NationStates Jolt Archive

Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US reserves by 10x

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/Next2.13s.jpg

America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.

In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana. With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel.

It was not until 2007, when EOG Resources of Texas started a frenzy when they drilled a single well in Parshal N.D. that is expected to yield 700,000 barrels of oil that real excitement and money started to flow in North Dakota. Marathon Oil is investing $1.5 billion and drilling 300 new wells in what is expected to be one of the greatest booms in Oil discovery since Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938.

The US imported about 14 million barrels of Oil per day in 2007 , which means US consumers sent about $340 Billion Dollars over seas building palaces in Dubai and propping up unfriendly regimes around the World, if 200 billion barrels of oil at $90 a barrel are recovered in the high plains the added wealth to the US economy would be $18 Trillion Dollars which would go a long way in stabilizing the US trade deficit and could cut the cost of oil in half in the long run.

Link (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html)

I say we'd be stupid NOT to drill for this oil and to start driving prices back down and become more economically independent of Middle Eastern Oil. However I just know that the Environmentalist will come up with a reason why we can't drill there. Probably has to do with some endangered unicellular life form. If we don't tap it, then the Canadians will!

Let's tap that well!

Link (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html)

I say we'd be stupid NOT to drill for this oil and to start driving prices back down and become more economically independent of Middle Eastern Oil. However I just know that the Environmentalist will come up with a reason why we can't drill there. Probably has to do with some endangered unicellular life form. If we don't tap it, then the Canadians will!

Let's tap that well!

I say we tap into it, but only as a median until we ween oursevels away from Fossil Fuels.

Of course, this would mean more jobs as Refineries need to be built and operated... but that's also a good thing.

Link (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html)

I say we'd be stupid NOT to drill for this oil and to start driving prices back down and become more economically independent of Middle Eastern Oil. However I just know that the Environmentalist will come up with a reason why we can't drill there. Probably has to do with some endangered unicellular life form. If we don't tap it, then the Canadians will!

Let's tap that well!

Even if all environmental and cultural considerations were thrown out the window (a possibility in the waning days of the Chimperial Presidency) the major oil corporations as it is (coughcoughExxonMobilcoughcough) are constantly spooging on record oil prices. Would they even bother drilling this resource in the first place? In addition, what makes the price of petroleum products high is the lack of operational refineries. Pumping all that crude is nothing if you can't convert it to gasoline and other usable materials. And what self-respecting oil company is going to actually be charitable and actually increase the supply to where prices will actually dip?

Holy crap, this is phenomenal. Hopefully this will buy us some time while we explore alternative fuels and such.

Link (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html)

I say we'd be stupid NOT to drill for this oil and to start driving prices back down and become more economically independent of Middle Eastern Oil. However I just know that the Environmentalist will come up with a reason why we can't drill there. Probably has to do with some endangered unicellular life form. If we don't tap it, then the Canadians will!

Let's tap that well!

I hope we tap that oil. I also hope prices remain exactly as they are. It's good for us. *nod*

I couldn't find this story in any other news links in BBC or Reuters, care to give another source?
If it is true then that's a good sign for the US economy, still maybe they'l learn not to depend wholly on Oil for income. Still good.

I hope we tap that oil. I also hope prices remain exactly as they are. It's good for us. *nod*

Can't we at least let it drop back down to $2?

the major oil corporations as it is (coughcoughExxonMobilcoughcough) are constantly spooging on record oil prices. Would they even bother drilling this resource in the first place?
Because if they don't, somebody else will, undercutting them.
In addition, what makes the price of petroleum products high is the lack of operational refineries.
We have plenty of refineries. No new refineries have been built for a long time because there is not enough demand to make them profitable.

Yay!

I say we tap into it, but only as a median until we ween oursevels away from Fossil Fuels.
Never going to happen until we have squeezed out every last possible drop of fossil fuel in the planet.

Does that mean I can bathe in oil, as per my fantasy?

Never going to happen until we have squeezed out every last possible drop of fossil fuel in the planet.

actually, it's happening now. more hybirds, alternate energy sources being looked into...

We could always accuse Canada of slant drilling and then use that as a justification to invade and annex them.

America's 200-year old dream of invading Canada could become a reality!

Does this mean a gallon of milk will again be more expensive then a gallon oil?

Fuck yes for an energy independent America. Let's get the Hell out of Saudi Arabia and therefore get done with the Middle East and terrorism and start being self sufficient.

Or maybe I'm getting too excited and that this is all false and some sick joke.

Fuck yes for an energy independent America. Let's get the Hell out of Saudi Arabia and therefore get done with the Middle East and terrorism and start being self sufficient.

Or maybe I'm getting too excited and that this is all false and some sick joke.

At least it didn't appear in The Onion.

I claim it in the name of the Emparh!

It seems a bit unlikely but if it is true it is a huge blow.

Now we are never going to develop alternative energies until we exhaust that. Which means by the time we finally stop polluting the world will be far more polluted.

Does this mean a gallon of milk will again be more expensive then a gallon oil?

It's getting close where I live, because we're now paying international prices for local dairy produce. Coca-cola is certainly cheaper than milk, liter for liter, which is atrocious.

If this results in a lowered price of fuel, it will be all to the good - cheaper fuel means cheaper transport prices means cheaper food. Everybody suffers when the cost of living goes up.

w00t.

To bad gas will probably cost the same even if they drill.

"Oil was costing us to much we had to raise prices!(same breath) Record Profits!!!" :headbang:

If this results in a lowered price of fuel, it will be all to the good - cheaper fuel means cheaper transport prices means cheaper food. Everybody suffers when the cost of living goes up.
As well, food costs would go down because we might stop this silly corn-for-ethanol thing and start going back to good old corn-for-food-not-fuel and will make food prices back to where they were.

UPDATE: Dubai just bought the entire reserve

Or, we could, you know, find a form of energy that isnt so limited and temporary...

UPDATE: Dubai just bought the entire reserve

Link or it didn't happen Noob! :p

Or, we could, you know, find a form of energy that isnt so limited and temporary...

Well, you get to work on that, and the rest of us will be drilling.

UPDATE: Dubai just bought the entire reserve

Please....PLEASE say it is not so!

actually, it's happening now. more hybirds, alternate energy sources being looked into...
You mean "window shopping."
"Hey, that's a nice puppy in the window. Too bad dad says I can't have one."

I believe we only get about 11% of our oil from the Middle East. I wouldn't call that extremely dependent

Link or it didn't happen Noob! :p

n00b this (_(_)

Please....PLEASE say it is not so!

I'll wait until a few more people panic

I'll wait until a few more people panic

Good, i'm glad our leadership isn't THAT stupid.

I say we tap into it, but only as a median until we ween oursevels away from Fossil Fuels.

Of course, this would mean more jobs as Refineries need to be built and operated... but that's also a good thing.

^ What he said

Even if all environmental and cultural considerations were thrown out the window (a possibility in the waning days of the Chimperial Presidency) the major oil corporations as it is (coughcoughExxonMobilcoughcough) are constantly spooging on record oil prices. Would they even bother drilling this resource in the first place? In addition, what makes the price of petroleum products high is the lack of operational refineries. Pumping all that crude is nothing if you can't convert it to gasoline and other usable materials. And what self-respecting oil company is going to actually be charitable and actually increase the supply to where prices will actually dip?

A government subsidy. Not the most glamourous way to solve the problem, but I'm sure the Bush Admin will push the idea with the promise that:

1) The oil companies will be able to keep their prices high, and
2) There will be less money going to Middle Eastern oil providers

By the way, this is the problem with the theory that we'll run out of oil in the next few decades - we rely on proven resources only. We'll soon be able to get the rest of the oil out of wells we already have more effectively, and we can't, of course, rule out finding reserves such as these.

Drill the hell out of it...that's a lot of money.

Aye, just watch out that we don't get an oil glut like we did in the 1980s, which would just impoverish the Middle East, which is exactly the kind of thing that creates and makes fighting terrorism that much harder.

Fighting against the odd paid-up, depressed and mildly angry Saudi in northern Iraq is a bit sad-tabulous. Fighting against waves of the bastards as the Saudi royal family show their anger through military means is not only deadly for US and Coalition forces, it's also a self-perpetuating crisis.

Aye, just watch out that we don't get an oil glut like we did in the 1980s, which would just impoverish the Middle East, which is exactly the kind of thing that creates and makes fighting terrorism that much harder.

I figure it's a risk that's well worth it. Terrorists simply can't get the same kind of equipment or resources that they could with high oil prices; it's not like the people of Saudi Arabia ever really reaped the benefits of these oil booms anyways, with the vast majority going to the wealthiest people in the country while everyone else lives in the same state of semi-educated poverty that they've been in for decades.

Hell, if we pull out our troops from the Middle East, we remove one big source of anti-US agitation. China or whoever else fills in for us will have to deal with it instead.

Aye, just watch out that we don't get an oil glut like we did in the 1980s, which would just impoverish the Middle East, which is exactly the kind of thing that creates and makes fighting terrorism that much harder.

Fighting against the odd paid-up, depressed and mildly angry Saudi in northern Iraq is a bit sad-tabulous. Fighting against waves of the bastards as the Saudi royal family show their anger through military means is not only deadly for US and Coalition forces, it's also a self-perpetuating crisis.
If you'd do a little research, you'd find out that the prime reason that we were attacked on 9/11 was because Osama did NOT like us having troops in Saudi Arabia. In fact, the more we get mired in the Middle East the more violence there's going to be. It's in our best interest (if this oil field thing is true) to pull out of the Middle East, start weaning off their oily tit, and start sucking ourselves.

Yeah, so how do any of you pig-eyed sacks of hyena offal who mention North Dakota in every "which state should we get rid of" thread like the Peace Garden State NOW, bitches?

*Leaves Bismarck to look for property in Williston.*

Yeah, so how do any of you pig-eyed sacks of hyena offal who mention North Dakota in every "which state should we get rid of" thread like the Peace Garden State NOW, bitches?

