a retard"


----------



## mskafka

Jroc said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loons like you have an inflated view of man's ability to change the climate,  the more we squeeze business here in the U.S. the more manufacturing will be sent over to countries that have less stringent regulations thus defeating the purpose. Yes you're a loon and most people who read these posts can see it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If temperature is indeed forcing CO2 changes, either directly or indirectly, then there should be a maximum correlation at zero months lag for the change of CO2 with time versus temperature (dCO2/dt = a + b*T would be the basic rate equation). And as can be seen in the above graph, the peak correlation between these two variables does indeed occur close to zero months.
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Jesus!  That's also a sign of borderline personality disorder.  Everything is black and white with you.  I would vote for Paul, if he had a snowball's chance in winning.  But I strongly suspect that you don't want that nomination. Am I right?  Auditing the Federal Reserve.  Not asking Israel "how high?" when they tell 300 million people to jump.
> 
> You want to explain to me why your bretheren are killing paramedics in Palestine?  I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around that one; since you are "the chosen ones".
> 
> A scientist, you are not.  A bully, you are.  And little by little, Americans are catching on and growing weary of it.  I don't give a fuck who is causing the increase in carbon dioxide-whether it's humans, Michele Bachman running her mouth, or the Almighty Himself.
> 
> You said that it isn't a pollutant.   And the rest of you who've never seen a cyanotic person (outside of Law and Order) believe UNDERQUALIFIED people, when they tell you that too much CO2 isn't harmful.  I don't give a rat's ass where it comes from or how it got there.  Stop lying to people and telling them that CO2 is a natural chemical that isn't to be concerned about.  Helium is natural also, but we wouldn't survive breathing it.
> 
> My Gawd, your ego is the size of Texas.  Get down there with the "roughnecks" and drill.  They would eat your pansy ass for lunch on the first day of the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't take much to draw out people like you, what does the fact that I'm a Jew have to do with anything? Whatever...no need to answer that.. Thanks for your input loon.
Click to expand...


Oh, here we go.  Pulling the "anti-semite" card.  I told you in PM that I have paternal Jewish ancestry.  It goes ALL the way back to the 1500's, but it's there.  I'm also part limey and chickasaw.  But I support the US first and foremost.  I support the health of the citizens of this country.  

What does the fact that you're a Jew have to do with it?  Your avatar demonstrates exponential pride,  and your dual flags make me question your allegience. 

Frankly-however off-point this may be-the whole Iran situation makes me angry.  The mobsters coming into the US from Russia, makes me angry.  

THIS makes me furious: WikiLeaks: US wary of rising organized crime in... JPost - Israel

Why?


----------



## mskafka

I'm trying to figure out what happened to: "You're either with us; or you're against us."  Coming to the US and committing racketeering and God knows what else is-in my mind-enemy activity.  

Why are we allowing these people into our country?  I guess for the same reason that we're allowing the gangsters from the South of us to enter.  

Most of us love this country, and feel that if you don't hold the same values...then keep your ass out.  Oh, I'm really holding my tongue...or rather, restraining my fingers.  Russian Mafia-youtube it.  Read about it.  What the hell is going on?


----------



## waltky

More oil gonna cost more money?...

*IMF paints grim picture for oil future*
_WASHINGTON, May 15,`12 (UPI) -- Incremental increases in global oil production may translate to a doubling of oil prices by the next decade, the International Monetary Fund warns._


> The International Energy Agency warned last year that historically high oil prices during the Libyan war could erase upbeat assessments about the potential for global economic recovery.
> 
> The International Monetary Fund warns that, despite a modest decline in global oil prices this year, the world economy was headed for "unchartered territory," the Daily Telegraph newspaper in London reports.  "Our prediction of small further increases in world oil production comes at the expense of a near doubling, permanently, of real oil prices over the coming decade," an IMF report states.
> 
> IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said in Australia that concerns from last year were continuing into 2012.  "Prices remain very high," she was quoted as saying."High prices pose a real threat to the economic recovery."
> 
> The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, in its May report, said global oil demand stood at around 900,000 barrels per day.  "Given the stabilization of the U.S. economy and the shutdown of Japanese nuclear power plants, world oil demand growth has, at least for the short-term, stopped its declining trend and is showing some growth," the report read.
> 
> Read more: IMF paints grim picture for oil future - UPI.com


