GAO To Obama: More Oil Than Rest Of The World

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...

Amen brother Tom, preach on!
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which government? Because the conversions we did were ALL for various governments. State, county, city, etc. Plus, the big 3 already offer CNG as a power source. That's how we did those conversions. There is a reason why no one wanted the Dixie.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
You are now, so where does the water come from? What's your solution, would you cut back on the ice in the casino drinks?
Click to expand...

Tom, what do you think happens to the water used to extract shale oil? Does it vanish from the planet? Is it somehow turned into oil? Do we pollute it with radioactive FUBAR? What exactly happens, do you know? Let me help you out here: The water is used in the process, then sent to a treatment plant and treated, then put back into the tributary where it came from, where it may very well end up as ice in a casino drink. A very small amount will evaporate in the process, and return to the atmosphere from which it originally came anyway. There, it will float over the Rocky Mountains and turn into snow, which will eventually melt and run into the Colorado River. Are you following? The water doesn't vanish, matter doesn't vanish.

You continue to read activist liberal garbage, devoted, designed, and intended to be used as a weapon in the war on Big Oil. There are ALWAYS going to be pitfalls and possibility of problems with ANY new technology, it has been this way since the dawn of time. Cavemen discovered fire, and soon thereafter, developed rituals for proper extinguishing of said fire! To sit back and wring your hands and worry about the possible ramifications and imagined problems, is not going to get you very far in terms of progress, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about this, or something else. If you are smart enough to know that liberal arguments against fracking and for global warming are a load of crap, you should be smart enough to know the same is true here. Shale oil production is a relatively new technology, and we are still working on how to do it efficiently and with as little environmental impact as possible, but it is most certainly an alternative which is viable, in a world of ever-increasing oil prices and dependence on foreign sources.
 
C'Thulhu said:
Which government? Because the conversions we did were ALL for various governments. State, county, city, etc. Plus, the big 3 already offer CNG as a power source. That's how we did those conversions. There is a reason why no one wanted the Dixie.
Click to expand...

The Great Big Ole Federal Government, that's which one. I'm not talking about "conversions" but rather, vehicle power-plants designed and engineered specifically for the use of natural gas.... those DO exist. If the Federal Government announced that ALL their vehicles have to be natural gas by such-and-such date, I guarantee you, BY that date, the availability to the general public would also be there. We're talking about a demand at least 50x greater than any state government, perhaps more, if you count military vehicles. The ramifications of such a government announcement would be staggering, and within a few years, would completely change the dynamics of transportation in America.

Now let me explain to you why it's NOT going to happen. There are too many special interests devoted to rejecting the idea. There are those who want to go to electric power, those who think hydrogen is better, and of course, people who are heavily invested in the status quot. Environmentalists will writhe and moan about the process of fracking, and "big oil state" politicians will protect the interests of their state's oil-based economies.

Still... the solution is very simple, even though it is totally impossible.
 
Dixie said:
The Great Big Ole Federal Government, that's which one. I'm not talking about "conversions" but rather, vehicle power-plants designed and engineered specifically for the use of natural gas.... those DO exist.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and so far purchases are few and far between. The difference between a conversion and a purpose built vehicle are precisely 0.
If the Federal Government announced that ALL their vehicles have to be natural gas by such-and-such date, I guarantee you, BY that date, the availability to the general public would also be there. We're talking about a demand at least 50x greater than any state government, perhaps more,
Click to expand...
O_o are you serious? The federal government using more than 50x ALL state and local vehicles? Simply put, no.
if you count military vehicles
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. Outside of all our treaty obligations that require us to use fuel that is compatible with NATO (#2 Diesel), we don't use CNG because it has 33% LESS power per unit.
The ramifications of such a government announcement would be staggering, and within a few years, would completely change the dynamics of transportation in America.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the federal government switching to a less powerful, less reliable fleet of vehicles just a couple years AFTER they've already updated (where do you think all those new chargers came from?).

Now let me explain to you why it's NOT going to happen. There are too many special interests devoted to rejecting the idea. There are those who want to go to electric power, those who think hydrogen is better, and of course, people who are heavily invested in the status quot. Environmentalists will writhe and moan about the process of fracking, and "big oil state" politicians will protect the interests of their state's oil-based economies.

Still... the solution is very simple, even though it is totally impossible.[/QUOTE]
 
Dixie said:
Tom, what do you think happens to the water used to extract shale oil? Does it vanish from the planet? Is it somehow turned into oil? Do we pollute it with radioactive FUBAR? What exactly happens, do you know? Let me help you out here: The water is used in the process, then sent to a treatment plant and treated, then put back into the tributary where it came from, where it may very well end up as ice in a casino drink. A very small amount will evaporate in the process, and return to the atmosphere from which it originally came anyway. There, it will float over the Rocky Mountains and turn into snow, which will eventually melt and run into the Colorado River. Are you following? The water doesn't vanish, matter doesn't vanish.

