|
|
| Next: email being used for spamming |
| Author |
Message |
Sgt Schultz
Joined: Dec 07, 2002
Posts: 6827
Location: St. Louis area
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:26 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| "Find More" would work if oilfields could be found that equalled the combined amount of oil in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq. |
Read the news, Ken. That's exactly what we have in Oil Shale alone (actually, we have MORE than they all do combined), and on top of that we have Anwar and off shore fields. We're just not allowed to use them, thanks to the Democrats.
And yes, this is now solely the fault of Democrats, now. It's their leadership who won't let us even talk about it, even going so far as to prevent normal House procedures to avoid discussion.
By the way, what happened to Pelosi's promises of bipartisanship, ethics, and fair play? More hot air as usual? She should be our alternative energy source! |
Of course we can use them. The oil companies have plenty of leases and fields that they can drill on right now. They just want to grab more.
As for oil in shale, it's only now becoming economically feasible to use it because prices are high. That means prices would have to stay high to make it profitable. And what is the reason the public is complaining; high oil prices! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Warrior-poet
Joined: Feb 16, 2008
Posts: 101
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:47 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
|
| The technology back then was no where near to being exact when searching out oil fields. It was little better than hit and miss. Todays technology has a 90% accuracy which now shows us where vast oil fields actually are. The democrats know this.
"We're not against drilling. Just drill where everyone knows there's no oil!"
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 7258
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
Read the news, Ken. That's exactly what we have in Oil Shale alone (actually, we have MORE than they all do combined), and on top of that we have Anwar and off shore fields. We're just not allowed to use them, thanks to the Democrats.
|
Unfortunately shale oil, kerogen, takes vast amounts of energy,
and water, to extract from the shale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves
| Quote: |
| Well-explored deposits, which could be classified as reserves, include the Green River deposits in the western United States, the Tertiary deposits in Queensland, Australia, deposits in Sweden and Estonia, the El-Lajjun deposit in Jordan, and deposits in France, Germany, Brazil, China, and Russia. It is expected that these deposits would yield at least 40 liters of shale oil per tonne of shale, using the Fischer assay.[6][7] |
Vast amounts of shale would have to be mined and mountains of tailings would result.
Shale is not viable at this time, although many oil companys are spending large sums on pilot projects.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3868
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3868
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:54 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| xavierx wrote: |
Read the news, Ken. That's exactly what we have in Oil Shale alone (actually, we have MORE than they all do combined), and on top of that we have Anwar and off shore fields. We're just not allowed to use them, thanks to the Democrats.
|
Unfortunately shale oil, kerogen, takes vast amounts of energy,
and water, to extract from the shale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves
| Quote: |
| Well-explored deposits, which could be classified as reserves, include the Green River deposits in the western United States, the Tertiary deposits in Queensland, Australia, deposits in Sweden and Estonia, the El-Lajjun deposit in Jordan, and deposits in France, Germany, Brazil, China, and Russia. It is expected that these deposits would yield at least 40 liters of shale oil per tonne of shale, using the Fischer assay.[6][7] |
Vast amounts of shale would have to be mined and mountains of tailings would result.
Shale is not viable at this time, although many oil companys are spending large sums on pilot projects.
|
Ken, even your link says we have more than 2 TRILLION barrels of recoverable OIL in shale right now. That is recoverable, as in we could go get it right now.
And I watched how to get this oil out of the ground yesterday. It doesn't have to involve removing any shale at all (except for a few holes). Instead, we heat up the rock and take what seeps out, leaving the rock in place, and the environment relatively unharmed. They've even worked out ways of preventing leakage by freezing the rock around the area of the extraction. Quite a fascinating process, actually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sgt Schultz
Joined: Dec 07, 2002
Posts: 6827
Location: St. Louis area
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:07 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
| I've already posted the debunking of that myth |
Actually your link doesn't debunk it. If anything it just explains that no one knows for sure except the oil industry.
| Quote: |
Q: Are the Democrats correct in stating that oil companies are leasing 68 million acres in the U.S. that are not being used?