----------



## Avorysuds

starcraftzzz said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pollution? Oil is as natural as wind or solar. The only pollution is in your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROTFL yep and cigarettes dont cause cancer either its just in your mind
Click to expand...


And windmills don't kill birds.


----------



## American Horse

In 2007 (the last good economic year) the US imported $166-billons of oil.  If we were producing full out, that and the economic activity that that would produce could eradicate our negative balance of trade dollars on world markets, we could become a net exporter, and we would no longer be energy dependent on the most volatile and unstable region of the world, which could justify a smaller military presence for budget reductions.


----------



## GWV5903

Mr. H. said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh btw the shale oil is expensive to extract it will have to be sold for around $4/gal as gas.
> 
> We were extracting shale oil back a long time ago then we found convenient pools of liquid oil under the ground and abandoned the practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless the retail market for gasoline drops below $4/gallon. Then it would be sold at a loss, which often happens.
Click to expand...


Careful H, you'll confuse him with facts...


----------



## uscitizen

Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming Equal to Entire Worlds Proven Oil Reserves 


Very interesting since the oil being discussed in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming is not proven at all.


----------



## Old Rocks

American Horse said:


> In 2007 (the last good economic year) the US imported $166-billons of oil.  If we were producing full out, that and the economic activity that that would produce could eradicate our negative balance of trade dollars on world markets, we could become a net exporter, and we would no longer be energy dependent on the most volatile and unstable region of the world, which could justify a smaller military presence for budget reductions.



We are exporting gasoline and diesel. To the point where it has become our biggest export. Were we to be able to produce all the oil that we could use, why do you think that the petroleum companies would keep it here? They will sell to where ever the price is highest. Which means, no matter how much we produce, the price will still be pegged at the world price. 

However, it is a physical impossibility for us to produce as much as we use. For there is not that much oil in the US. And what is left is becoming more expensive to find, produce, and process. And don't bother to bring up the oil shales unless you have a way to process the kerogen out of the shale that does not use water, and only a small amount of energy.

The technology to get off the oil tit for transportation is rapidly developing. Bio fuels produced by single celled organisms, batteries that approach the energy density of gasoline, and alternate energies, including cold fusion, are all approaching a threshold where they will be competative in price with fossil fuels. And, while the cost of processing fossil fuels will continue to go up, the curve for the alternatives is down for all of them.


----------



## Jroc

Old Rocks said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2007 (the last good economic year) the US imported $166-billons of oil.  If we were producing full out, that and the economic activity that that would produce could eradicate our negative balance of trade dollars on world markets, we could become a net exporter, and we would no longer be energy dependent on the most volatile and unstable region of the world, which could justify a smaller military presence for budget reductions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are exporting gasoline and diesel. To the point where it has become our biggest export. Were we to be able to produce all the oil that we could use, why do you think that the petroleum companies would keep it here? They will sell to where ever the price is highest. Which means, no matter how much we produce, the price will still be pegged at the world price.
> 
> *However, it is a physical impossibility for us to produce as much as we use*. For there is not that much oil in the US. And what is left is becoming more expensive to find, produce, and process. And don't bother to bring up the oil shales unless you have a way to process the kerogen out of the shale that does not use water, and only a small amount of energy.
> 
> The technology to get off the oil tit for transportation is rapidly developing. Bio fuels produced by single celled organisms, batteries that approach the energy density of gasoline, and alternate energies, including cold fusion, are all approaching a threshold where they will be competative in price with fossil fuels. And, while the cost of processing fossil fuels will continue to go up, the curve for the alternatives is down for all of them.
Click to expand...