*Leaves Bismarck to look for property in Williston.*

Who said that? We need every state in the Union.

It seems a bit unlikely but if it is true it is a huge blow.

Now we are never going to develop alternative energies until we exhaust that. Which means by the time we finally stop polluting the world will be far more polluted.

+1 insightful

Now we are never going to develop alternative energies until we exhaust that. Which means by the time we finally stop polluting the world will be far more polluted.

Not at all. Even if it contained 500 billion barrels and demand did not increase at all from its present level, that reserve would be able to meet world demand for only 16 years (and this is of course impossible due to the physical barriers to producing an entire oil reservoir). The faster demand grows, the faster that reserve would peak and decline. All this discovery would do is meet some oil demand and make money for the United States; I highly doubt it would materially impact the price of oil barring a major decline in demand, like the one we saw in the 1980's and early 1990's.

Given the overall structure of the world economy, it's highly unlikely another oil glut like that will happen in the near future.

200 billion barrels would last 27 years. That's not bad at all.

+1 insightful

Slashdotter.

Who said that? We need every state in the Union.

Here. Read my post again. I'll bold some of it to help:

Yeah, so how do any of you pig-eyed sacks of hyena offal who mention North Dakota in every "which state should we get rid of" thread like the Peace Garden State NOW, bitches?

*Leaves Bismarck to look for property in Williston.*

They know who they are, and if it wasn't you, then guess what? My statement wasn't aimed at you.

200 billion barrels would last 27 years. That's not bad at all.

Wrong. It would last that long with current world demand. If you think demand is leveling out, you're off your nut. More like 15-20 years.

If you'd do a little research, you'd find out that the prime reason that we were attacked on 9/11 was because Osama did NOT like us having troops in Saudi Arabia.
No shit.
In fact, the more we get mired in the Middle East the more violence there's going to be. It's in our best interest (if this oil field thing is true) to pull out of the Middle East, start weaning off their oily tit, and start sucking ourselves.
No, because then you'll just make them impoverished and yet angrier. The Saudi Royal Family is not exactly know for their sensible and calm nature, you start taking away their supply of money at any kind of quick rate, and you make very powerful enemies - they are, after all, mates with people like bin Laden.

Pulling your 120,000 odd troops out of Iraq is no cakewalk. Pulling them out whilst the Saudis are chucking thousands of guys at them because you've pissed them off is yet trickier.

Link (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html)

I would tap that, and do double damage.

They know who they are, and if it wasn't you, then guess what? My statement wasn't aimed at you.

Is it cool to hate South Dakota or Wyoming?

Here. Read my post again. I'll bold some of it to help:



They know who they are, and if it wasn't you, then guess what? My statement wasn't aimed at you.

I know it wasn't me. (thanks for the sarcasm by the way :rolleyes:) I was asking who said it.

I call bs....


Multi-million year old, fossilised and condensed bs, that is...

UPDATE: Dubai just bought the entire reserve

Gonna sing a little song about Mohammed,
Poor little Arab barely kept his family fed,
Then one day, he was shootin' at some Jews,
And up from the ground come a bubbling crude...
Oil that is... Sheik's paydirt... Petrobucks...
Well the next thing you know he's a multibillionaire,
His kinfolk said, you got some dough to spare?
They said California's the place you should invest,
So he bought up everything from Iowa west!

Seems they are already preparing to drill it.

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2006/06/20/news/state/doc4497e42f6e8e5430204114.txt

"Recently, Marathon Oil, a major national and international oil developer, acquired 200,000 mineral acres from Billings to McKenzie counties and plans to drill as many as 300 wells into the Bakken in the next five years.

The company has leased office space in Dickinson and is being closely watched in hopes the expertise and knowledge it brings to bear on the field can unlock the key to successful production from the Bakken."

It'll be interesting to see if this actuall pans out or just fizzles. But I'm not holding my breath either way.

"A geologist who estimated the Bakken formation in western North Dakota has far more oil than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge died before other scientists could authenticate his study."

Is it cool to hate South Dakota or Wyoming?

No. Not unless you enjoy not getting significant amounts of beef, grain, sugar, oil, corn and other vital crops.

I know it wasn't me. (thanks for the sarcasm by the way :rolleyes:) I was asking who said it.

And my post told you. How recent was the last "which state should we get rid of" thread? I don't write the dates down or those who post that ND needs to go. It was a statement covering those who have said so in the past. And here you come looking for names. I'm sorry you couldn't comprehend a general statement like that.

Seems they are already preparing to drill it.

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2006/06/20/news/state/doc4497e42f6e8e5430204114.txt

"Recently, Marathon Oil, a major national and international oil developer, acquired 200,000 mineral acres from Billings to McKenzie counties and plans to drill as many as 300 wells into the Bakken in the next five years.

The company has leased office space in Dickinson and is being closely watched in hopes the expertise and knowledge it brings to bear on the field can unlock the key to successful production from the Bakken."

It'll be interesting to see if this actuall pans out or just fizzles. But I'm not holding my breath either way.

I'll be glad for the western half of the state to get some good economic news for a change. It's actually quite nice out there...when the wind isn't scouring and the cold isn't crippling and the heat isn't scorching. So like, two to three months of the year? Gorgeous. (mostly kidding).

And my post told you. How recent was the last "which state should we get rid of" thread? I don't write the dates down or those who post that ND needs to go. It was a statement covering those who have said so in the past. And here you come looking for names. I'm sorry you couldn't comprehend a general statement like that.

I tend to need proof, and you have none. If you manage to get some, i'll be here.

Is it cool to hate South Dakota or Wyoming?
No. But is it really that cool to live there either?

And my post told you.
??? No, it didn't answer the question at all. Your motive for not only refusing to answer the question, but also getting rude about not answering, is quite unclear.
How recent was the last "which state should we get rid of" thread?
I have no idea, haven't heard of such a thing. What are you even talking about, if you don't mind somebody asking?

Wrong. It would last that long with current world demand. If you think demand is leveling out, you're off your nut. More like 15-20 years.Wrongs you is as you do not factor in WORLD demand growth. You factor in the U.S.'s growth in demand which greatly increases our ability to use that reserve over time.

No. But is it really that cool to live there either?

That depends on how much you like open spaces, low crime rates, low cost of living, friendly people and an absence of metropolitan pretentiousness.

I like it about 75% of the time. The other 25%, I drive the six hours to Minneapolis and remind myself that city life if great if you like forcibly interacting with masses of consuming humanity.

As for the pretentiousness, the Upper Midwest substitutes that out for provincial and prideful ignorance. It's a wash, as far as I can see.

Aye, just watch out that we don't get an oil glut like we did in the 1980s, which would just impoverish the Middle East, which is exactly the kind of thing that creates and makes fighting terrorism that much harder.

Fighting against the odd paid-up, depressed and mildly angry Saudi in northern Iraq is a bit sad-tabulous. Fighting against waves of the bastards as the Saudi royal family show their anger through military means is not only deadly for US and Coalition forces, it's also a self-perpetuating crisis.

True, but if we pull the fuck out Saudi Arabia but maintain trade relations in a way so that they only have themselves to blame if they can't supply oil (which well inevitably happen), stop supplying Israel and run like hell away from the fuck up that is Iraq and slowly Afghanistan (read: fantasy land), we would have, sort of, given AQ + the Taliban what they want. True Israel will be fucked, but Saudi Arabia wont do shit and terrorism will probably decrease, so it's a thought but of course you then have to think about the moral implications, but you don't actually because none of this shit will actually happen.

Disregard this post.

I tend to need proof, and you have none. If you manage to get some, i'll be here.

??? No, it didn't answer the question at all. Your motive for not only refusing to answer the question, but also getting rude about not answering, is quite unclear.

Wow. Okay. Yes it did. "TO ALL WHO HAVE SAID X IN THE PAST" is an answer. It is a non-specific answer because I'm not so vindictive as to take down names and sit waiting for a chance at vindication. Just vindictive enough to remember "yeah -- those assholes who said NoDak could go are eating shit now, ain't they?" Please tell me you don't need that concept explained further.

I have no idea, haven't heard of such a thing. What are you even talking about, if you don't mind somebody asking?

Oh for cryin' out loud. It's a TYPE OF THREAD. Like the "creation vs. evolution" thread or the "do you like [insert cultural phenomenon here]" thread. I can't remember when the last one was, but, unlike either of you, I can search the archives if you really need to see one. Hang on.

EDIT: Found it:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=538569

Wrongs you is as you do not factor in WORLD demand growth. You factor in the U.S.'s growth in demand which greatly increases our ability to use that reserve over time.

Uh...and you think all that oil is going to go solely into just the US market? You know very little about free market capitalism. Even growth in US demand will continue to increase and make 500 billion barrels disappear faster than 27 years.

That depends on how much you like open spaces, low crime rates, low cost of living, friendly people and an absence of metropolitan pretentiousness.

I like it about 75% of the time. The other 25%, I drive the six hours to Minneapolis and remind myself that city life if great if you like forcibly interacting with masses of consuming humanity.

As for the pretentiousness, the Upper Midwest substitutes that out for provincial and prideful ignorance. It's a wash, as far as I can see.
Open spaces are ok. Bit lonely, though.
True, but if we pull the fuck out Saudi Arabia but maintain trade relations in a way so that they only have themselves to blame if they can't supply oil (which well inevitably happen)
...

But they don't actually sell much of anything outside of oil. So that's their economy royally shafted.
stop supplying Israel
Ah, I see you're the self-hating kind of Jew, then (note : may contain oversimplification of the issue).
and run like hell away from the fuck up that is Iraq and slowly Afghanistan (read: fantasy land)
Erm, why?
we would have, sort of, given AQ + the Taliban what they want. True Israel will be fucked, but Saudi Arabia wont do shit and terrorism will probably decrease, so it's a thought but of course you then have to think about the moral implications, but you don't actually because none of this shit will actually happen.
Quite.
Disregard this post.
Nevar!

