Liar!

kokonut said:
That's the least of our worries. It'd be war and diseases that'll hit us within our lifetime.
Click to expand...

resulting from oil.
 
deafdrummer said:
Then we can die out within generations from going blind with diabetes and becoming sterile.

"Captain, it is my finding that these people are blind, dying, and unable to communicate. There is apparently no plant life intact on the planet. Shall we initiate rescue efforts?"

"Unfortunately, Number One, after looking at the situation, the best course of action appears to put them to sleep. That way, the inhabitants can go peacefully, and we can put up a warning beacon for other travelers to stay away from this planet."

Without oxygen, we're dead within seconds.
Without water, we're dead within days.
Without food, we're dead within weeks to months.

So no, we probably won't even last a single generation.
Click to expand...
Uh, what happened to the Prime Directive? They can't interfere.
 
Foxrac, yep. It's oil shale but that's just on unconventional oil alone. I'm talking about both unconventional and conventional oil (the free flowing oil) combined. Remember, we are only using a small portion of our offshore (Texas and Louisanna) for oil drilling and capture that make up a good chunk of our domestic oil supply alone. California offshore is rich with oil but we are forbidden to drill there. Same for Alaska and East coast.
 
kokonut said:
Foxrac, yep. It's oil shale but that's just on unconventional oil alone. I'm talking about both unconventional and conventional oil (the free flowing oil) combined. Remember, we are only using a small portion of our offshore (Texas and Louisanna) for oil drilling and capture that make up a good chunk of our domestic oil supply alone. California offshore is rich with oil but we are forbidden to drill there. Same for Alaska and East coast.
Click to expand...

Oil shale requires high oil price to be profitable and it won't make keep gas price under $2-$3 per gal.

The drilling ban in Southern California was lift by Bush in 2008.
 
kokonut said:
Foxrac, yep. It's oil shale but that's just on unconventional oil alone. I'm talking about both unconventional and conventional oil (the free flowing oil) combined. Remember, we are only using a small portion of our offshore (Texas and Louisanna) for oil drilling and capture that make up a good chunk of our domestic oil supply alone. California offshore is rich with oil but we are forbidden to drill there. Same for Alaska and East coast.
Click to expand...

so we know for sure that we have more oil than Middle East?
 
Foxrac said:
Oil shale requires high oil price to be profitable and it won't make keep gas price under $2-$3 per gal.
Click to expand...

That has been heavily disputed. You were given many links months ago when you made the same claim


The drilling ban in Southern California was lift by Bush in 2008.
Click to expand...

All of Southern California??? And what about the rest of California???
 
Canada's tar sand has more oil deposit than the Middle East.

Our oil shale is the equivalent in size with that of Canada's.

While oil shale is found in many places worldwide, by far the largest deposits in the world are found in the United States in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, the estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from the Green River Formation would last for more than 400 years.
Click to expand...

About Oil Shale
 
TXgolfer said:
That has been heavily disputed. You were given many links months ago when you made the same claim




All of Southern California??? And what about the rest of California???
Click to expand...

What so? Oil shale isn't profitable until oil price is going up.
 
kokonut said:
About Oil Shale
Click to expand...

from your link -

The Oil Shale Industry

While oil shale has been used as fuel and as a source of oil in small quantities for many years, few countries currently produce oil from oil shale on a significant commercial level. Many countries do not have significant oil shale resources, but in those countries that do have significant oil shale resources, the oil shale industry has not developed because historically, the cost of oil derived from oil shale has been significantly higher than conventional pumped oil. The lack of commercial viability of oil shale-derived oil has in turn inhibited the development of better technologies that might reduce its cost.

Relatively high prices for conventional oil in the 1970s and 1980s stimulated interest and some development of better oil shale technology, but oil prices eventually fell, and major research and development activities largely ceased. More recently, prices for crude oil have again risen to levels that may make oil shale-based oil production commercially viable, and both governments and industry are interested in pursuing the development of oil shale as an alternative to conventional oil.
Click to expand...

ah! that proved Banjo's point. What is the likelihood of pursuing alternative energy source if we're to drill baby drill? zilch.
 
Foxrac said:
Oil shale requires high oil price to be profitable and it won't make keep gas price under $2-$3 per gal.

The drilling ban in Southern California was lift by Bush in 2008.
Click to expand...


I suggest you study Canada's tar sand when it comes to profitablity.

I was talking about offshore drilling in California.
 
Jiro said:
from your link -



ah! that proved Banjo's point. What is the likelihood of pursuing alternative energy source if we're to drill baby drill? zilch.
Click to expand...

Yup, see? It proved my point about oil shale isn't cheaper.
 
kokonut said:
I suggest you study Canada's tar sand when it comes to profitablity.

I was talking about offshore drilling in California.
Click to expand...

I already did and oil shale in Canada isn't commonly used until oil price went up in after 2003.
 
Foxrac said:
What so? Oil shale isn't profitable until oil price is going up. That's not disputed.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree :) As I pointed out big and small companies alike are excited about shale.........That's because it IS profitable. No business pushes to do work to lose money.
 
TXgolfer said:
I strongly disagree :) As I pointed out big and small companies alike are excited about shale.........That's because it IS profitable. No business pushes to do work to lose money.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with you and oil shale isn't profitable until oil price becomes higher.

Read Jiro's post above about oil shale.
 
TXgolfer said:
I strongly disagree :) As I pointed out big and small companies alike are excited about shale.........That's because it IS profitable. No business pushes to do work to lose money.
Click to expand...

so were fisheries businesses. Notice the past tense? all gone. :(
 
Back
Top