An answer to imported oil may be at hand

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
We already have the answer to imported oil right under our noses; it's called the massive amounts of oil/gas/coal that we have available here in the United States. The ultra-liberal enviro-wackos won't let us get it though, making the need for imported oil even worse.

Biofuels, "alternative energy", "green energy", etc. are all well and good for the future, but we need something that works well in the meantime until those alternatives are ready for primetime.

:roll:

Nice arguments and counter-points there.

Then again, what should I expect?

:roll:

You get rolling eyes because you provide the typical Republican talking point. Everyone knows that the ability to drill/strip mine/etc would be followed by absolutely no funding for alternative energy research. The Republican plan is to keep us on fossil fuels, no matter what and if you believe otherwise, you are foolish.

Oh the irony...you claim the "Republican talking point" angle, yet what you said is word-for-word the Democrat talking point.

:laugh:

Notice how I said that researching alternate energy solutions is a very good idea. However, they are not ready to economically and efficiently power this country any time soon. Until they are ready, we need to keep relying on oil/gas/coal, and we have a ton available here in the US...enough to make us not need foreign oil at all for decades, if not longer.

Yeah, all Republicans "support" alternative energy but the real truth is in the dollars. Republicans are absurdly happy to invest in fossil fuels but alternative energy funding just isn't there.

If you think that we can switch to biofuels tomorrow and totally ditch oil/gas/coal, you are either willfully ignorant because of your agenda or extremely naive. Perhaps both.

Obviously, a switch can't happen tomorrow, but I can't see wasting billions on more fossil fuel infrastructure. I want that money spent on alternative energy.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
We already have the answer to imported oil right under our noses; it's called the massive amounts of oil/gas/coal that we have available here in the United States. The ultra-liberal enviro-wackos won't let us get it though, making the need for imported oil even worse.

Biofuels, "alternative energy", "green energy", etc. are all well and good for the future, but we need something that works well in the meantime until those alternatives are ready for primetime.

paint chips must be tasty

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
We already have the answer to imported oil right under our noses; it's called the massive amounts of oil/gas/coal that we have available here in the United States. The ultra-liberal enviro-wackos won't let us get it though, making the need for imported oil even worse.

Biofuels, "alternative energy", "green energy", etc. are all well and good for the future, but we need something that works well in the meantime until those alternatives are ready for primetime.

paint chips must be tasty

Can you refute the fact that we have a plethora of untapped oil reserves here in the US that we are not allowed to access because of environmental groups? No?

Can you show any concrete proof that alternative energy is ready to replace oil/gas/coal and economically and efficiently power the US any time soon? No?

So, it's just more typical name-calling and insults from the left...gotcha.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Can you refute the fact that we have a plethora of untapped oil reserves here in the US that we are not allowed to access because of environmental groups? No?

Oil companies have leases that they don't do anything on. Why should they be given more?

 

[StageLeft]

Unfortunately I have to say get back to me when it's scaled and at that cost. Until then it's really no better than the tornado fuel saver.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Can you refute the fact that we have a plethora of untapped oil reserves here in the US that we are not allowed to access because of environmental groups? No?

Oil companies have leases that they don't do anything on. Why should they be given more?

Part may be the cost of obtaining the fuel.

However, if a lease is not active within 5 years, it should be canceled and rebid with a min base of the current lease + 10%

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
Everyone knows that the ability to drill/strip mine/etc would be followed by absolutely no funding for alternative energy research. The Republican plan is to keep us on fossil fuels, no matter what and if you believe otherwise, you are foolish.

umm, the Dems have all of the power right now, not the Republicans, so why couldn't they approve both?

I'd support that type of spending -- on both the drilling AND alternative energy research.

Which one of the two parts of that solution is being prevented right now, and why?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I saw this last year on the History Channel. If it is the company in the segment, they also pump CO2 in Canada, where it is used, instead of water, for oil recovery. They stated the field would have been dead within 3-5 years using water, but might go 15 now that they were using the C02. The CO2 gets sequestered at the same time.

They showed the algae farm, and mentioned that it was proving so profitable, that they were expanding.