But they don't actually sell much of anything outside of oil. So that's their economy royally shafted.


What I mean is, you can still trade oil, but forget about putting troops in there to protect it, its their problem if they can't control it. They might actually be able to do it, it's probably too risky, but you never know.


Ah, I see you're the self-hating kind of Jew, then (note : may contain oversimplification of the issue).

Erm, why?


Never said it was a good idea, but if you want AQ to hate us slightly less than right now, this is probably the best way to go about it.


Nevar!

Damn you!

Open spaces are ok. Bit lonely, though.

Like I said, it ain't for everyone, but for those who like it, it's paradise.

I say we tap into it, but only as a median until we ween oursevels away from Fossil Fuels.

Of course, this would mean more jobs as Refineries need to be built and operated... but that's also a good thing.

What he said.

Who said anything about sharing? Its mostly American Oil anyway.

The state government here is considering a state-run refinery. I think it's a marvelous idea in a state where everything is a two-hour drive away from everything else. We can't have the idiotic excuse for gouging that we had last summer: "we shut down all the refineries in the area for maintenance". AT THE SAME TIME?!? Horseshit.

Like I said, it ain't for everyone, but for those who like it, it's paradise.
Bet it makes a change from city/London commuter belt living, for sure.

Bet it makes a change from city/London commuter belt living, for sure.

Understatement of the year. I moved here from Seattle, so, yes.

Oh for cryin' out loud. It's a TYPE OF THREAD. Like the "creation vs. evolution" thread or the "do you like [insert cultural phenomenon here]" thread.
Well no, not particularly like those, because people have actually heard of such a thing as "Creation vs. Evolution" thread or "Do you like ... " thread; you know, those are the kinds of things that happen fairly often. I had no idea what the hell you were talking about, neither did Kontor, neither I would expect did most people, but you were getting all nasty at Kontor for not being telepathic.
I can't remember when the last one was, but, unlike either of you, I can search the archives if you really need to see one. Hang on.
EDIT: Found it:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=538569

All I see in there about North Dakota is the suggestion that South and North Dakota might as well just be one state of Dakota, nothing dissing North Dakotans or in any way justifying the level of outrage that you are wanting to spew against... uh, somebody, you can't even remember who.

EDIT: Found it:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=538569



Thank you.

Wrong. It would last that long with current world demand. If you think demand is leveling out, you're off your nut. More like 15-20 years.

World demand being the key term here...most of that oil will remain in the U.S.

No shit.

No, because then you'll just make them impoverished and yet angrier. The Saudi Royal Family is not exactly know for their sensible and calm nature, you start taking away their supply of money at any kind of quick rate, and you make very powerful enemies - they are, after all, mates with people like bin Laden.

You don't think China would gladly pick up any shortfall from reduced sales to the U.S.?

Their demand is part of the reason why prices are steadily climbing. The Saudis will get their money from somewhere for as long as man continues to use oil.

Pulling your 120,000 odd troops out of Iraq is no cakewalk. Pulling them out whilst the Saudis are chucking thousands of guys at them because you've pissed them off is yet trickier.

That's not to say that a pull-out will be easy, but it is in our interests. As much as it sucks for Iraqi people, Iran and Saudi Arabia clearly don't have any interest in a constructive relationship with the U.S beyond how much energy they can sell us. They're also major rivals in the Middle Eastern balance of power.

If they want to fight a proxy war in Iraq, which to some extent they are already, I say we get the hell out of their way and let them have at it.

This oil discovery, coupled with continued research into alternative energy, may finally allow us to do that without ruining our own economy in the process.

Not to mention we found we can make oil from alge or whatever they're called.


One acre of corn = 19 barrels (Maybe gallons I forgot) of oil

One acre of alge = 190,000 barrels (Maybe gallons) of oil


Might not be completely widespread but I'm sure it make a difference.

and i say we ARE stupid to continue relying on combustion in any form for anything other then home heating and cooking.

(and for that we can burn our (and our livestock's) farts and then compost the solids to fertilize our crops)

we're destroying the ability of the world we live in to continue to support and enable our own existence by doing (relying on combustion) so, and we absolutely don't have to.

and we absolutely don't have to live in caves or throw tecnology, and the continuing evolution of it, out with the bath water in order to stop doing so either.

=^^=
.../\...

I couldn't find this story in any other news links in BBC or Reuters, care to give another source?
If it is true then that's a good sign for the US economy, still maybe they'l learn not to depend wholly on Oil for income. Still good.

Yeah what this guy said, and no one replied:(.
So where's the other sources if this information is really as great as it sounds?:confused:

You mean "window shopping."
"Hey, that's a nice puppy in the window. Too bad dad says I can't have one."which is the problem of the Consumers. however, if that puppy costs thousands of dollars more than other puppies... :(

It seems a bit unlikely but if it is true it is a huge blow.

Now we are never going to develop alternative energies until we exhaust that. Which means by the time we finally stop polluting the world will be far more polluted.
while it does seem possible, I hope not.

Who said anything about sharing? Its mostly American Oil anyway.
actually, the US should take a book out of the drug cartel. don't get hooked on what you're selling. we go to alternative fuels and sources of energy and turn that feild into pure export.

You don't think China would gladly pick up any shortfall from reduced sales to the U.S.?

Their demand is part of the reason why prices are steadily climbing. The Saudis will get their money from somewhere for as long as man continues to use oil.
Not to the extent that it'll fall, no.
That's not to say that a pull-out will be easy, but it is in our interests. As much as it sucks for Iraqi people, Iran and Saudi Arabia clearly don't have any interest in a constructive relationship with the U.S beyond how much energy they can sell us. They're also major rivals in the Middle Eastern balance of power.

If they want to fight a proxy war in Iraq, which to some extent they are already, I say we get the hell out of their way and let them have at it.
Why?

Either an Iran or Saudi Arabia with massive oil reserves is not a good thing for the future, especially since the US and EU has largely spurned them in the past. We don't want them dominating the markets of the future, now, do we?

Either an Iran or Saudi Arabia with massive oil reserves is not a good thing for the future, especially since the US and EU has largely spurned them in the past. We don't want them dominating the markets of the future, now, do we?
So-- let them fight a proxy war for Iraq, and prevent either side from winning by persistently selling weapons to whichever side looks to be losing at the moment, until they have bled themselves raw. Would be less horrible than what we are doing now, right?

Bullshit.

Leave everything the way it is, let the animals keep their land. I hope the government buys it and makes it a wildlife preserve.

If those greedy fuck lobbyists were capable of getting their heads out of their asses (which is as possible as escaping a black hole once you cross the event horizon) we would find a new fuel source where we won't have to rely on those disgusting excuses for human beings known as the Saudis.

The world will run out of oil by the end of the century, and drilling for more oil isn't a smart long term solution.

Instead of doing this shit, we could be funding nuclear power plants or better yet, research for fusion power plants, and a better fuel source for cars.

That makes too much sense and wouldn't have immediate results, and therefore will never happen.

I'd tap that.

Sorry if someone already took that joke.

I'm going to wait to see what happens until I pass judgment. I would like the world to forget oil and move to something cleaner, but this may help buy some time until we absolutely need to.

Bullshit.

Leave everything the way it is, let the animals keep their land. I hope the government buys it and makes it a wildlife preserve.

If those greedy fuck lobbyists were capable of getting their heads out of their asses (which is as possible as escaping a black hole once you cross the event horizon) we would find a new fuel source where we won't have to rely on those disgusting excuses for human beings known as the Saudis.

The world will run out of oil by the end of the century, and drilling for more oil isn't a smart long term solution.

Instead of doing this shit, we could be funding nuclear power plants or better yet, research for fusion power plants, and a better fuel source for cars.

That makes too much sense and wouldn't have immediate results, and therefore will never happen.

if we weren't idiots we wouldn't need cars either. and what's with bashing the saudi's? the only thing they have anything to do with is THEIR oil, which we don't NEED either.

and never say ANYthing "won't ever happen". most of what's happened this decade people have said wouldn't ever happen for the 50 years i'd lived previous to it.

=^^=
.../\...

Sounds like a great find. If I were the man in charge I would propose this. In conjunction with the Canadians I would tap into this reserve. After all part of it is in Canada and outside of war it does not fully belong to the US. So a nice oil treaty with the Canadian government would suffice. After that I would nationalize this particular oil field. I know that goes against what I stand for basically but this is needed. Pay off the national debt of the US first. Secondly I would then set upon fixing SSI with the oil profits and possibly boosting the whole program. After that I would create a sovereign wealth fund for the US. Fourth goal would be to use the profits to really get the US off of oil. All the while giving the Saudi's, Venezuelans and whomever else a big FU.

Teh wiki says that amount of technically recoverable oil from the Bakken ranges from 3% to 50%...

This 200 billion figure comes from the 50% estimate. This means that there could only be as much as 10 billion bbls of recoverable oil in the Bakken. It's all something to do with the low permeability of the rock in the area. Make of that what you will.

and what's with bashing the saudi's?

Your ignorance shines brighter than the sun.

I say we'd be stupid NOT to drill for this oil and to start driving prices back down...
http://media.economist.com/images/20080315/D1108WW0.jpg

:p

Either an Iran or Saudi Arabia with massive oil reserves is not a good thing for the future, especially since the US and EU has largely spurned them in the past. We don't want them dominating the markets of the future, now, do we?

With luck, by the time one emerges as a winner, global use patterns will have negated most of oil's clout as a market resource.

Considering the religious schism between the two nations, I'd expect any such conflict to take a considerable amount of time.

Besides, neither will "dominate" unless they diversify, especially as developed nations move to more sustainable energy resources.

This discovery cannot be viewed as a license for the U.S. to burn all the oil it likes. It has to be viewed for what it is, a temporary reprieve from our economic woes, and a potential method to distance ourselves from corrupt energy producing regimes.

