GAO To Obama: More Oil Than Rest Of The World
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I know a great deal about shale oil extraction, and most of my knowledge comes from independent sources, like the GAO. Yours comes mostly from DailyKos and HuffPo, or some other liberal propaganda outlet. This does not relate to the fact that you incorrectly asked your question of the wrong quote in post #101 above. How am I supposed to have a conversation with you, if you are going to ask me questions about phantom quotes and use other incorrect quotes that don't pertain to your actual questioning? I can't read your mind, it is your responsibility to post quotes and ask your questions correctly, because I have to assume that is what you did. This is not me avoiding the issue, it is me not understanding your question because you put it beneath a quote that didn't relate to it. That's your fault, not mine. If you had avoided quoting me in #101, and simply asked; "How much have you researched shale oil extraction?" then I would have known what you were asking me.... as it stood, I thought you were asking me about how much research I had done on the flow-rate of the Colorado, and I answered you.
No, it's a problem with you and pinheads like you. Most everyone else can comprehend me just fine.
No, the odds overwhelmingly point to you being an idiot and a retard, but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
I didn't redact a thing, the posted article is exactly how it appears at the link, which is also posted. You continue to try and hold me accountable for what the GAO told Congress, or what the author of the article wrote. I do agree with the article, it's silly for Obama to be running around claiming we only have a mere 2% of the proven oil reserves so why bother? We have untapped natural resources that rival the rest of the world combined, we just need to aggressively pursue them, which you are apparently opposed to doing, as well as the Obama Administration.... evidenced by the fact that you and he are actively speaking out against any consideration of the idea. I think it's fascinating that some of you want to take the approach that Obama isn't doing a thing to prevent this! Like someone would actually believe that shit.
I know more than you think. I've already cleared up the misconception about water usage. A tremendous amount of water is needed for the process, but a tremendous amount of water is also treated and returned, the actual 'expenditure' of water resources is minuscule. I've clarified the liberal misconception the Colorado River has no available water to use, as the Colorado has at least 21,700 cubic feet per second that can be used at any given point along it's path.
Go look at the Congressional record, and find every bill that Congress has voted on the past 20 years, and see how many Democrats were opposed to things related to Big Oil and how many things they favored and supported with Republicans. The record speaks for itself, and it doesn't come from DailyKos or HuffPo, it's public information available to the masses at Thomas.gov.
As for the process, there is only one viable process being considered, but what difference does it make if there are several? You aren't in favor of ANY of them, are you? Why do you want to derail the topic and stop the argument on this basis? It makes no rational sense whatsoever... OKAY... I might be wrong! (is that what you're looking for here?) There might be two or three different processes for extracting shale oil! OMFG... I guess THAT means we CAN'T try it!
Fucking moron!
I've proven to be far more qualified than you are, because you can't even seem to manage proper posting using quotes yet. Before you can be better than me, you have to first master the art of posting correctly, it has nothing to do with using big words, in fact, you should probably avoid using them here. Now if you want to wag your E-penis around a while, and pretend like you've really told me off or something, be my guest. I don't blame you for doing that, most pinheads resort to behaving like that after I've completely destroyed them in a debate, so it's nothing to be ashamed of. You'll find that when you've backed yourself into such a corner and resort to this sort of thing, your liberal friends here will chortle in with support and thanks, and make you feel all warm and fuzzy.... I completely understand, total ass pwnage is rough, you need all the soothing comfort you can get!
I'm not using anything, I don't do shale oil extractions. Some pinhead raised the issue of electricity, and I merely pointed out that we can make all the electricity we want, we have that capability. Again, I don't care which 'situ' ...is there one you favor over the other? If so, perhaps we can reach compromise, eh?
Nah.
Nah.
Hmmm... searching for "liberal presidents" from the past 30 years.... finding nothing so far!
1) I never said oil companies didn't make profits. 2) I never said the military didn't cost money to keep oil routes open. 3) I never said a thing about liberal presidents.