Interesting D.O.E. project
edit: browsing their site, I think this may be another company. The one I saw, was harvesting the algae and selling it to farmers, to mix with feed for livestock, I think.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
CO2 and sunlight and highly engineered organisms producing fuel as a byproduct with little need for water. Joule Biotechnologies has announced a breakthrough.

Oh, really? Why not grow and press oil hemp seed, 300 gallons to an acre back in the forties, with fifty(edit; please excuse me, seventy years) years of breeding it should have reached 500+ an acre. But a newspaper moghul had pulp mills too and did not want a cheap alternative.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
We already have the answer to imported oil right under our noses; it's called the massive amounts of oil/gas/coal that we have available here in the United States. The ultra-liberal enviro-wackos won't let us get it though, making the need for imported oil even worse.

Biofuels, "alternative energy", "green energy", etc. are all well and good for the future, but we need something that works well in the meantime until those alternatives are ready for primetime.

Have you done any research on how much more oil the US can produce?

The ANWAR silver bullet would only meet ~ 5% of today's needs. Only 55% to go. I thought oil companys already hold leases on 80% of know US oil.

The Kern oil fields consume ~ 1,000,000,000,000,000 BTUs to heat the earth so they can extract the last 25% of oil. That has to take a big bite into the total energy output.

 

[Fear No Evil]

The problem with all these 'alternatives' is that the environment left will come up with a reason to oppose them. The environmental left is pretty much against ALL alternatives for one reason or another.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
We already have the answer to imported oil right under our noses; it's called the massive amounts of oil/gas/coal that we have available here in the United States. The ultra-liberal enviro-wackos won't let us get it though, making the need for imported oil even worse.

Biofuels, "alternative energy", "green energy", etc. are all well and good for the future, but we need something that works well in the meantime until those alternatives are ready for primetime.

Have you done any research on how much more oil the US can produce?

The ANWAR silver bullet would only meet ~ 5% of today's needs. Only 55% to go. I thought oil companys already hold leases on 80% of know US oil.

The Kern oil fields consume ~ 1,000,000,000,000,000 BTUs to heat the earth so they can extract the last 25% of oil. That has to take a big bite into the total energy output.

Just did a quick Google search...

Untapped oil supplies

"Make no mistake, there is still plenty of oil to be found here. A recent Interior Department study estimates 21 billion barrels of oil lie untapped beneath federally controlled lands, mostly in the West and Alaska. That equals 30 years of current imports from Saudi Arabia.

There's a lot of natural gas as well. Unfortunately, the department found "just 3 percent of onshore federal oil and 13 percent onshore Federal gas are accessible under standard lease terms." In other words, only this tiny percentage of energy can be produced without serious legal or regulatory impediments. Some of the rest is accessible, but only if energy companies wade through all the red tape.

Most disturbing of all, "51 percent of oil and 27 percent of the natural gas are presently closed to leasing" - or completely off-limits."

"A companion Interior Department report on offshore oil is much the same. About 19 billion barrels of oil sit below the 85 percent of our territorial waters where drilling is not allowed. It's worth noting that - as with the onshore estimates - these initial energy inventories usually prove to be on the low side."

Tapping into these reserves might not be enough to remove our relying on foreign oil, but it sure would put a big dent in the amount of oil we import. Something interesting I read...

"Granted, America's untapped oil is not nearly enough to end imports from hostile regimes. But it is enough to reduce them. As things now stand, however, imports are gradually increasing, from less than 40 percent during the Arab oil embargo days of the 1970s to more than 60 percent today, and still rising."

Interestingly enough, environmental activism has been on a dramatic rise during that time period as well. Hmm...

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: SammyJr
Everyone knows that the ability to drill/strip mine/etc would be followed by absolutely no funding for alternative energy research. The Republican plan is to keep us on fossil fuels, no matter what and if you believe otherwise, you are foolish.

umm, the Dems have all of the power right now, not the Republicans, so why couldn't they approve both?

I'd support that type of spending -- on both the drilling AND alternative energy research.

Which one of the two parts of that solution is being prevented right now, and why?