Wrong we have new drilling technology which allows us to extract oil from old well,s we have plenty of oil here enough to get into the next century, which is plenty of time to develop other energy sources. We export gas because oil is shipped here for refinement, we are the largest refiner although the EPA is busy shutting them down


----------



## American Horse

Old Rocks said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2007 (the last good economic year) the US imported $166-billons of oil.  If we were producing full out, that and the economic activity that that would produce could eradicate our negative balance of trade dollars on world markets, we could become a net exporter, and we would no longer be energy dependent on the most volatile and unstable region of the world, which could justify a smaller military presence for budget reductions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are exporting gasoline and diesel. To the point where it has become our biggest export. Were we to be able to produce all the oil that we could use, why do you think that the petroleum companies would keep it here? [The market would determine where it would be sold; exporting it adds cost for shipping] They will sell to where ever the price is highest. Which means, no matter how much we produce, the price will still be pegged at the world price. [I for one am ok with that; my comments revolved around price but advantageous trade deficits; but our development of such a huge world resource would stabilize markets, making speculation less relevant]
> However, it is a physical impossibility for us to produce as much as we use. [new research shows that is an incorrect assumption] For there is not that much oil in the US. [reserves are there, and as new processes are developed the become proven reserves] And what is left is becoming more expensive to find, produce, and process. [as processes are developed they become easier to find; current events prove that] And don't bother to bring up the oil shales unless you have a way to process the kerogen out of the shale that does not use water, and only a small amount of energy. [we could use sea water piped in as a part of the cost; right now there are arguments about piping water wholesale from Lake Michigan to the Western US]
> 
> The technology to get off the oil tit for transportation is rapidly developing. Bio fuels produced by single celled organisms, batteries that approach the energy density of gasoline, and alternate energies, including cold fusion, are all approaching a threshold where they will be competitive in price with fossil fuels. [They will continue to be developed, and driving that development will be paid for by rising oil prices] And, while the cost of processing fossil fuels will continue to go up, the curve for the alternatives is down for all of them.
Click to expand...

 I buy into that, and that turn of events would best be left to the free market to determine.  If oil development in all its phases were left to government decree we would be much further from that than leaving it all to free markets. The marketplace will determine the development of energy.  The govt can ban the use of coal (as it increasingly has) and coal will simply be loaded on ships, either at the coast from trains or from the Great Lakes and shipped to China, and elsewhere, but it will still be mined and used; we will lose the use of the resource and the development of ways to clean up the process.  The only thing that will result is American jobs will be lost and the economy harmed and your new solutions will still wait their natural turn


----------



## RGR

uscitizen said:


> Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming Equal to Entire Worlds Proven Oil Reserves
> 
> 
> Very interesting since the oil being discussed in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming is not proven at all.



It is proven, has been for decades, and I can even hand you a piece of it, have a few samples around the office. But it is certainly not reserves.


----------



## Old Rocks

I have to agree with RGR. The amount of kerogen in the oil shales in those states are well known and mapped. And it is not reserves. The cost, in dollar terms, environmental terms, is far too high to even be considered.


----------



## uscitizen

RGR said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming Equal to Entire Worlds Proven Oil Reserves
> 
> 
> Very interesting since the oil being discussed in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming is not proven at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is proven, has been for decades, and I can even hand you a piece of it, have a few samples around the office. But it is certainly not reserves.
Click to expand...


Ok and what is the cost effective price of gasoline to make the shale oil viable to extract/process?


----------



## Unkotare

starcraftzzz said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we don't have access to conventional reserves, what good are these?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
Click to expand...



You are so fucking stupid, it's unbelievable.