Again, I didn't write the op-ed piece posted in the OP. And again, "environmental issues" are often a very convenient way for liberals to shut down the debate without further argument, and in this particular case, the "environmental issues" are less than the current "environmental issues" regarding offshore drilling for oil. This is actually much less risky to the environment than traditional drilling, yet you are arguing it is too risky.
I realize the first and foremost liberal thought, is that if someone is "for" something, it means they want government money going to fund it. That is not the case here for me, as I am a conservative. I want government to allow the capitalist system to work, and private industry to develop this new technology. I would like for them to open up the federal lands on which this shale oil rests, so that private interests can expand development of this process more. I don't want to subsidize this, and I certainly don't want to waste anymore money subsidizing "cleaner technologies" like SOLYNDRA, it tends to not work out in our favor as taxpayers. It's best if we allow the capitalist free market system to come up with new products on their own, they have an amazing track record of success doing this.
Althea
Althea told me...
Actually, this thread demonstrates the opposite. You'd rather type about posting etiquette. You reference a quote, when in reality, that was the second time I approached you on the subject.
You're still avoiding the obvious. And why did you remove the segment of my last reply, where you admit that you know nothing?
The entire GAO report was linked here, but you refused to read it. Had you taken the time to do so...given your claim that you use them as your end all in this debate...you'd have seen that they cite environmental issues in the study.
Thanks for the thread though...the adults had a decent conversation, and I'm sure a few people actually learned something.
Too bad you aren't one of them.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Did the thread title type itself? So you mentioned Obama.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Let me get this straight... You post a quote of me commenting on the flow-rate of the Colorado, where you ask me if I have done research on "the subject" and I respond that it's common knowledge, and you launch into a tirade that I am running from the argument and avoiding debate. Then I point out the error in how you framed your question and used an inappropriate quote...THEN you revert to accusations that I am being picky about posting etiquette? Can you simply not take responsibility for your own mistakes? Is that the problem here?
And this goes a little beyond "posting etiquette," and into basic competence in how you communicate with others. It's quite like a baboon is at the dinner table, scratching his ass with one hand and eating with the other, and when someone complains, you claim they are being finicky about table manners! You are the baboon at the dinner table here, in case you are confused.
I'm not avoiding anything. Apparently, you still have a problem being able to frame a logical question in a way that others will know what the fuck you are talking about. And again... I didn't remove anything, I simply didn't choose to reply to your ad-hom at the end of your post, so I left it out intentionally. I never admitted I know nothing, obviously, your atrophied brain is making you read things that aren't there again.
I have read the entire GAO report, and I did read the generic "environmental concerns" which are raised to the point of boredom and predictability on virtually EVERY issue brought before Congress concerning oil exploration or extraction for the past 30 years. The "environmental concerns" here are LESS THAN the environmental concerns for ANY offshore oil drilling, therefore, "environmental concerns" are a non-starter. Next?
Too bad you aren't either!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Another handily-deflated blowhard. Thanks, Althea - it's always a pleasure to watch you in your element.
See Althee, I told you.... as soon as you get your ass pwned by me in a debate, your liberal asswipe friends will come out of the woodwork to give you soothing consolation! I don't mind this, because I am compassionate, I know how badly it must hurt to be totally destroyed and humiliated that way... well, actually, no I don't know, not first-hand, but I imagine it must really smart. In any event, enjoy your accolades, I hope it eases the pain of this embarrassing pwnage.
Maybe you two can get together and stroke each other's cats?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, I typed it, but I didn't say it. The thread title (again) is the title of the article posted. If you have a problem with what the author said, send him an email or go to the article and see if there is a place you can leave comments, usually they have those. I can't defend what another man said, that is his battle, I have enough on my plate as it is. Again, I never mentioned Obama, until of course, YOU mentioned Obama.
But now that Obama is clearly on the table and we are discussing him, what actions has Obama taken to further this type of oil exploration?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
LOL, so do articles you quote appear magically on internet forums, or do you type the words on your keyboard and post them?