This is pretty much what I've been saying, yet I'm insulted and attacked as a "partisan shill" for proposing drilling (a "Republican" priority) and developing alternative energies (a "Democrat" priority). There is no logical reason why we can't drill to meet our immediate energy needs while we develop alternative energies for the future. Democrats have controlled Congress since the 2006 elections, and have controlled the White House since the 2008 elections. It is not the "evil Republicans" who are holding things up, since we don't have the votes to stop anything in the House or the Senate.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
CO2 and sunlight and highly engineered organisms producing fuel as a byproduct with little need for water. Joule Biotechnologies has announced a breakthrough.

Oh, really? Why not grow and press oil hemp seed, 300 gallons to an acre back in the forties, with fifty(edit; please excuse me, seventy years) years of breeding it should have reached 500+ an acre. But a newspaper moghul had pulp mills too and did not want a cheap alternative.

This process produces 20,000 gallons not 500.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
We already have the answer to imported oil right under our noses; it's called the massive amounts of oil/gas/coal that we have available here in the United States. The ultra-liberal enviro-wackos won't let us get it though, making the need for imported oil even worse.

Biofuels, "alternative energy", "green energy", etc. are all well and good for the future, but we need something that works well in the meantime until those alternatives are ready for primetime.

OK, since you posted this and were sodomized by the evil trolls here, let me see if I can explain kindly and logically what is wrong with your point of view. There are only a few things wrong with what you are saying. Most everything you said here is true. Everything you said is also pretty irrelevant.

Coal and oil are huge in the USA, it is wrong that strange folk have driven it out of the market. But it's environmentally damaging and we have to import a huge amount of our oil. It would take years to bring new supplies on line and we will run out eventually anyway. What we are trying to do is get away from fossil fuels because of global warming and to end foreign dependence on oil. We don't have all the oil we need and we don't want to drill every sq inch of our land. Since it would take years and years to up our supply, it is better to plan now for alternatives since we will need them anyway. You are recommending we use a hammer but we want to use a nail gun. Hammers don't make sense because the world has changed. We need new efficiencies and less pollution, etc. We need to be leading the world in alternative energy manufacturing. We need better living through chemistry.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
We already have the answer to imported oil right under our noses; it's called the massive amounts of oil/gas/coal that we have available here in the United States. The ultra-liberal enviro-wackos won't let us get it though, making the need for imported oil even worse.

Biofuels, "alternative energy", "green energy", etc. are all well and good for the future, but we need something that works well in the meantime until those alternatives are ready for primetime.

OK, since you posted this and were sodomized by the evil trolls here, let me see if I can explain kindly and logically what is wrong with your point of view. There are only a few things wrong with what you are saying. Most everything you said here is true. Everything you said is also pretty irrelevant.

Coal and oil are huge in the USA, it is wrong that strange folk have driven it out of the market. But it's environmentally damaging and we have to import a huge amount of our oil. It would take years to bring new supplies on line and we will run out eventually anyway. What we are trying to do is get away from fossil fuels because of global warming and to end foreign dependence on oil. We don't have all the oil we need and we don't want to drill every sq inch of our land. Since it would take years and years to up our supply, it is better to plan now for alternatives since we will need them anyway. You are recommending we use a hammer but we want to use a nail gun. Hammers don't make sense because the world has changed. We need new efficiencies and less pollution, etc. We need to be leading the world in alternative energy manufacturing. We need better living through chemistry.

I believe that RPS is suggesting we use the "hammer" we have now, while *gasp* simultaneously investing in better "nail guns" for the future.

Like him, I'm very interested to hear why it is we can't do both.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
We already have the answer to imported oil right under our noses; it's called the massive amounts of oil/gas/coal that we have available here in the United States. The ultra-liberal enviro-wackos won't let us get it though, making the need for imported oil even worse.

Biofuels, "alternative energy", "green energy", etc. are all well and good for the future, but we need something that works well in the meantime until those alternatives are ready for primetime.

OK, since you posted this and were sodomized by the evil trolls here, let me see if I can explain kindly and logically what is wrong with your point of view. There are only a few things wrong with what you are saying. Most everything you said here is true. Everything you said is also pretty irrelevant.