----------



## rdean

PoliticalChic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need "science" to get the oil.
> 
> Republicans don't believe in "science".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bulletin: Liberals believe that science is only for white kids....*
> 
> 1. Berkeley High School is considering a controversial proposal to* eliminate science labs and the five science teachers who teach them to free up more resources to help struggling students.*
> 
> The proposal to put the science-lab cuts on the table was approved recently by Berkeley High's School Governance Council, a body of teachers, parents, and students who oversee a plan to change the structure of the high school to address *Berkeley's dismal racial achievement gap, where white students are doing far better than the state average* while black and Latino students are doing worse.
> Berkeley High May Cut Out Science Labs | News | Oakland, Berkeley, Bay Area & California | East Bay Express
> 
> 
> 2. This breakdown of students proves the lamentable gap spoken of by Berkeley commandants isnt in enrollment, but in grades. *The white kids are doing better* in excess of what is acceptable  or the non-white kids are doing worse, depending on your perspective  such that the heart-warming state of equality is absent.      PJ Media » Out-of-Control Multiculturalism at Berkeley High School
> 
> 
> 
> OK...your turn, deanie...
Click to expand...


Eliminate science teachers and science labs?  Must be Republicans.  

Mitt recently spoke at tier four Liberty University where they teach Mormonism is a "cult" and "magical creation" is actually taught as part of the science curriculum.  It's not a "turn", it's a "tragedy".


----------



## rdean

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are so fucking stupid, it's unbelievable.
Click to expand...


Really.  Pollution is what made China number one in birth defects.  We should be number one.  We have to fight back.


----------



## Old Rocks

Jroc said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2007 (the last good economic year) the US imported $166-billons of oil.  If we were producing full out, that and the economic activity that that would produce could eradicate our negative balance of trade dollars on world markets, we could become a net exporter, and we would no longer be energy dependent on the most volatile and unstable region of the world, which could justify a smaller military presence for budget reductions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are exporting gasoline and diesel. To the point where it has become our biggest export. Were we to be able to produce all the oil that we could use, why do you think that the petroleum companies would keep it here? They will sell to where ever the price is highest. Which means, no matter how much we produce, the price will still be pegged at the world price.
> 
> *However, it is a physical impossibility for us to produce as much as we use*. For there is not that much oil in the US. And what is left is becoming more expensive to find, produce, and process. And don't bother to bring up the oil shales unless you have a way to process the kerogen out of the shale that does not use water, and only a small amount of energy.
> 
> The technology to get off the oil tit for transportation is rapidly developing. Bio fuels produced by single celled organisms, batteries that approach the energy density of gasoline, and alternate energies, including cold fusion, are all approaching a threshold where they will be competative in price with fossil fuels. And, while the cost of processing fossil fuels will continue to go up, the curve for the alternatives is down for all of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong we have new drilling technology which allows us to extract oil from old well,s we have plenty of oil here enough to get into the next century, which is plenty of time to develop other energy sources. We export gas because oil is shipped here for refinement, we are the largest refiner although the EPA is busy shutting them down
Click to expand...


You state that, but provide no links for backup.


----------



## RGR

uscitizen said:


> Ok and what is the cost effective price of gasoline to make the shale oil viable to extract/process?



Creating liquid fuels from the kerogen of the oil shales is a viable process now. But equating that to the price of gasoline isn't the point, the point is, it can only become reserves if it is economically viable from a cost perspective. It will never become reserves if it costs $100 to extract $99 of liquids. Some chunk will become reserves tomorrow if it costs $100 to extract $101 of liquids. Doesn't matter what the price of gasoline is, in the least. You could turn the stuff into jet fuel instead, which sells for more than gasoline, or AVGAS, or diesel, all of which are worth more. That is not the determining factor.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Unkotare said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are so fucking stupid, it's unbelievable.
Click to expand...


Yes you wanting pollution means others are stupid.
Perhaps if you had the mental ability to post something other then "youa re stupid" you wouldn't think others are stupid


----------