I see no way to distance ourselves from such regimes without pulling out of Iraq, and I see no pullout from Iraq that doesn't result in an Iran/SA proxy war, if not an outright conflict.

Conflict is dynamic, and some of the changes that result from and Iran/SA conflict may not necessarily be in the interests of the U.S. or it's allies...but that doesn't mean that this opportunity should not be taken advantage of, given the potential it has to help solve a wide range of issues.

This oil is only going to extend the end of oil as a fuel source.

Huge US Reserves of Oil Shale Hold Promise, But at High Cost

Up to 1 trillion barrels of oil shale in the US. Half of the worlds oil shale is in the US.

Question is when do we all get our palace and Mercedes?

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-11/2007-11-12-voa57.cfm?CFID=276824303&CFTOKEN=61077495

This oil is only going to extend the end of oil as a fuel source.

The sun is going to burn itself out someday too. Should we not use solar energy because of it?

Idk, drilling it may help with prices, but not long...for a month or so the price will drop, until the hype dies and people forget, then the Oil Companies will invent some new reason to raise the price, the whole market's based on speculation, the majority invented to keep the price up, the only way you can possibly believe that this will actually help the Fuel market, is if you can fool yourselves into believing that the oil companies will play by the rules and not abuse the
freemarket system to their own advantage...

We need to kill the oil companies if we are to survive, theyre hurting us economically, strategically, and diplomatically, they are nothing more than a cancer, Selling us down the river to the Arab nations in the name of profits...

Link (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html)

I say we'd be stupid NOT to drill for this oil and to start driving prices back down and become more economically independent of Middle Eastern Oil. However I just know that the Environmentalist will come up with a reason why we can't drill there. Probably has to do with some endangered unicellular life form. If we don't tap it, then the Canadians will!

Let's tap that well!

*attempts Jedi mind trick*

This isn't the oil you're looking for...give it to Canada...

*attempts Jedi mind trick*

This isn't the oil you're looking for...give it to Canada...

lmfao...

You know what really grinds my gears!?...When you cant find the Oil your looking for...Whats up with that! lol

*attempts Jedi mind trick*

This isn't the oil you're looking for...give it to Canada...

Wait...if this isn't the oil I'm looking for, then what am I giving to Canada? :p

Wait...if this isn't the oil I'm looking for, then what am I giving to Canada? :p

Your lack of Faith DISTURBS ME! lol

Wait...if this isn't the oil I'm looking for, then what am I giving to Canada? :p

You're giving THIS oil to Canada, because it's not the oil you're looking for...ask the Saudis, they probably have your oil...


We have to heat our igloos...

Your lack of Faith DISTURBS ME! lol

:p hehe.

Link (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html)

I say we'd be stupid NOT to drill for this oil and to start driving prices back down and become more economically independent of Middle Eastern Oil. However I just know that the Environmentalist will come up with a reason why we can't drill there. Probably has to do with some endangered unicellular life form. If we don't tap it, then the Canadians will!

Let's tap that well!

So, we should continue to pollute and pollute until our children can't breathe the air without respirator masks? Not to even start about global warming. Prices are low enough already. They're finally getting close to where they should be.

So, we should continue to pollute and pollute until our children can't breathe the air without respirator masks? Not to even start about global warming. Prices are low enough already. They're finally getting close to where they should be.

and who put you in charge of determining where the prices should be? The only reason prices are so high is that OPEC has the world's ball's in a vice grip, and this is a great way to give OPEC the middle finger like we did in the 70s when we created more fuel efficient cars and increased our own oil production.

So-- let them fight a proxy war for Iraq, and prevent either side from winning by persistently selling weapons to whichever side looks to be losing at the moment, until they have bled themselves raw. Would be less horrible than what we are doing now, right?
No.

For starters, we of the UK own BAE Systems and QinetiQ, which are manufacturers of just about the best weapons systems on the planet. We like the money they bring in to the UK economy, and we're not fussed that a lot of it comes from the Saudi Royal Family. We do not like the armed forces of Iran, as they are not particularly well funded.

The Russians, on the other hand, are the ones selling weapons to the Persians, and they're well within their rights to do so, too. Their stuff is mostly cheap-ish, but serviceable, and is perfectly excellent for the poorer nations of the world.

We are not going to sell weapons to the Persians, they are too cheap. They are the Aldi shoppers of the Middle East. The Saudis, on the other hand, are Harrods fans. A Harrods fan will never go to an Aldi, just as the Saudis aren't going to buy from the Russians.

So both sides will have large backers, that they won't be changing any time soon, and good for them, I suppose.

Also, proxy wars are lame, and using Iraq as the battleground will eventually lead to a winner over there, and that winner will probably be the Russians, who'll move in, like the cheeky scamps they are, and Gazprom will be grinning from ear to ear.
With luck, by the time one emerges as a winner, global use patterns will have negated most of oil's clout as a market resource.
Err, no. With the boom in air travel, we'll be needing oil for a long time.
Considering the religious schism between the two nations, I'd expect any such conflict to take a considerable amount of time.
I'd have thought it'll be one of those really grim wars we usually get in Africa, like that débâcle in Rwanda, based on pretty fundamental ethno-religio-politico-socio-economic differences between the two protagonists.

Argue if you wish, but you know I'm right.
Besides, neither will "dominate" unless they diversify, especially as developed nations move to more sustainable energy resources.
It's going to be a long time until the US, China and India move onto more civilised methods of energy production for electricity, yet longer until aeroplanes start running on biofuels instead of finest kerosene.
This discovery cannot be viewed as a license for the U.S. to burn all the oil it likes. It has to be viewed for what it is, a temporary reprieve from our economic woes, and a potential method to distance ourselves from corrupt energy producing regimes.
Yes, but it will be seen in such a manner, regardless of whether it should or should not be viewed as such.

As to corruption - does anyone really care about such things? Does it really matter that the money goes into the hands of the people overty running the country instead of those quietly running the country?
I see no way to distance ourselves from such regimes without pulling out of Iraq, and I see no pullout from Iraq that doesn't result in an Iran/SA proxy war, if not an outright conflict.
Quite, which is why we shouldn't be pulling out any time soon.
Conflict is dynamic, and some of the changes that result from and Iran/SA conflict may not necessarily be in the interests of the U.S. or it's allies...
Correct.
but that doesn't mean that this opportunity should not be taken advantage of, given the potential it has to help solve a wide range of issues.
The only issue that this has the potential to solve in the eyes of the general population is the whole "oh no, my gas is $3" rubbish. Most people don't honestly care where their power comes from so long as the lights are on and they can go out for a drive and know that they'll be able to fill their tank up afterwards.

Unless there is some kind of radical change at the top of the US (which there won't be), green issues are not going to be a particularly high priority any time soon. With an extra 20 years of oil, that's not going to change.

I say we tap into it, but only as a median until we ween oursevels away from Fossil Fuels.

Of course, this would mean more jobs as Refineries need to be built and operated... but that's also a good thing.

Totally agree. Great way to get off of foriegn oil until we can come up with new energy sources. I ahve been to this area. I can't see why people would want to stop drilling. No endangered species. Ugly land. Low inhabitance in the land. Named "Badlands" for a reason.

Totally agree. Great way to get off of foriegn oil until we can come up with new energy sources. I ahve been to this area. I can't see why people would want to stop drilling. No endangered species. Ugly land. Low inhabitance in the land. Named "Badlands" for a reason.

Absolutely. Start drilling right away I say. This place is almost as barren and desolate as the Arctic Wildlife Refugee.

Link (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html)

I say we'd be stupid NOT to drill for this oil and to start driving prices back down and become more economically independent of Middle Eastern Oil. However I just know that the Environmentalist will come up with a reason why we can't drill there. Probably has to do with some endangered unicellular life form. If we don't tap it, then the Canadians will!

Let's tap that well!

YES!! Let's wait even longer to develop renewable fuels! That way, by the time we get around to it, there won't be any reserve oil to help us.

What's humorous is how all the anti-oil guys here seem to forget that the wind, the sun, etc. aren't any more immortal than oil.

The sun is going to go supernova eventually.
The winds can simply stop with no control on when.


May as well go with what'cha know.

What's humorous is how all the anti-oil guys here seem to forget that the wind, the sun, etc. aren't any more immortal than oil.

The sun is going to go supernova eventually.
The winds can simply stop with no control on when.


May as well go with what'cha know.


Very good point.

What's humorous is how all the anti-oil guys here seem to forget that the wind, the sun, etc. aren't any more immortal than oil.

The sun is going to go supernova eventually.
The winds can simply stop with no control on when.

May as well go with what'cha know.
Seeing as the winds and sun are interlinked, we're obviously Quite Shafted in, ooh, a few million years' time when the sun falls on its arse and dies.

On the other hand, with all luck the sun won't run out in 100 years, unlike our oil stocks (they'll keep on finding more, but there are certainly limits to what can and can't be exploited).

YES!! Let's wait even longer to develop renewable fuels! That way, by the time we get around to it, there won't be any reserve oil to help us.note, he didn't say NOT to continue looking for renewable fuels. only to tap into it to reduce/remove our dependancy on FORIEGN oil. ;)

What's humorous is how all the anti-oil guys here seem to forget that the wind, the sun, etc. aren't any more immortal than oil.

The sun is going to go supernova eventually. I'll bet you two things first. 1) the sun will be here generations longer than oil. 2) when the Sun is about to go Supernova, the lack of Solar Energy will be the LAST thing on people's minds.
The winds can simply stop with no control on when. yep, but you can hedge the bet by playing the landscape.

May as well go with what'cha know.STEAMPUNK FTW!!!

note, he didn't say NOT to continue looking for renewable fuels. only to tap into it to reduce/remove our dependancy on FORIEGN oil. ;)

Yes, I have always been a big supporter of finding alternative, renewable energies. To me, this oil reserve is a great way to give OPEC the middle finger and stop being it bitch.

What's humorous is how all the anti-oil guys here seem to forget that the wind, the sun, etc. aren't any more immortal than oil.

