GAO To Obama: More Oil Than Rest Of The World

C'Thulhu said:
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.
Click to expand...

Changing tech is as simple as this.... The Government announces, as of 2016, ALL Government vehicles have to use natural gas. That's it! By 2016, all major auto makers who sell (or hope to sell) vehicles to the government, will have an entire line of natural gas vehicles, which will be available to the public. All suppliers of fuel across the nation, who sell (or hope to sell) to the government, will have made it readily available to the public. Within 10 years, the majority of cars sold would be natural gas, and within 25 years, virtually no gasoline-powered cars would be sold. That's how fast we could change, and it wouldn't take one penny's worth of effort from the government, as they are already going to spend the money to replace their aging fleets.
 
Because the majority doesn't really want to know the truth, I'll force feed you guys the info from The General's link:


In addition to these opportunities and the uncertainty of not yet
having an economical and environmentally viable commercial scale
technology, the following challenges should also be considered:

* Impacts on water, air, and wildlife. Developing oil shale and
providing power for oil shale operations and other activities will
require large amounts of water and could have significant impacts on
the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater resources. In
addition, construction and mining activities during development can
temporarily degrade air quality in local areas. There can also be long-
term regional increases in air pollutants from oil shale processing
and the generation of additional electricity to power oil shale
development operations. Oil shale operations will also require the
clearing of large surface areas of topsoil and vegetation which can
affect wildlife habitat, and the withdrawal of large quantities of
surface water which could also negatively impact aquatic life.

* Socioeconomic impacts. Oil shale development can bring an influx of
workers, who along with their families can put additional stress on
local infrastructure such as roads, housing, municipal water systems,
and schools. Development from expansion of extractive industries, such
as oil shale or oil and gas, has typically followed a “boom and bust”
cycle, making planning for growth difficult for local governments.
Moreover, traditional rural uses would be displaced by industrial uses
and areas that rely on tourism and natural resources would be
negatively impacted.





Yes, Yurt....WATER.

Among other things. Read about Boom/Bust cycles taking place right now in this country in oil drilling areas.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
If the Colorado has an adequate supply of water, why is that Lake Mead water levels are dropping alarmingly and Las Vegas is building a 300 mile pipeline to the east?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/23/las-vegas-pump-water-approved
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mead

Lake Mead's water level has fallen below the drought level (1125 feet above sea level) three times.[5] From 1953 to 1956, the water level fell from 1,200 to 1,085 feet (370 to 331 m). From 1963 to 1965, the water level fell from 1,205 to 1,090 feet (367 to 330 m). Since 2000 through 2008, the water level has dropped from 1215 to 1095. In 2009 the water level rose slightly due to cool winter temperatures and rainfall.
In June 2010, the lake was at 39 percent of its capacity,[6] and on Nov. 30, 2010 it reached 1,081.94 ft (329.78 m), setting a new record monthly low.[7] From mid May 2011 to September 22, 2011, Lake Mead's water elevation increased from 1095.5 feet to 1115.24 feet, and the rivers feeding it were running at 128.06% of the average flow rate for September 22.
Lake Mead draws a majority of its water from snow melt in the Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah Rocky Mountains. Since 2000 the water level has been dropping at a fairly steady rate due to less than average snowfall.

NOW JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Lake Mead, like any other fucking lake on the planet, rises and falls routinely, throughout history. It's low now, it has been low before, and it will be low again, before filling back up and returning to its normal levels. The sky is not falling, Chicken Little!

And unless we have some cataclysmic event that stops snow from melting in the Rocky Mountains, the Colorado River will pour about 15.7 million acre-feet into the Gulf of California each year.

Las Vegas is in the middle of a desert. The fact that man figured out a way to even get water TO Las Vegas in the first place, is a testament to the fact that we know how to obtain water where we need it, and this is certainly not a problem for us.

You continue to raise FALSE OBSTACLES, because you fear an American oil company might PROFIT in some way, and that is just unacceptable to you. In you warped perspective, you had rather us lavish the Saudi's in luxury while they fund terrorists, and pay $10 a gallon for gas, to prevent an American oil company from making a profit. It suits you just fine to watch groceries, and everything else that is transported, double or triple in price... that is better to you, than allowing an American oil company to make one dime! If anything is suggested, which might result in an American oil company making a profit, you are pre-programmed to object, throw up whatever ridiculous excuse or made-up contrivance to derail any such talk... because your main objective is to punish Big Oil, at ANY cost!
 