Coal and oil are huge in the USA, it is wrong that strange folk have driven it out of the market. But it's environmentally damaging and we have to import a huge amount of our oil. It would take years to bring new supplies on line and we will run out eventually anyway. What we are trying to do is get away from fossil fuels because of global warming and to end foreign dependence on oil. We don't have all the oil we need and we don't want to drill every sq inch of our land. Since it would take years and years to up our supply, it is better to plan now for alternatives since we will need them anyway. You are recommending we use a hammer but we want to use a nail gun. Hammers don't make sense because the world has changed. We need new efficiencies and less pollution, etc. We need to be leading the world in alternative energy manufacturing. We need better living through chemistry.

I believe that RPS is suggesting we use the "hammer" we have now, while *gasp* simultaneously investing in better "nail guns" for the future.

Like him, I'm very interested to hear why it is we can't do both.

Because drilling and mining are very expensive and take resources away from research.

Its the same reason we don't already have UHC. We have a very expensive military and we use it. Can't have both.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
We already have the answer to imported oil right under our noses; it's called the massive amounts of oil/gas/coal that we have available here in the United States. The ultra-liberal enviro-wackos won't let us get it though, making the need for imported oil even worse.

Biofuels, "alternative energy", "green energy", etc. are all well and good for the future, but we need something that works well in the meantime until those alternatives are ready for primetime.

OK, since you posted this and were sodomized by the evil trolls here, let me see if I can explain kindly and logically what is wrong with your point of view. There are only a few things wrong with what you are saying. Most everything you said here is true. Everything you said is also pretty irrelevant.

Coal and oil are huge in the USA, it is wrong that strange folk have driven it out of the market. But it's environmentally damaging and we have to import a huge amount of our oil. It would take years to bring new supplies on line and we will run out eventually anyway. What we are trying to do is get away from fossil fuels because of global warming and to end foreign dependence on oil. We don't have all the oil we need and we don't want to drill every sq inch of our land. Since it would take years and years to up our supply, it is better to plan now for alternatives since we will need them anyway. You are recommending we use a hammer but we want to use a nail gun. Hammers don't make sense because the world has changed. We need new efficiencies and less pollution, etc. We need to be leading the world in alternative energy manufacturing. We need better living through chemistry.

I believe that RPS is suggesting we use the "hammer" we have now, while *gasp* simultaneously investing in better "nail guns" for the future.

Like him, I'm very interested to hear why it is we can't do both.

Because drilling and mining are very expensive and take resources away from research.

Its the same reason we don't already have UHC. We have a very expensive military and we use it. Can't have both.

I thought UHC was basically free from all the cost savings of having the government run it? Now you guys are really confusing things.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: SammyJr
Because drilling and mining are very expensive and take resources away from research.

Its the same reason we don't already have UHC. We have a very expensive military and we use it. Can't have both.

1. Private industry would foot most of the drilling and mining costs -- doing so is simply a matter of removing the environmentalist obstacles, nothing more. IOW, the obstacles are political, not fiscal.

2. UHC isn't even on the table right now -- thankfully.

3. Our defense budget is NOT the limiting factor in funding for alternative energy research, especially with the current Admin/Congress and their obvious willingness to write large checks.

You're really not making much sense at all.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
We already have the answer to imported oil right under our noses; it's called the massive amounts of oil/gas/coal that we have available here in the United States. The ultra-liberal enviro-wackos won't let us get it though, making the need for imported oil even worse.

Biofuels, "alternative energy", "green energy", etc. are all well and good for the future, but we need something that works well in the meantime until those alternatives are ready for primetime.

dummy, the object is to get AWAY from fossil fuels. why do you want to keep on using it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
We already have the answer to imported oil right under our noses; it's called the massive amounts of oil/gas/coal that we have available here in the United States. The ultra-liberal enviro-wackos won't let us get it though, making the need for imported oil even worse.

Biofuels, "alternative energy", "green energy", etc. are all well and good for the future, but we need something that works well in the meantime until those alternatives are ready for primetime.

OK, since you posted this and were sodomized by the evil trolls here, let me see if I can explain kindly and logically what is wrong with your point of view. There are only a few things wrong with what you are saying. Most everything you said here is true. Everything you said is also pretty irrelevant.

