GAO To Obama: More Oil Than Rest Of The World

Rana said:
It is still very expensive, plus the environmental issues which are severe. It is also dirty oil, burns emitting more gases. There is a lot to consider. Cheaper oil is still available, like the reserves in Alaska
Click to expand...

fair enough. but it seems the benefits outweigh negatives. your point is salient though.

what do you think of natural gas? city buses use natural gas....imagine if all our cars were required to use natural gas.
 
Yurt said:
an impact on water?
Click to expand...

The process to extract the oil from the shale takes massive amount of water and causes environmental damage. I haven't read about Utah or Wyoming, but last I checked Colorado wasn't sold on the idea.
 
Yurt said:
fair enough. but it seems the benefits outweigh negatives. your point is salient though.

what do you think of natural gas? city buses use natural gas....imagine if all our cars were required to use natural gas.
Click to expand...

I like natural gas.
 
Yurt said:
translation:

there is no difference, but if i say there is....well....there is a sucker born every minute
Click to expand...


Right. I'm trolling for suckers because I gave the original source that the IBD editorial relies upon without linking to it despite its availability. Now, who do you think is trolling for suckers, the publication that wrote an editorial relying on a single source without linking to that source or the person who provided the link?
 
Rana said:
The process to extract the oil from the shale takes massive amount of water and causes environmental damage. I haven't read about Utah or Wyoming, but last I checked Colorado wasn't sold on the idea.
Click to expand...

There are already water wars taking place in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona. California farmers need more and more water every year.

Lake Powell and Lake Mead are already at historic lows...there isn't enough watyer to go around as it is.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Right. I'm trolling for suckers because I gave the original source that the IBD editorial relies upon without linking to it despite its availability. Now, who do you think is trolling for suckers, the publication that wrote an editorial relying on a single source without linking to that source or the person who provided the link?
Click to expand...

too funny...you decline my invitation...yet...still spend time trying to bolster your ethereal reason for posting the link. oddly, you can't cite any differences.

well....thank you for the link. you're quite the linker when you want to be. that is, when it suits your agenda. LOL
 
Yurt said:
the lease process should not take that long.

you're right about shale oil concerns. how do we balance that with out insatiable need for oil? what do you think of natural gas? city buses use natural gas....imagine if all our cars were required to use natural gas.
Click to expand...

It's not a good solution for daily drivers. It's not as efficient as gasoline so you'd use more for one, and the current generation of equipment is....finicky to say the least. We used to do conversions for fleet vehicles and every single one was converted back to gasoline within a year.
 
C'Thulhu said:
It's not a good solution for daily drivers. It's not as efficient as gasoline so you'd use more for one, and the current generation of equipment is....finicky to say the least. We used to do conversions for fleet vehicles and every single one was converted back to gasoline within a year.
Click to expand...

natural gas is a great solution if we had the infrastructure. the reason the vehicles were converted back was likely due to infrastructure issues. natural gas can be as efficient as oil. we have the tech, all we need is the will power to change our engines.
 
Yurt said:
natural gas is a great solution if we had the infrastructure. the reason the vehicles were converted back was likely due to infrastructure issues. natural gas can be as efficient as oil. we have the tech, all we need is the will power to change our engines.
Click to expand...

No. It's because they broke down at about 3x the rate, required more frequent refuelings (because natgas is not as chemically efficient), and a 33% reduction in power at the wheel.
 
C'Thulhu said:
No. It's because they broke down at about 3x the rate, required more frequent refuelings (because natgas is not as chemically efficient), and a 33% reduction in power at the wheel.
Click to expand...

somewhat easily changed with modern tech. change the tech for the engines etc...and we have a viable alternative to oil.
 
Yurt said:
somewhat easily changed with modern tech. change the tech for the engines etc...and we have a viable alternative to oil.
Click to expand...

Changing tech isn't that simple Yurt.

I'm not against it for certain things, like mass transit or TTs, but for daily drivers it's far too involved and costly at the moment. We'd be better off by limiting our use of oil as a power source, opening trade dialogues with nations such as Iran, and drilling domestically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top