You continue to read activist liberal garbage, devoted, designed, and intended to be used as a weapon in the war on Big Oil. There are ALWAYS going to be pitfalls and possibility of problems with ANY new technology, it has been this way since the dawn of time. Cavemen discovered fire, and soon thereafter, developed rituals for proper extinguishing of said fire! To sit back and wring your hands and worry about the possible ramifications and imagined problems, is not going to get you very far in terms of progress, and it doesn't matter if we're talking about this, or something else. If you are smart enough to know that liberal arguments against fracking and for global warming are a load of crap, you should be smart enough to know the same is true here. Shale oil production is a relatively new technology, and we are still working on how to do it efficiently and with as little environmental impact as possible, but it is most certainly an alternative which is viable, in a world of ever-increasing oil prices and dependence on foreign sources.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing oil shale with shale oil, they are not the same. Shale oil is a precursor called kerogen which requires huge amounts of energy to be turned into crude oil.

Shale oil is not to be confused with another potential resource, usually called "oil shale," which is found in huge volume in the Green River Formation of western Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. That is actually a crude oil precursor known as kerogen, which would require major heating and processing to be turned into usable fuel. Its development is seen as far off in the future.

But the shale oil now being produced through fracking is conventional crude oil, produced using unconventional means
Click to expand...
 
C'Thulhu said:
Yeah, and so far purchases are few and far between.
Click to expand...

And so far, the government has made no such announcement. Again, my premise is based on the government making the announcement that all government vehicles will be natural gas by a certain date. That has not happened. Currently, there is simply no motivation for it to happen, the auto makers had rather keep producing what they already have developed, they have zero interest in inventing a new mode of natural gas transportation. It is the government's action, the announcing that all vehicles will be natural gas, which will motivate auto makers. They will respond by developing a line of vehicles for the government, and those same vehicles will also be made available to the general public, because if they are going to bother making them, they may as well sell as many as they can. The same goes for fueling stations. Gas companies will be motivated to make natural gas readily available, in hopes of getting all that new government business, and in the process, they will also be making it available to the general public.

The difference between a conversion and a purpose built vehicle are precisely 0.
Click to expand...

This is just factually inaccurate. There are indeed, engines designed specifically for natural gas. You were "converting" engines designed for gasoline, which is entirely NOT the same thing. Again, should the Federal government make such a bold announcement, the auto makers would develop an entire line of vehicles exclusively fueled by natural gas, using engines designed specifically for natural gas. These vehicles would be competitive with traditional gasoline engine vehicles, for the most part, and considerably better than any "conversion."

O_o are you serious? The federal government using more than 50x ALL state and local vehicles? Simply put, no. Yeah, no.
Click to expand...

Let's try Reading Comprehension 101 again, shall we? I stated that the Federal government is at least 50x greater than any state government, not ALL state governments combined. Did you do conversions for ALL 50 US STATE GOVERNMENTS? I doubt it! Do ANY state government's field a fleet of US Mail vehicles? I doubt it! Do ANY state government's provide vehicles for the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force? I doubt it! So yes... when all is said and done, a Federal announcement that ALL FEDERAL VEHICLES will be natural gas by a certain date, is HUGE and can't compare in any way with "conversions" ordered by individual states or municipalities. Surely, you aren't too fucking retarded to realize this?

Outside of all our treaty obligations that require us to use fuel that is compatible with NATO (#2 Diesel), we don't use CNG because it has 33% LESS power per unit. Yeah, the federal government switching to a less powerful, less reliable fleet of vehicles just a couple years AFTER they've already updated (where do you think all those new chargers came from?).
Click to expand...

We don't have a treaty with NATO requiring us to not convert government vehicles to natural gas, sorry... we just fucking don't.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I think you are confusing oil shale with shale oil, they are not the same. Shale oil is a precursor called kerogen which requires huge amounts of energy to be turned into crude oil.
Click to expand...

It doesn't change the dynamics and principles of physics, does it? Water doesn't vanish! Again, your claim was that we don't have enough water to do this, and my counter has been, that we have PLENTY of water. Billions and billions of gallons of water pour from the Colorado every year, always has, always will. Liberals want to construct an "excuse" out of this by being completely dishonest about the process. It doesn't "expend" water, it "uses" water and then returns it. Water is not lost, at least not to any great degree, it is simply utilized, treated, and returned. Because a lot of water is used, Liberals want you to forget all about physics and science, and pretend that the 'used' water is forever lost and gone from our planet for good, and that is just a bunch of bullshit and poppycock, which doesn't even comport with logic, or physics and science.