If you typed the thread title, you mentioned Obama.
Did the author of the article post it here, or was that you?
You typed the thread title, didn't you? So you mentioned Obama.
Who said he had?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Again, real slowwwwly... The words are from the title of the "third-party" article posted, they are not MINE!
I posted HIS words HERE. They are still not MY words. That would be plagiarism.
Repeat yourself often? I imagine you do, being you are mentally unstable.
No one, but why else would you be defending him here?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
So if you recite the Lord's prayer, God doesn't hear you because you didn't write the words?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
????***HUHH????****????
What the fuck are you even talking about? If I recite the Lord's Prayer, it sure as hell doesn't mean that I wrote it! Fucktard!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Okay, here's a pop quiz... how many times have "environmental issues" been mentioned by pinheads in this thread, without specifying any actual environmental issue? This essentially proves the point that "environmental issues" is nothing more than a red herring, tossed out by pinheads who are out of ammo in the argument, and need to resort to the old reliable "environmental issues" card, which they believe can't be trumped. There is no environmental issue which would justify NOT doing this! ANY action we take, no matter how insignificant, is going to have some environmental impact, just us existing on the planet has an impact. As for OIL EXPLORATION, there is LESS "environmental concerns" with this process, than with ANY offshore drilling operation. There is much more risk to the environment when we drill for oil offshore, and if we applied your same standards of reasoning, we would be unable to drill for oil ANYWHERE at ANY TIME! I guess this is a fine position to have, if you don't mind the horse and buggy, but even then... there are "environmental issues!"
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Here is a promising in-situ technique which could overcome many of the considerable objections to recovering oil from oil shale. It is 10-15 years away from being a game changer but it looks promising and addresses many of the environmental concerns associated with ex-situ processes. Of course, it could equally turn out to be a blind alley but only time will tell.
http://thegwpf.org/energy-news/2669-the-coming-shale-oil-revolution.html
http://thegwpf.org/energy-news/2669-the-coming-shale-oil-revolution.html
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You can bet your ass, when the Jews start in on an idea, it HAS to be a winner. These people are not known for chasing their tails, generally speaking, they're pretty smart about things, and what they touch tends to turn to gold. If the Jews see the potential, there certainly is some.
No one is suggesting there is some "magic bullet" that will suddenly, overnight, solve our energy problems. The argument, ironically enough, is over "progress!" It just so happens the Liberals are opposed to progress in this case. If we have the capacity to put men on the moon, and send robots to Mars, we certainly have the capacity to figure out how to mine shale oil efficiently. The resource is too valuable to leave in the ground, as we stubbornly cling to political ideology. There is virtually NO REASON to not explore this option, and move forward with the idea. We are deep into this thread, and despite pinhead cheers of victory, not a single valid reason has been presented. We've gone through it all, from water supply to electricity, and finally, to the old tried and true liberal trump, the environment. Nothing has been established, it has all been refuted. We have plenty of water supply to do the process, 21.7k cfps, to be exact. We can make electricity, we've known how to do this for years. The environmental impact is LESS than traditional oil drilling on land, and certainly less risk to the environment than offshore drilling. Yes, there are some environmental concerns, as there is with virtually everything man does. That's why we have to address those things up front, and establish proper regulations and guidelines, we have all the necessary governmental agencies to do this, we've been doing it for years and years. Everything the Liberals bring up, is quickly and swiftly shot down, as total and utter nonsense and bullshit... and that's why they play the "environmental issues" card over and over, like broken records... it's supposed to work! Eventually.... it WILL work! Keep screaming "THE ENVIRONMENT!" long enough, and just enough brain-dead morons out there will adopt the viewpoint, and voila...the old trump card works every time! Bottom line, it's LESS ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS THAN DRILLING OFFSHORE!