The sun is going to go supernova eventually.
The winds can simply stop with no control on when.

Yeah, but the sun's got several billion years before it goes. I figure if we screw up so badly that we're not on other planets and gathering energy from other stars by that time, we deserve to go extinct...

Start drilling. If nothing else, it's a stopgap until we get to hydrogen (which will start becoming widespread around 2015).

Seeing as the winds and sun are interlinked, we're obviously Quite Shafted in, ooh, a few million years' time when the sun falls on its arse and dies.



:headbang:
I just hate ignorance in science. Nothing against you, but the life cycle of a main sequence star like the sun lasts about 9 billion years. We are about halfway through that cycle and the sun will destroy earth through radiation ejection long before it dies. In fact, the sun will never even go supernova as it will never reach supergiant status.

Yeah, but the sun's got several billion years before it goes. I figure if we screw up so badly that we're not on other planets and gathering energy from other stars by that time, we deserve to go extinct...

We will be getting H3(Helium 3) off the moon soon enough. Thanks to the solar wind. I say we only need about 100 or so years of oil to get us to the point of being completely off it. Maybe I am being conservative?

:headbang:
I just hate ignorance in science. Nothing against you, but the life cycle of a main sequence star like the sun lasts about 9 billion years. We are about halfway through that cycle and the sun will destroy earth through radiation ejection long before it dies. In fact, the sun will never even go supernova as it will never reach supergiant status.

We actually have about a billion years left on Earth I believe. That is when the Sun will make it to hot for our current conditions.

:headbang:
I just hate ignorance in science. Nothing against you, but the life cycle of a main sequence star like the sun lasts about 9 billion years. We are about halfway through that cycle and the sun will destroy earth through radiation ejection long before it dies. In fact, the sun will never even go supernova as it will never reach supergiant status.
Nowhere did I mention a supernova ;)

What's humorous is how all the anti-oil guys here seem to forget that the wind, the sun, etc. aren't any more immortal than oil.

The sun is going to go supernova eventually.
The winds can simply stop with no control on when.


May as well go with what'cha know.

Haha, no.

The sun isn't big enough to go supernova. It has to be 30 to 100 solar masses to go supernova and ours is only one.

And it's only due to last for another five billion years before it leaves the main sequence and becomes a Red Giant.

Okay, now that America has oil, how long till Bush claims America has WMDs and invades America?

Okay, now that America has oil, how long till Bush claims America has WMDs and invades America?

Enjoy your stay in Gitmo, you freedom-hating Islamofascist liberal!

Okay, now that America has oil, how long till Bush claims America has WMDs and invades America?

Not America... just North Dakota.

Those terrorist-hugging, communist bastards.

:p

Okay, now that America has oil, how long till Bush claims America has WMDs and invades America?He can't, as LG has already laid claim to the U.S., and has armed his army of clowns with pie based weaponary, and I do not believe even Bush can take on the Dark Lord of the Clowns himself.

Okay, now that America has oil, how long till Bush claims America has WMDs and invades America?

That would be interesting. I can sort of imagine watching the United States from outer space as it begins to collapse and eventually implodes. The resulting mass and heat will create a gigantic explosion, similar to the death of a star. Heavier than air American elements will be spewed across the planet, perhaps giving rise to new American planetoids.

That’s a massive oil field……

Seeing as the winds and sun are interlinked, we're obviously Quite Shafted in, ooh, a few BILLION years' time when the sun falls on its arse and dies.

On the other hand, with all luck the sun won't run out in 100 years, unlike our oil stocks (they'll keep on finding more, but there are certainly limits to what can and can't be exploited).

Fixed. ;)

What's humorous is how all the anti-oil guys here seem to forget that the wind, the sun, etc. aren't any more immortal than oil.

The sun is going to go supernova eventually.
The winds can simply stop with no control on when.


May as well go with what'cha know.

Whats humorous is assuming that Oil is going to last as long as Wind and the Sun...and assuming we'll be here when they stop...:headbang:

I don't think the Sea Shepherds will stand for this.

Start drilling. If nothing else, it's a stopgap until we get to hydrogen (which will start becoming widespread around 2015).

Just out of piqued interest...

Exactly how is using hydrogen going to solve any 'energy crisis'? :p

Unless you're talking about fusion power but that's at least a generation away - Thanks to infinitesimally small funding compared to say, frickin' useless, wind power.

Link (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html)

I say we'd be stupid NOT to drill for this oil and to start driving prices back down and become more economically independent of Middle Eastern Oil. However I just know that the Environmentalist will come up with a reason why we can't drill there. Probably has to do with some endangered unicellular life form. If we don't tap it, then the Canadians will!

Let's tap that well!
What an amazingly fortuitous coincidence!
I was just thinking about how successful it's been for people to recognize the obvious consequences for excessive oil usage, and perhaps doing something about it, and when the prices are up this high, to the point of people feeling extremely inconvenienced, or wose ... this shitload of oil suddenly rears its gorgeous head, and we can all just give up on being more responsible and can jump right the fuck back into it again! Yay!

Very good point.
No, the fuck, it isn't.

In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

Quick, find something that could be passed off as "endangered". Maybe some type of moss...

:rolleyes:

In 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

Quick, find something that could be passed off as "endangered". Maybe some type of moss...

:rolleyes:Don't let evidence be your guide. Stay true to selfish interests in little work for large yield. You'll have happy company, like Dick Cheney. Enjoy.

As well, food costs would go down because we might stop this silly corn-for-ethanol thing and start going back to good old corn-for-food-not-fuel and will make food prices back to where they were.

Yay! Greater non-alternative energy use! Yay! Let's get rid of that independence from oil!

That or we can continue with ethanol, and only use 15% of the amount of oil... or is that too reasonable?

We should focus our policy on sucking the middle east dry before we exploit our own resources.

It is important to take away those peoples' source of income and of power, so that they are forced either to modernize and liberalize in significant ways or else to fall back under the foot of people who have.

We should focus our policy on sucking the middle east dry before we exploit our own resources.

It is important to take away those peoples' source of income and of power, so that they are forced either to modernize and liberalize in significant ways or else to fall back under the foot of people who have.

Problem is, "sucking the middle east dry" is exactly what is giving them the income and the power.

Any country which hangs onto its reserves for their higher future value, while buying middle east oil, could end up looking very silly if there is a huge breakthrough in non-fossil fuel power.

Of course, oil will continue to be very valuable for some applications (let's not forget plastics and fertilizers) ... but debt being what it is, it's better to have the money now. You can buy things you KNOW will be valuable, and create value ... like highways or universities.

*snip*
Err, no. With the boom in air travel, we'll be needing oil for a long time.
*snip*

Anyone who missed the post this was from should go read it. Maybe not ALL correct, but it's one of the best in the thread.

================

I don't think the Sea Shepherds will stand for this.

Uh, the blue bit on the map is the ocean. Not the other way 'round. :confused:

What an amazingly fortuitous coincidence!
I was just thinking about how successful it's been for people to recognize the obvious consequences for excessive oil usage, and perhaps doing something about it, and when the prices are up this high, to the point of people feeling extremely inconvenienced, or wose ... this shitload of oil suddenly rears its gorgeous head, and we can all just give up on being more responsible and can jump right the fuck back into it again! Yay!
Oh come on, we've now got a great opportunity to fuck with the climate some more. You could turn Alaska into the next Florida, as well as ensure that Dick Cheney has something to retire on once he leaves the Fourth Branch. Apart from all your coastal cities, a few hundred million people in bongo bongo land and the world economy, what have you got to lose?

Disclaimer: My irritable mood has made me very sarcastic this morning.

Here's an idea. Lets ban cars except in rural areas, then start using more hydropwer etc and in the interim use environmental protesters as our fuel. That way we lower the population, stop the Arabs controlling us and Keep our national heritage in tact!

Oh come on, we've now got a great opportunity to fuck with the climate some more. You could turn Alaska into the next Florida, as well as ensure that Dick Cheney has something to retire on once he leaves the Fourth Branch. Apart from all your coastal cities, a few hundred million people in bongo bongo land and the world economy, what have you got to lose?

Disclaimer: My irritable mood has made me very sarcastic this morning.

Nothing. Unless you're an islamofascist who hates freedom.

Here's an idea. Lets ban cars except in rural areas, then start using more hydropwer etc and in the interim use environmental protesters as our fuel. That way we lower the population, stop the Arabs controlling us and Keep our national heritage in tact!

Environmental protesters may look flammable to you, but they're mostly water like anyone else. The only component of the body which is even worth burning is fat, so it's pretty obvious where we should be looking: fat people. An added advantage is that the pollution smells like cheeseburger instead of lentils, and isn't as hallucinogenic.

Nothing. Unless you're an islamofascist who hates freedom.

Like this guy?

http://www.IslamofacistFreedomHater.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

Like this guy?

http://www.IslamofacistFreedomHater.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

My first thought was that we could use that as a sonic weapon in Iraq, but then I was afraid it would violate the Geneva Convention, and this time we couldn't get out of it by claiming it didn't apply.

Link (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html)

I say we'd be stupid NOT to drill for this oil and to start driving prices back down and become more economically independent of Middle Eastern Oil. However I just know that the Environmentalist will come up with a reason why we can't drill there. Probably has to do with some endangered unicellular life form. If we don't tap it, then the Canadians will!

Let's tap that well!
Actually, how about we save that oil for later? It's a non-renewable resource, so it's not going to last forever, and even when we stop using it as a fuel, we'll still need it for plastics.

You say this will make us economically independent of Middle Eastern Oil. Perhaps a better approach would be economic independence from oil itself; (again, outside of plastics) this approach will help us solve climate change while we're at it. Try to find more alternative fuels, but for the meantime, try to get more cars off the road and more of their former passengers in public transit. We have school busses in small towns, why don't we have town busses like we have public city bus transit in cities? Then again, busses use fossil fuel too, even if much less of it per passenger; perhaps a better approach would be to try to make drastic changes in public infrastructure, set up electric trains powered by nuclear power, and to pay for it, let's raise the taxes on gas.