ANY form of oil production requires some amount of energy to produce. This has been the case for as long as we've used crude oil, and before that, when we used whale blubber. You will NEVER find a production of fuel that doesn't require energy to produce, it doesn't exist. That said, probably the most efficient and least costly form of energy we know of, is water!
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Have none of you fucktards ever heard of the Colorado River? I think there is an adequate supply of water there.
Click to expand...

I guess Dixie has heard of the Colorado, but that's about the extent of his "knowledge"...


Since the mid-20th century, intensive water consumption has dewatered the lower course of the river such that it no longer reaches the sea except in years of heavy runoff....

The Colorado River is now considered among the most controlled and litigated in the world, with every drop of its water fully allocated...

Declines in runoff and heavy water use could lead to severe shortages by the mid-21st century, endangering power generation and water supply...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River
 
Dixie said:
It doesn't change the dynamics and principles of physics, does it? Water doesn't vanish! Again, your claim was that we don't have enough water to do this, and my counter has been, that we have PLENTY of water. Billions and billions of gallons of water pour from the Colorado every year, always has, always will. Liberals want to construct an "excuse" out of this by being completely dishonest about the process. It doesn't "expend" water, it "uses" water and then returns it. Water is not lost, at least not to any great degree, it is simply utilized, treated, and returned. Because a lot of water is used, Liberals want you to forget all about physics and science, and pretend that the 'used' water is forever lost and gone from our planet for good, and that is just a bunch of bullshit and poppycock, which doesn't even comport with logic, or physics and science.

ANY form of oil production requires some amount of energy to produce. This has been the case for as long as we've used crude oil, and before that, when we used whale blubber. You will NEVER find a production of fuel that doesn't require energy to produce, it doesn't exist. That said, probably the most efficient and least costly form of energy we know of, is water!
Click to expand...

Processing oil shale by ex-situ methods involves the use of huge amounts of water. Cleaning all that up and removing the aromatic hydrocarbons, heavy metals, arsenic, sulphur and other pollutants is by no means a trivial task and would involve considerable costs. This only applies to water used to cool the shale residues, water that is used as part of the retort process is lost to hydrogenation.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
. 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...

Aoxomoxoa said:
Processing oil shale by ex-situ methods involves the use of huge amounts of water. Cleaning all that up and removing the aromatic hydrocarbons, heavy metals, arsenic, sulphur and other pollutants is by no means a trivial task and would involve considerable costs. This only applies to water used to cool the shale residues, water that is used as part of the retort process is lost to hydrogenation.
Click to expand...

I'm a tad confused as to how you can make the claim in the prior post, but then come back to reality in the second?

You could've offered the latter, in a discussion about hydrofracking.


In any event, the facts you've presented, along with Dixie's fantasy about simply 'treating' water, and then drinking it, seem to contradict the premise of the OP.

Green River is NOT some panacea. The net gain, if any, is minimal. It seems that the in situ method is better from an environmental aspect, until you factor in the water. Once you add in the enormous amounts of energy needed to convert the kerogen to 'oil' in the ground, the cost becomes a major factor.
 
\\\(())/// said:
I guess Dixie has heard of the Colorado, but that's about the extent of his "knowledge"...


Since the mid-20th century, intensive water consumption has dewatered the lower course of the river such that it no longer reaches the sea except in years of heavy runoff....

The Colorado River is now considered among the most controlled and litigated in the world, with every drop of its water fully allocated...

Declines in runoff and heavy water use could lead to severe shortages by the mid-21st century, endangering power generation and water supply...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River
Click to expand...

Not true. As of Sept 2011, runoff was at 128%.

The allocations of the water make no difference in this argument, the Hoover Dam uses billions of gallons of water each year! The water runs through the dam, and generates electricity, and is then discharged. This particular process, the water would require one more step of treatment before being discharged, but the water is not expended. Is "expended" too big of a word for you to grasp? The water is USED, much like the Hoover Dam USES the water, THEN IT IS PUT BACK!

This is painfully obvious, because you can't answer for where the water would go! It didn't turn into oil! Some small portion may evaporate, where it goes back into the atmosphere and eventually becomes snowfall or rain, and ends up back in the Colorado River. The bulk of it would be treated to remove contaminants, and returned to the Colorado River....where people can continue to litigate and control allocation of it, like it's always been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top