No one is suggesting there is some "magic bullet" that will suddenly, overnight, solve our energy problems. The argument, ironically enough, is over "progress!" It just so happens the Liberals are opposed to progress in this case. If we have the capacity to put men on the moon, and send robots to Mars, we certainly have the capacity to figure out how to mine shale oil efficiently. The resource is too valuable to leave in the ground, as we stubbornly cling to political ideology. There is virtually NO REASON to not explore this option, and move forward with the idea. We are deep into this thread, and despite pinhead cheers of victory, not a single valid reason has been presented. We've gone through it all, from water supply to electricity, and finally, to the old tried and true liberal trump, the environment. Nothing has been established, it has all been refuted. We have plenty of water supply to do the process, 21.7k cfps, to be exact. We can make electricity, we've known how to do this for years. The environmental impact is LESS than traditional oil drilling on land, and certainly less risk to the environment than offshore drilling. Yes, there are some environmental concerns, as there is with virtually everything man does. That's why we have to address those things up front, and establish proper regulations and guidelines, we have all the necessary governmental agencies to do this, we've been doing it for years and years. Everything the Liberals bring up, is quickly and swiftly shot down, as total and utter nonsense and bullshit... and that's why they play the "environmental issues" card over and over, like broken records... it's supposed to work! Eventually.... it WILL work! Keep screaming "THE ENVIRONMENT!" long enough, and just enough brain-dead morons out there will adopt the viewpoint, and voila...the old trump card works every time! Bottom line, it's LESS ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS THAN DRILLING OFFSHORE!
cancel2 2022
Canceled
There you go again spouting the same crap, ex-situ techniques are incredibly demanding both in water and energy resources. To keep saying that the Colorado can supply the water is just patent bullshit, it can't and that's not me saying that but expert hydrologists. The technique in Israel looks promising but it is still early days, having worked in the computer industry for many years I am very familiar with the concept of vapourware.
Althea
Althea told me...
Yes...this is the method that would still require vast amounts of electricity, and salinated water. They need the water to 'freeze' the surrounding area to keep groundwater from seeping into the site. Then, they slowly heat the drilled wells, in order to extract liquid, as opposed to solid rock.
It's much easier on the environment is some aspects, but the question remains as to how much energy is required to create energy from shale.
Althea
Althea told me...
One benefit I see in Israel, is that they've got plenty of water to draw from. And, it's already salinated. I'm sure with proper funding, they'll move forward.
And yes....surface mining/retorting is much more damaging to the environment.
I just wonder how Israel plans to treat the used water afterward?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
No, this is a different method to the one being piloted in the Piceance Basin, Colorado. It is especially suited to somewhere like Israel where many parts are semi-arid. It is claimed that the process even results in excess water being produced.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
First off, if YOU estimate it will take the Jews 10-15 years to figure it out, I will BET that it takes them 5-7.5 instead. Again, incredibly smart people who rarely embark on boondoggles. Just sayin'!
Now... back to the good ole Colorado. This river has been around a long time, as have the Rocky Mountains. As long as snow continues to fall in the upper elevations of the Rocky Mountains, we can rest assured the Colorado will have an adequate supply of water in the future. As of 9/22/2011, runoff was at ~128%, that amount fluctuates depending on snowfall amounts and seasonal temps. Nevertheless, at the mouth of the Colorado (the end), we measure the flow rate at 21,700 cubic feet per second. In 60 seconds (1 minute) that comes to 1.3 million cubic feet. Per hour: 78 million cubic feet... in a day... 1.87 billion cubic feet of water. In a year.... 682.5 billion cubic feet.... Now, correct me if I am wrong, but that sounds like plenty of water to me.
The "massive amount of water" is not technically "used" in the process. The BULK of the water that is "borrowed" is returned to from whence it came, after being treated. This is one of the things which make this process so expensive, and has been a cost-prohibitive aspect in the past. We don't live in 1842 America, where privateers are blasting away mountains with pressurized water to get at the gold and silver! We have a very elaborate and sophisticated system of environmental regulations and mandates which have to be met. We are already paying a great deal of our tax money to fund these governmental agencies and regulatory groups. This would not cost us anything extra to monitor or regulate.