Okay, now that America has oil, how long till Bush claims America has WMDs and invades America?

man, are you behind the times. we already invited him to rule over us... TWICE!!! :D

Link (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html)

I say we'd be stupid NOT to drill for this oil and to start driving prices back down and become more economically independent of Middle Eastern Oil. However I just know that the Environmentalist will come up with a reason why we can't drill there. Probably has to do with some endangered unicellular life form. If we don't tap it, then the Canadians will!

Let's tap that well!
It appears that 200 billion barrels is at the high possible end. From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation):

Estimates for ultimate oil contained in the entire Bakken play range from 271 billion to 503 billion barrels, with a mean of 413 billion barrels of technically recoverable and irrecoverable oil.[6]

This massive estimate appears to dwarf the estimated 50 billion to 70 billion barrels of technically recoverable and irrecoverable oil in Alaska's North Slope. A conservative estimate of Bakken's technically recoverable oil would be 1% to 3% percent, or between 4.1 and 12.4 billion barrels of oil, due to the fact that Bakken's shale is so tight. However, other estimates range from 10% to as high as 50% technically recoverable reserves.

Environmental protesters may look flammable to you, but they're mostly water like anyone else. The only component of the body which is even worth burning is fat, so it's pretty obvious where we should be looking: fat people. An added advantage is that the pollution smells like cheeseburger instead of lentils, and isn't as hallucinogenic.

Yeah, but fat people might protest and someone might care. Then we'd have no fuel. Anyway, the environmentals could burn by the dozen. There's enough of them. Also, why not also burn people in Prisons for life? 2 birds with one flame.

Drill the oil,to hell with the militant enviormentalists. I need fucking gas damn it!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!

Holy crap, this is phenomenal. Hopefully this will buy us some time while we explore alternative fuels and such.

Ditto this is great. And even if they somehow don't drill in North Dakota, Canada will probably drill at least some of the oil, which would be cheaper than buying ot from OPEC hopefully.

Drill the oil,to hell with the militant enviormentalists. I need fucking gas damn it!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!

Gas can be made from coal. Coal is the answer.

Drill the oil,to hell with the militant enviormentalists. I need fucking gas damn it!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!
If you need the gas, that's a problem in itself to begin with.

Wow... New oil reserves, those are really bad news!

Just when I was hoping that high prices would curtail consumption.

Come to think of it, there is one endangered species that could surely stop oil drilling, it's called the human species!

But of course many will deny the endangerment even as they die chocking on their own exhaust fumes!

You're giving THIS oil to Canada, because it's not the oil you're looking for...ask the Saudis, they probably have your oil...


We have to heat our igloos...

A better tactic would be:

Give the oil to Canada...would you kindly?

Wow... New oil reserves, those are really bad news!

Just when I was hoping that high prices would curtail consumption.

Come to think of it, there is one endangered species that could surely stop oil drilling, it's called the human species!

But of course many will deny the endangerment even as they die chocking on their own exhaust fumes!

Six billion plus is not endangerment. You have NO clue what you are talking about.

Gas can be made from coal. Coal is the answer.


True,but why go though all that,when the oil is right there,I say go for it all, Oil,Coal, Nuclear, wind, to me,engery is not some boogie man, to me it is the engine of this economy,it must be,and should be used.

Does this mean a gallon of milk will again be more expensive then a gallon oil?

A gallon of milk is more expensive than a gallon of oil. Well, a gallon of mineral, edible, water is more expensive than a gallon of oil.

If you need the gas, that's a problem in itself to begin with.


The need of gasoline is what makes this world go round, sorry, energy must be found, its just that simple, conserving is not enough, new sources must be found, and damn all the red tape, drill it, bring it to market,and sell it, TO ME, my fricken Lincoln* needs it!


And no I will not get a smaller car, to hell with those cramped little egg cars,I have long legs damnit! I need space for my beer in the trunk too.

:D

Fuck yes for an energy independent America. Let's get the Hell out of and therefore get done with the Middle East and terrorism and start being self sufficient.

Or maybe I'm getting too excited and that this is all false and some sick joke.

I am with him,get MORE of our own oil,and piss on Saudi Arabias' sheks.

Still want to kill terrorists though.

The need of gasoline is what makes this world go round, sorry, energy must be found, its just that simple, conserving is not enough, new sources must be found, and damn all the red tape, drill it, bring it to market,and sell it, TO ME, my fricken Lincoln* needs it!


And no I will not get a smaller car, to hell with those cramped little egg cars,I have long legs damnit! I need space for my beer in the trunk too.

:D

I am with him,get MORE of our own oil,and piss on Saudi Arabias' sheks.

Still want to kill terrorists though.

You really should have stopped lurking a long time ago. You raise the intellectual level of debate around here. :rolleyes:

The sun is going to go supernova eventually.

Then Sun doesn't have the mass needed to go supernova, it'll just puff itself out.

Six billion plus is not endangerment. You have NO clue what you are talking about.
I believe TA was referring to the future economic and environmental problems our oil dependency might cause...

Welcome to NSG, and thank you for raising the intellectual content of debate around here. :rolleyes:



Thats my opinion.We need oil, so stop messing about and get it,sorry if I will not buy into the group think of anti-oil,and all this green crap.

Oil IS the engine of the worlds economy,thats how its going to be for long while,you either face that fact,or watch some more of Al Gore's BS.

As for " rasing intellectual content " I am not here for that,that is what school is for, I am here for fun,besides I like to lurk,its fun watching people get all bent out of shape,I leave a few holy nuggets of wisdom,and move on.like some Ronin Ninja with beer

:) Lighten the hell up skippy,and have a beer,and take my opinion for what it is, you dont like it, fine. BUT I said my peice :D

I am with him,get MORE of our own oil,and piss on Saudi Arabias' sheks.

Still want to kill terrorists though.
Around 40% of the entirety of Saudi Arabia's GDP stems directly from oil, and 90% of its exports are oil-based products.

You take even half of that money away, and it loses 45% of its income from exports, and 20% of its overall GDP. The oil industry in Saudi Arabia employs about 70,000 people directly, and since exporting oil is what makes up 75% of the Saudi government's national budget, it pays for tens of thousands of civil servants, teachers in over 24,000 state schools, and helps to prop up the welfare system which is pretty expensive in a country with an unemployment rate of around 13%.

If the Saudi Government lost even a third of its oil money, it would face pretty severe cuts in its workforce and welfare system, and losing 100,000 or more jobs directly affected by the fortunes of the international oil market would have a serious knock-on affect to the rest of the Saudi economy, as consumer spending would fall across the board.

And we don't really want a massive depression in the economy of a state known for its support of terrorism, which would have an extremely easy target of the US, which would largely be to blame for the crisis, now, would we?

Uh, the blue bit on the map is the ocean. Not the other way 'round. :confused:

It doesn't matter, they're always looking for a fight.

Around 40% of the entirety of Saudi Arabia's GDP stems directly from oil, and 90% of its exports are oil-based products.

You take even half of that money away, and it loses 45% of its income from exports, and 20% of its overall GDP. The oil industry in Saudi Arabia employs about 70,000 people directly, and since exporting oil is what makes up 75% of the Saudi government's national budget, it pays for tens of thousands of civil servants, teachers in over 24,000 state schools, and helps to prop up the welfare system which is pretty expensive in a country with an unemployment rate of around 13%.

If the Saudi Government lost even a third of its oil money, it would face pretty severe cuts in its workforce and welfare system, and losing 100,000 or more jobs directly affected by the fortunes of the international oil market would have a serious knock-on affect to the rest of the Saudi economy, as consumer spending would fall across the board.

And we don't really want a massive depression in the economy of a state known for its support of terrorism, which would have an extremely easy target of the US, which would largely be to blame for the crisis, now, would we?



So it serves the Saudi's well to crack down on the radicals in their mist,and lift oil output don't it? at anyrate,The US must produce more of its own oil stock just out of caution,get more oil from our freinds in Canada too,besides the whole world has put their eggs in the Saudi basket for far too long,exploree,and find more oil.

Like this guy?

http://www.IslamofacistFreedomHater.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

One of these days I'm going to stop falling for your little trick.

Until then...long live the craptacular 80's!!!

Like this guy?

http://www.IslamofacistFreedomHater.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)



That could be seen as a warcrime by the Redcross.

LONG LIVE THE 80's

I wonder what the hell happened to that guy? working at the local KFC no doubt.heheh

So it serves the Saudi's well to crack down on the radicals in their mist,and lift oil output don't it? at anyrate,The US must produce more of its own oil stock just out of caution,get more oil from our freinds in Canada too,besides the whole world has put their eggs in the Saudi basket for far too long,exploree,and find more oil.

Say what!? CANADIAN friends? You, my friend, are highly confused.

...
Am I the only person who reads his name as "Enormous Genitals"?

Am I the only person who reads his name as "Enormous Genitals"?

Not anymore. I feel dirty now...

Say what!? CANADIAN friends? You, my friend, are highly confused.


No,I know some Canuks,they like beer,they like Hockey,and to my knowlege,they are still in Afganistian kicking butts killing terrorists sons of bitches, and they did good service on Juno Beach* on D day, so YES, my freinds the Canadians. :D



*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_Beach

^ Just in case you need the re-fresher course. :D

So it serves the Saudi's well to crack down on the radicals in their mist,and lift oil output don't it?
Not really, no.

The radicals are mostly going after foreign workers or US troops in Iraq, and letting them get shot by complex guards / the US in Iraq is a pretty good safety valve on the anger in their society which stems from the quite frankly massive income disparity between the Saudi royal family and everyone else.
at anyrate,The US must produce more of its own oil stock just out of caution,get more oil from our freinds in Canada too,besides the whole world has put their eggs in the Saudi basket for far too long,exploree,and find more oil.
This isn't really a world putting its eggs into one basket issue so much as a "the US and some of its client states have put their eggs into one basket" type affair.