A: Not exactly. More than 4,700 new holes are being drilled on current onshore leases. |
| Quote: |
| It's not known how much of that drilling is taking place on leases currently classified as "non-producing" and how much is taking place on leases that are already producing oil. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3868
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:18 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Try the second link:
| Quote: |
CLAIM: Companies let many of their leases sit idle and don’t produce them
FACT: Companies actively develop their leases – but not every lease contains oil or natural gas in commercial quantities. In many cases, the so-called “idle leases” are not idle at all; they are under geologic evaluation or in development and could be an important source of domestic supply. However, this does not mean all leases have the potential to produce. Companies can evaluate leases for several years only to determine that they do not contain oil or natural gas in commercial quantities. The road to bring the oil and natural gas to market — obtaining the lease, evaluation, exploration and production — is a long and complicated one. |
Do you really think that the Oil Companies are paying billions for oil leases and not touching them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sgt Schultz
Joined: Dec 07, 2002
Posts: 6827
Location: St. Louis area
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
Try the second link:
| Quote: |
CLAIM: Companies let many of their leases sit idle and don’t produce them
FACT: Companies actively develop their leases – but not every lease contains oil or natural gas in commercial quantities. In many cases, the so-called “idle leases” are not idle at all; they are under geologic evaluation or in development and could be an important source of domestic supply. However, this does not mean all leases have the potential to produce. Companies can evaluate leases for several years only to determine that they do not contain oil or natural gas in commercial quantities. The road to bring the oil and natural gas to market — obtaining the lease, evaluation, exploration and production — is a long and complicated one. |
Do you really think that the Oil Companies are paying billions for oil leases and not touching them? |
Tax breaks and other government handouts. As Warrior-poet likes to say: follow the money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3868
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Are you saying, then, that the government is paying oil companies to not drill like we pay farmers to not grow crops? I think I'd like to try not drilling on my land - where can I sign up?
Seriously, though, the real reason the oil companies would like to drill off shore and in the oil shale is that we know already that there is oil there. Yes, we don't know for sure how much is in each place, but even the most conservative estimates are billions of barrels. They are developing the leases that they have, it is just a hit-or-miss thing, and they apparently miss more than hit, and even when they hit it takes time to get to an actual producing state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bern
Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 886
Location: ann arbor
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Maybe we are all thinking a bit simplistically. I don't really know the facts here, but knowing a bit about business and how they are run, I would do the following: There is oil out there and land is being leased on which oil may be found. I need such land for my business, so I bid on the most promising.
Of the leases I have won, some will be cheap and easy to develop, and some will be total busts, and some will have oil, but it is expensive to extract.
Do I develop all the leases at once, or do I begin with the easy ones? No brainer.
That, however, leaves me with a bunch of leases that I don't have the time/equipment/money to develop, or which are not economically feasable to develop right now. When (not If) oil prices go up, then that difficult oil will be worthwhile, and I will develop that. In the meantime, if some leases come on the market that are easier to exploit than the leases I have not yet developed, if I have the financial resources, I will go after those leases as it will be cheaper/easier than what I have in reserve.
No big mystery. No conspiracy. No stupidity.
And, of course, oil companies should not get "don't drill" incentives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 7258
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:29 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
Ken, even your link says we have more than 2 TRILLION barrels of recoverable OIL in shale right now. That is recoverable, as in we could go get it right now. |
No it's not oil, it's kerogen which requires further reforming to make gasoline.
Even in-situ reforming would require further processing,
uses about 3 barrels of water, for each barrel oil collected,
and would require a very large coal electric generation plant,
[which would use large amounts of water also]
and leave behind highly polluted ground water.
| xavierx wrote: |
And I watched how to get this oil out of the ground yesterday. It doesn't have to involve removing any shale at all (except for a few holes). Instead, we heat up the rock and take what seeps out, leaving the rock in place, and the environment relatively unharmed. They've even worked out ways of preventing leakage by freezing the rock around the area of the extraction. Quite a fascinating process, actually. |
Oil company animations can be a little optimistic.. 