Coal and oil are huge in the USA, it is wrong that strange folk have driven it out of the market. But it's environmentally damaging and we have to import a huge amount of our oil. It would take years to bring new supplies on line and we will run out eventually anyway. What we are trying to do is get away from fossil fuels because of global warming and to end foreign dependence on oil. We don't have all the oil we need and we don't want to drill every sq inch of our land. Since it would take years and years to up our supply, it is better to plan now for alternatives since we will need them anyway. You are recommending we use a hammer but we want to use a nail gun. Hammers don't make sense because the world has changed. We need new efficiencies and less pollution, etc. We need to be leading the world in alternative energy manufacturing. We need better living through chemistry.

I believe that RPS is suggesting we use the "hammer" we have now, while *gasp* simultaneously investing in better "nail guns" for the future.

Like him, I'm very interested to hear why it is we can't do both.

That is very simple. We are and have to do both. It is all about degree and focus.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
We already have the answer to imported oil right under our noses; it's called the massive amounts of oil/gas/coal that we have available here in the United States. The ultra-liberal enviro-wackos won't let us get it though, making the need for imported oil even worse.

Biofuels, "alternative energy", "green energy", etc. are all well and good for the future, but we need something that works well in the meantime until those alternatives are ready for primetime.

OK, since you posted this and were sodomized by the evil trolls here, let me see if I can explain kindly and logically what is wrong with your point of view. There are only a few things wrong with what you are saying. Most everything you said here is true. Everything you said is also pretty irrelevant.

Coal and oil are huge in the USA, it is wrong that strange folk have driven it out of the market. But it's environmentally damaging and we have to import a huge amount of our oil. It would take years to bring new supplies on line and we will run out eventually anyway. What we are trying to do is get away from fossil fuels because of global warming and to end foreign dependence on oil. We don't have all the oil we need and we don't want to drill every sq inch of our land. Since it would take years and years to up our supply, it is better to plan now for alternatives since we will need them anyway. You are recommending we use a hammer but we want to use a nail gun. Hammers don't make sense because the world has changed. We need new efficiencies and less pollution, etc. We need to be leading the world in alternative energy manufacturing. We need better living through chemistry.

I believe that RPS is suggesting we use the "hammer" we have now, while *gasp* simultaneously investing in better "nail guns" for the future.

Like him, I'm very interested to hear why it is we can't do both.

That is very simple. We are and have to do both. It is all about degree and focus.

OK, so help us apply pressure on legislators to go around the environmentalist obstacles that are currently preventing us from doing both.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
We already have the answer to imported oil right under our noses; it's called the massive amounts of oil/gas/coal that we have available here in the United States. The ultra-liberal enviro-wackos won't let us get it though, making the need for imported oil even worse.

Biofuels, "alternative energy", "green energy", etc. are all well and good for the future, but we need something that works well in the meantime until those alternatives are ready for primetime.

paint chips must be tasty

Can you refute the fact that we have a plethora of untapped oil reserves here in the US that we are not allowed to access because of environmental groups? No?

Can you show any concrete proof that alternative energy is ready to replace oil/gas/coal and economically and efficiently power the US any time soon? No?

So, it's just more typical name-calling and insults from the left...gotcha.

CIA

that 20 billion bbl will go a long way to fuel a 7 billion bbl a year habit.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Just did a quick Google search...

Untapped oil supplies

"Make no mistake, there is still plenty of oil to be found here. A recent Interior Department study estimates 21 billion barrels of oil lie untapped beneath federally controlled lands, mostly in the West and Alaska. That equals 30 years of current imports from Saudi Arabia.

contrary to popular belief, we don't buy much oil from saudi arabia, most of our oil comes from mexico/canada/nigeria/venezula

"Granted, America's untapped oil is not nearly enough to end imports from hostile regimes. But it is enough to reduce them. As things now stand, however, imports are gradually increasing, from less than 40 percent during the Arab oil embargo days of the 1970s to more than 60 percent today, and still rising."

i didn't know mexico, cnanada, and nigeria were hostile regimes. really the only hostile regimes that are oil exporters are iran and venezula

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
https://www.cia.gov/library/pu...-factbook/geos/us.html">CIA</a>

that 20 billion bbl will go a long way to fuel a 7 billion bbl a year habit.

Your link is borked.