About 25% of all US oil imports come from Saudi Arabia (30% come from Canada, they're number one for this), and around 40% of oil imports into Japan are from Saudi Arabia, with another 30ish% from the UAE.

Japan and the US account for about half of all Saudi oil sales, and hence about 37.5% of the entire Saudi government's budget. If either one of these states, or worse still, both of these states pulls out its support from the Saudi regime, the Saudis are a) going to be worse off in general, and b) are going to have a much harder time sorting out terrorism in their country, which is, at the moment, fairly well controlled.

*edits*

I'm off to the pub now, so I may or may not be back on at about 12ish. Ciao for now and all that.

No,I know some Canuks,they like beer,they like Hockey,and to my knowlege,they are still in Afganistian kicking butts killing terrorists sons of bitches, and they did good service on Juno Beach* on D day, so YES, my freinds the Canadians. :D



*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_Beach

^ Just in case you need the re-fresher course. :D

I dunno, they still make me nervous. I'd feel better if you let me keep some anti-beer posters whenever they are around. :p

Not really, no.

The radicals are mostly going after foreign workers or US troops in Iraq, and letting them get shot by complex guards / the US in Iraq is a pretty good safety valve on the anger in their society which stems from the quite frankly massive income disparity between the Saudi royal family and everyone else.

This isn't really a world putting its eggs into one basket issue so much as a "the US and some of its client states have put their eggs into one basket" type affair.

About 25% of all US oil imports come from Saudi Arabia (30% come from Canada, they're number one for this), and around 40% of oil imports into Japan are from Saudi Arabia, with another 30ish% from the UAE.

Japan and the US account for about half of all Saudi oil sales, and hence about 37.5% of the entire Saudi government's budget. If either one of these states, or worse still, both of these states pulls out its support from the Saudi regime, the Saudis are a) going to be worse off in general, and b) are going to have a much harder time sorting out terrorism in their country, which is, at the moment, fairly well controlled.

*edits*

I'm off to the pub now, so I may or may not be back on at about 12ish. Ciao for now and all that.



Yes, I know that the US gets more of Canada ect, and yes the radials are mainly attacking support staff of the US,but they also have been known the attack more moderate muslims as well, let me distill this,what you are telling me is that we have to stay with the Saudi's because if we cut them loose things will get worse?. well I disagree with that,that sounds too much like extortion to me.

I say the Westen Nations look to other areas for oil,because the middle-east,and its blood fueds are not going to change,so let them alone find more shall we say safer oil,and defend against the terrorism.


* Have a few pints for me at the pub*

I had my fun! back to the lurking!

BUT YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN I SHALL RETRUN!!!!!


* I LOVE YOU ALL*

Bahahahahahah!!!

btw. http://www.bestviral.com/video/3660/yatta

^ Something to remember me by until I return.

If the Saudi Government lost even a third of its oil money, it would face pretty severe cuts in its workforce and welfare system, and losing 100,000 or more jobs directly affected by the fortunes of the international oil market would have a serious knock-on affect to the rest of the Saudi economy, as consumer spending would fall across the board.

And we don't really want a massive depression in the economy of a state known for its support of terrorism, which would have an extremely easy target of the US, which would largely be to blame for the crisis, now, would we?
Sure we do, because if we weren't importing Saudi oil anymore, then the next time one of them Ay-rabs blows up one of them bombs, we can just nuke Mecca to glass with no repercussions, and wouldn't that be fun? Yippee-yi-yo-ki-yay!

This all seems highly unlikely.

But if there is oil, please use it to bankrupt the Alberta oil sands. ;)

Actually, how about we save that oil for later? It's a non-renewable resource, so it's not going to last forever, and even when we stop using it as a fuel, we'll still need it for plastics.

I know I made the same point before, but it's not quite that simple. Plastics are fantastically useful, but they don't have the central role that oil-based transport does in the economy. We could use a tenth of as much plastic, imagine trying to use a tenth of as much oil.

Plastics can also be made from gas or from coal. Being far more expensive wouldn't have the flow-on effect through the whole economy that expensive petrol does.

*snip*
We have school busses in small towns, why don't we have town busses like we have public city bus transit in cities? Then again, busses use fossil fuel too, even if much less of it per passenger; perhaps a better approach would be to try to make drastic changes in public infrastructure, set up electric trains powered by nuclear power, and to pay for it, let's raise the taxes on gas.

But if you think about it, buses are only more efficient if they're fairly full. A bus with no passengers (only the driver) has zero fuel efficiency. This is always going to be a problem with public transit, because you have to provide transport even for times when only one or two people will be using it.

Agreed about making it all electric. We need to put more pressure, not less, on our electricity-generation infrastructure ... challenge ourself to find that magic bullet of cheap, non-emitting electric power.

Everyone talks about oil for transport, but in emissions terms electricity is the big emitter and growing fast. It's seen as an 'infrastructure' issue and relatively ignored -- electric cars, trams, even farm and mining machinery would put the focus back on what we desperately need, scalable non-emitting non-polluting power.

That public attention is necessary, or else we'll never get the necessary public spending. Was it Huckabee who said we need "an Apollo program for energy" ? That's damn right, but honestly it will probably happen in China. China isn't afraid of spending big government bucks on a program like that, even if it directly conflict with vested interests ... and they sure can't keep polluting their own country the way they are or growing their oil usage the way they are.

============

*snip irony*

LOL!!!!!!!!

Please don't do that.

And no I will not get a smaller car, to hell with those cramped little egg cars,I have long legs damnit!

Here's a hint. Down under the seat is a little lever, which you can pull to move the seat back.

Thats my opinion.We need oil, so stop messing about and get it,sorry if I will not buy into the group think of anti-oil,and all this green crap.

Oil IS the engine of the worlds economy,thats how its going to be for long while,you either face that fact,or watch some more of Al Gore's BS.

No, collectively we don't have to face any "fact" of our own behaviour. That's the very heart of ignorance: not wanting to know better.

The normative model of society is inherently reactionary. By the time we form an idea of how society "is" ... it's changed already!

As for " rasing intellectual content " I am not here for that,that is what school is for, I am here for fun,besides I like to lurk,its fun watching people get all bent out of shape,I leave a few holy nuggets of wisdom,and move on.like some Ronin Ninja with beer

Er, no. And I doubt you are of a legal age to drink beer.

:) Lighten the hell up skippy,and have a beer,and take my opinion for what it is, you dont like it, fine. BUT I said my peice :D

And a very silly piece it was too.

===========

Am I the only person who reads his name as "Enormous Genitals"?

Nope, I get that too. It's a very silly name. :)

Although it sounds like a huge number, 200 billion barrels of oil isn't that much when the US ALONE is using somewhere in the vicinity of 20 million barrels a day.

Well no, not particularly like those, because people have actually heard of such a thing as "Creation vs. Evolution" thread or "Do you like ... " thread; you know, those are the kinds of things that happen fairly often. I had no idea what the hell you were talking about, neither did Kontor, neither I would expect did most people, but you were getting all nasty at Kontor for not being telepathic.

So you not having seen one = they never existed. Got it. I've seen at least four of them in my time here. I only searched for one in the last few months.

All I see in there about North Dakota is the suggestion that South and North Dakota might as well just be one state of Dakota, nothing dissing North Dakotans or in any way justifying the level of outrage that you are wanting to spew against... uh, somebody, you can't even remember who.

You didn't read the whole thread, but hey.

and who put you in charge of determining where the prices should be? The only reason prices are so high is that OPEC has the world's ball's in a vice grip, and this is a great way to give OPEC the middle finger like we did in the 70s when we created more fuel efficient cars and increased our own oil production.

Uh, wha? "We" did no such thing. Japan did. All "we" did was buy what they produced and eventually, some decades later, get fuel efficiency into some sort of order. I see ads for Chevy touting how their lineup has so many cars that get 30mpg. That's an EPA estimate and it's an average of highway and city driving, with a LOT more highway driving than I'll wager most folks do. I have to laugh at those commercials because I've never owned a car that DIDN'T get under 30mpg on average. The only time I'm under 30 now is in the cold-ass winters up here where gas has less energy per gallon (cold has that effect on liquid fuels). I still average about 27mpg in the winter, and that's a North Dakota highway speed limits of up to 75mph.

Totally agree. Great way to get off of foriegn oil until we can come up with new energy sources. I have been to this area. I can't see why people would want to stop drilling. No endangered species. Ugly land. Low inhabitance in the land. Named "Badlands" for a reason.

The only correct statement you made and it only applies to humans. Named "badlands" because the topsoil layer was ashy (think Yellowstone vulcanism) and "bad land" for farming. Ranching was A-OK. The scenery is gorgeous if you get off I-94 and hike. Wild bison, antelope, elk, horses -- it's a beautiful place to be, and all you can hear is the wind. I love the area, myself. I'd hate to see it ruined by hyperdrilling for the available 1%-5% of what's really down there.

That said, however, I think reasonable drilling could coexist with places like Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Regardless of one's opinion about what to do with oil addiction, we need the oil. I say drill so long as it's done responsibly, and we treat the oil like methadone and get off the heroin.

What's humorous is how all the anti-oil guys here seem to forget that the wind, the sun, etc. aren't any more immortal than oil.

The sun is going to go supernova eventually.
The winds can simply stop with no control on when.

May as well go with what'cha know.

None are immortal, but by comparison, the sun and its resultant convection in our atmosphere (wind) are immortal when compared to oil. You have to be in some serious denial to make a false comparison like that.

Also, as has been mentioned over and over since you posted this, the sun isn't large enough to explode. You should have heeded your last line.

Just out of piqued interest...

Exactly how is using hydrogen going to solve any 'energy crisis'? :p

Unless you're talking about fusion power but that's at least a generation away - Thanks to infinitesimally small funding compared to say, frickin' useless, wind power.