Dixie said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mead

Lake Mead's water level has fallen below the drought level (1125 feet above sea level) three times.[5] From 1953 to 1956, the water level fell from 1,200 to 1,085 feet (370 to 331 m). From 1963 to 1965, the water level fell from 1,205 to 1,090 feet (367 to 330 m). Since 2000 through 2008, the water level has dropped from 1215 to 1095. In 2009 the water level rose slightly due to cool winter temperatures and rainfall.
In June 2010, the lake was at 39 percent of its capacity,[6] and on Nov. 30, 2010 it reached 1,081.94 ft (329.78 m), setting a new record monthly low.[7] From mid May 2011 to September 22, 2011, Lake Mead's water elevation increased from 1095.5 feet to 1115.24 feet, and the rivers feeding it were running at 128.06% of the average flow rate for September 22.
Lake Mead draws a majority of its water from snow melt in the Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah Rocky Mountains. Since 2000 the water level has been dropping at a fairly steady rate due to less than average snowfall.

NOW JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Lake Mead, like any other fucking lake on the planet, rises and falls routinely, throughout history. It's low now, it has been low before, and it will be low again, before filling back up and returning to its normal levels. The sky is not falling, Chicken Little!

And unless we have some cataclysmic event that stops snow from melting in the Rocky Mountains, the Colorado River will pour about 15.7 million acre-feet into the Gulf of California each year.

Las Vegas is in the middle of a desert. The fact that man figured out a way to even get water TO Las Vegas in the first place, is a testament to the fact that we know how to obtain water where we need it, and this is certainly not a problem for us.

You continue to raise FALSE OBSTACLES, because you fear an American oil company might PROFIT in some way, and that is just unacceptable to you. In you warped perspective, you had rather us lavish the Saudi's in luxury while they fund terrorists, and pay $10 a gallon for gas, to prevent an American oil company from making a profit. It suits you just fine to watch groceries, and everything else that is transported, double or triple in price... that is better to you, than allowing an American oil company to make one dime! If anything is suggested, which might result in an American oil company making a profit, you are pre-programmed to object, throw up whatever ridiculous excuse or made-up contrivance to derail any such talk... because your main objective is to punish Big Oil, at ANY cost!
Click to expand...

If you had been even just a little attentive you would know that I have drawn a fair degree of flak for having the temerity to defend BP and to go against the consensus on Global warming.

Returning to your diatribe, the Colorado river is just not able to provide any more water. This is evidenced by the fact that the river no longer discharges into the Sea of Cortez as its waters have been siphoned off long before it even gets that far, the Colorado delta used to be a wetland paradise for wildlife but it is now a brackish wasteland.

http://researchmatters.asu.edu/stories/desert-southwest-oasis-or-mirage-2233

http://www.counterpunch.org/2001/03/14/why-the-colorado-river-doesn-t-meet-the-sea/
 
Water Consumption.
About three barrels of water are needed per barrel of shale
oil produced. Water availability analyses for oil shale development were conducted in
the early 1980s. These analyses indicated that the earliest constraining factors would
be limitations in local water supply systems, such as reservoirs, pipelines, and groundwater
development. A bigger issue is the impact of a strategic-scale oil shale industry
on the greater Colorado River Basin. Demands for water are expected to continue to
grow for the foreseeable future, making the earlier analyses regarding oil shale development
outdated.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.sum.pdf
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
If you had been even just a little attentive you would know that I have drawn a fair degree of flak for having the temerity to defend BP and to go against the consensus on Global warming.
Click to expand...

so your argument is that since you were right twice you're entitled to be wrong now?.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so your argument is that since you were right twice you're entitled to be wrong now?.......
Click to expand...

No, that's your contention. I was pointing out to Dixie that I am not dyed in the wool kneejerk liberal who opposes every attempt to extract more oil. I will also point out that I believe much of the controversy about fracking is based on ignorance, both wilful or otherwise. The debate about oil shale is not the same however as there are massive concerns about its viability using current retorting techniques, there is one experiment that is being conducted by Shell which might result in production yields but not anytime soon.

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
No, that's your contention. I was pointing out to Dixie that I am not dyed in the wool kneejerk liberal who opposes every attempt to extract more oil. I will also point out that I believe much of the controversy about fracking is based on ignorance, both wilful or otherwise. The debate about oil shale is not the same however as there are massive concerns about its viability using current retorting techniques, there is one experiment that is being conducted by Shell which might result in production yields but not anytime soon.

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm
Click to expand...

I'm not buying it........you're close enough to "dyed in the wool kneejerk liberal" to carry you through one or two aberrations of sanity..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top