The only way to leave the environment relatively unharmed,
is to keep the ground frozen forever to keep post-process below ground pollutants from moving into and with the ground water.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3868
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| No it's not oil, it's kerogen which requires further reforming to make gasoline. |
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that in the middle east gasoline was pumped directly out of the ground. And here I thought we had refineries here for some reason.
| Quote: |
Oil company animations can be a little optimistic..
The only way to leave the environment relatively unharmed,
is to keep the ground frozen forever to keep post-process below ground pollutants from moving into and with the ground water.
|
OK, I didn't realize that the Discovery Channel was now a shill for the Oil Companies.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 7258
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:08 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| No it's not oil, it's kerogen which requires further reforming to make gasoline. |
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that in the middle east gasoline was pumped directly out of the ground. And here I thought we had refineries here for some reason.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale
| Quote: |
| The oil derived from oil shale does not directly substitute for crude oil in all applications. It contains higher concentrations of olefins, oxygen, and nitrogen than conventional crude oil, as well as higher viscosities. By comparison with West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark standard for crude oil in the futures contract market, shale oil sulfur content ranges up to 9.5% by weight, where West Texas Intermediate's sulfur content has a maximum of 0.42%.[50][51] The higher concentrations of these materials means that the oil must undergo considerable upgrading before serving as oil-refinery feedstock.[52] Shale oil does not contain the full range of hydrocarbons used in modern gasoline production, and could only be used to produce middle-distillates such as kerosene, jet fuel, and diesel fuel. |
Kerogen will need its own plant.
| xavierx wrote: |
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
Oil company animations can be a little optimistic..
The only way to leave the environment relatively unharmed,
is to keep the ground frozen forever to keep post-process below ground pollutants from moving into and with the ground water.
|
OK, I didn't realize that the Discovery Channel was now a shill for the Oil Companies.
|
Did the Discovery Channel also tell you how the many problems with oil production from shale would be resolved ?
Or did they leave the viewer with a lovely "pie in the sky".
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
louis-the-cat
Joined: May 13, 2006
Posts: 264
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Ken,
your quote about Denmark is interesting....but look at it....it talks about Denmark exporting wind power equipment. I agree that Danish state initially supported the development of wind power....but that support has now stopped . The wind power turbine manufacturers were then forced to look for overseas markets....and they found them in other european counties that were prepared to make a subsidy available so that they could meet their green energy/carbon emissions targets. I'm not saying that's a bad thing....it's just that even so called free wind power isn't economically viable without state investment/subsidy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 3868
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Ken, I noticed you conveniently omitted the last sentence of that paragraph:
| Quote: |
| Worldwide demand for these middle distillates, however, has increased rapidly. |
And every barrel of petroleum that doesn't have to get turned into any of what you listed is another that could be turned into gasoline.
And in case you didn't know, we have diesel cars. We can adapt - and diesel cars get better mileage and produce less greenhouse gases.
Next excuse, Ken? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pasquanel
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 398
Location: Maine
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| None of the "alternative energy sources" are able to survive without Gov. subsidy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sgt Schultz
Joined: Dec 07, 2002
Posts: 6827
Location: St. Louis area
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| pasquanel wrote: |
| None of the "alternative energy sources" are able to survive without Gov. subsidy! |
That includes nuclear power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bern
Joined: Mar 12, 2007
Posts: 886
Location: ann arbor
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:46 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Sgt Schultz wrote: |
| pasquanel wrote: |
| None of the "alternative energy sources" are able to survive without Gov. subsidy! |
That includes nuclear power. |
I wonder if that would have been true if we had not had a 30 year moratorium on development and building. And, it seems to me this technology has the most potential for the long term in not having wind availability and weather related handicaps.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in having a mix of sources. But nuclear needs to be in the mix.
And we need to subsidize fusion research. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 7258
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:21 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
| Next excuse, Ken? |
Did the Discovery Channel also tell you how the many problems with oil production from shale would be resolved ?
Or did they leave the viewer with a lovely "pie in the sky".
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 7258
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
| |
|
|
General