How is it ever useless to tap into free energy no matter how small a percentage of national need it might be? It doesn't cost more in energy than you receive to tap wind, unlike ethanol (I risk arrest in this state by saying that publicly, but what the hell, live dangerously). And like solar panels, what if every home in wind-resource areas had a small wind turbine? Any power not used to run the dwelling could be put into the national grid. Seems to me that self-sufficiency is a laudable goal, especially on a household-by-household basis, wherever it's possible. And no, it isn't possible everywhere, but here in NoDak, you're never short of wind for long. All weather passes through here on its way somewhere else.

Yay! Greater non-alternative energy use! Yay! Let's get rid of that independence from oil!

That or we can continue with ethanol, and only use 15% of the amount of oil... or is that too reasonable?

If ethanol didn't require more energy to produce than it contains, I would agree. Sadly, no matter what a corn farmer in Flasher, ND might tell you, that is not the case.

Although it sounds like a huge number, 200 billion barrels of oil isn't that much when the US ALONE is using somewhere in the vicinity of 20 million barrels a day.

And demand is ever increasing without comprehensive national policies for conservation and efficiency.

I always wonder why storefront neon and other ad lighting need to be on when the store is closed. That should be one of the first ideas right there: if your store isn't open, your lights are off. I'd be more hesitant to demand lights off in daylight hours as a matter of getting too invasive, but cutting back on waste is a way to help stabilize demand.

I live in an apartment complex where nobody turns off common area lights. They were replaced with compact fluorescent bulbs, and that's a good start, but for fuck's sake, do people no realize that over time, leaving lights on adds up? So we don't get the bill, so what? THE LANDLORD DOES, and that means that if his bills rise, so does the rent (this is the similar argument for people who don't think about votes on school levy elections or anything else that has to do with property taxes -- you rent, but you pay property taxes via that monthly menses of red ink in the form of a check every month).

How is it ever useless to tap into free energy no matter how small a percentage of national need it might be? It doesn't cost more in energy than you receive to tap wind, unlike ethanol (I risk arrest in this state by saying that publicly, but what the hell, live dangerously).

You're an ethanol denier? We fought a war to stop people like you, with your jackboots and poofy moustaches!

Although it sounds like a huge number, 200 billion barrels of oil isn't that much when the US ALONE is using somewhere in the vicinity of 20 million barrels a day.

That's about 27 years worth of oil. That's plenty of time to put together a plan to get us off of oil for good.

Besides, we wouldn't really have to go with pure American oil, we could still import to an extent to extend the usage of that to well over 30 years.

I say we tap into it, but only as a median until we ween oursevels away from Fossil Fuels.

Of course, this would mean more jobs as Refineries need to be built and operated... but that's also a good thing.


Not going to happen for a long, long, long time, if ever.


Yes, the U.S. economy could use a boost, but more from removal of the Federal Reserve. Until then, a crash is imminent and trying to save our economy is pointless.

That's about 27 years worth of oil. That's plenty of time to put together a plan to get us off of oil for good.

Besides, we wouldn't really have to go with pure American oil, we could still import to an extent to extend the usage of that to well over 30 years.

Again, demand is not steady, it's increasing, so more like 15 years' worth. And we'd HAVE to continue imports because there's no way that 20 million bbls. a day is coming out of the Bakken formation. Very few (if any) fields of GUSHING, right-at-the-surface oil have ever produced at that level, and never for very long -- nevermind oil that's in sand or shale.

You're an ethanol denier? We fought a war to stop people like you, with your jackboots and poofy moustaches!

I've been outed! Quick -- where's my razor? Cover the jackboots with all of the moustache wax and set them on fi-

*BLANG BLANG BLANG*

OPEN UP IN THERE YOU DAMNED CORN-FUEL HATER!

Too late!

And demand is ever increasing without comprehensive national policies for conservation and efficiency.

I always wonder why storefront neon and other ad lighting need to be on when the store is closed. That should be one of the first ideas right there: if your store isn't open, your lights are off. I'd be more hesitant to demand lights off in daylight hours as a matter of getting too invasive, but cutting back on waste is a way to help stabilize demand.

I live in an apartment complex where nobody turns off common area lights. They were replaced with compact fluorescent bulbs, and that's a good start, but for fuck's sake, do people no realize that over time, leaving lights on adds up? So we don't get the bill, so what? THE LANDLORD DOES, and that means that if his bills rise, so does the rent (this is the similar argument for people who don't think about votes on school levy elections or anything else that has to do with property taxes -- you rent, but you pay property taxes via that monthly menses of red ink in the form of a check every month).

Not a bad idea having an ordinance for commercial properties to turn off the majority of their lights when closed. It does seem like a big waste. As for common areas in apartment complexes I would say that is more of a safety issue.

That's about 27 years worth of oil. That's plenty of time to put together a plan to get us off of oil for good.

Are you sure? We've been talking about getting off the oil tit for longer than that already (since OPEC showed us the business end in the early seventies.) Isn't really happening that quick is it?

==========

Again, demand is not steady, it's increasing, so more like 15 years' worth. And we'd HAVE to continue imports because there's no way that 20 million bbls. a day is coming out of the Bakken formation. Very few (if any) fields of GUSHING, right-at-the-surface oil have ever produced at that level, and never for very long -- nevermind oil that's in sand or shale.

Yes. If you massively subsidized the exploitation of the field, perhaps, but it would make no economic sense. You'd have to see that as a strategic decision which comes at a high cost, not a viable way to get cheap oil or improve the balance of trade.

*BLANG BLANG BLANG*

OPEN UP IN THERE YOU DAMNED CORN-FUEL HATER!

Too late!

Quick! Down a bottle of liquor.
"Ethanol is too good to burn" is your only defence!

And demand is ever increasing without comprehensive national policies for conservation and efficiency.

Those help, but perhaps it's a symbolic thing. The threat of future taxes or regulations might even be more effective in influencing new investment than actual known taxes or regulations!

------------------

I always wonder why storefront neon and other ad lighting need to be on when the store is closed. That should be one of the first ideas right there: if your store isn't open, your lights are off.

But that's tricky. Neon is advertising ... don't they have a right to advertise their service when they're not open?

If you'd say "no" to that, then perhaps we should look at banning television advertising. To watch a half-hour show, the TV has to be turned on for an extra ten minutes for ads which the viewer would probably quite happily not watch if given a choice.

------------------



But that's tricky. Neon is advertising ... don't they have a right to advertise their service when they're not open?

If you'd say "no" to that, then perhaps we should look at banning television advertising. To watch a half-hour show, the TV has to be turned on for an extra ten minutes for ads which the viewer would probably quite happily not watch if given a choice.


Remember the whole Enron scam where we had brownouts on the West Coast? Amazingly overnight the West cut it's power consumption because of mandatory reduction. The city I lived in cut itself off the grid completely. It has 200,000 people in it. What they did was a mandatory reduction in non essential lighting in private and public areas. They then operated the city off of diesel powered generators. They claimed that it was cheaper to run the generators over the cost of the Enron engineered power supply problem.

Yes, I know that the US gets more of Canada ect, and yes the radials are mainly attacking support staff of the US,but they also have been known the attack more moderate muslims as well, let me distill this,what you are telling me is that we have to stay with the Saudi's because if we cut them loose things will get worse?. well I disagree with that,that sounds too much like extortion to me.
And extortion is what it is. Suck it up, squire, people with valuable resources will always use them as a weapon - see Gazprom's (mainly failed) attempts to effect pro-Kremlin revolutions in Eastern Europe based on their control of the gas supplies both to those countries and the rest of Europe.
I say the Westen Nations look to other areas for oil,because the middle-east,and its blood fueds are not going to change,so let them alone find more shall we say safer oil,and defend against the terrorism.
Nonono.

Just as poverty and resentment cause crimes against society, so too does poverty and resentment cause terrorism which is, after all, simply crime on a really pretty devastating and tragic scale.

We don't really want to piss off the Saudis, with their large amounts of angry young men and weapons from the UK and Russia, now, do we?
* Have a few pints for me at the pub*
I drink neat spirits mostly, not pints.
Sure we do, because if we weren't importing Saudi oil anymore, then the next time one of them Ay-rabs blows up one of them bombs, we can just nuke Mecca to glass with no repercussions, and wouldn't that be fun? Yippee-yi-yo-ki-yay!
... don't be stupid.

Although it sounds like a huge number, 200 billion barrels of oil isn't that much when the US ALONE is using somewhere in the vicinity of 20 million barrels a day.
Whilst I'm extremely dubious about the 200 billion barrels figure, if this amount did exist, that's, ooh, 27ish years of US demand, at current levels. Which is no small amount.

Again, demand is not steady, it's increasing, so more like 15 years' worth. And we'd HAVE to continue imports because there's no way that 20 million bbls. a day is coming out of the Bakken formation. Very few (if any) fields of GUSHING, right-at-the-surface oil have ever produced at that level, and never for very long -- nevermind oil that's in sand or shale

None the less, 15 years of home grown oil is better than 15 years of over seas oil for America. Hell, we could even take some of it and add it to the strategic reserve. That sure would help when oil finally begins to dry up and we need time to subsidize oil demand.

Whilst I'm extremely dubious about the 200 billion barrels figure, if this amount did exist, that's, ooh, 27ish years of US demand, at current levels. Which is no small amount.

The amount no doubt exists, but the extraction would at some point (more likely sooner than later) become too expensive to make the operation at all feasible. We will probably never run out of oil, but it will be so difficult and economically innefficient to extract it, that alternative energy will look(and be) as cheap as my nice black shoes.

The amount no doubt exists, but the extraction would at some point (more likely sooner than later) become too expensive to make the operation at all feasible. We will probably never run out of oil, but it will be so difficult and economically innefficient to extract it, that alternative energy will look(and be) as cheap as my nice black shoes.
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/bakken/newpostings/07272006_BakkenReserveEstimates.pdf

Whilst there may be 200 or 300 BBarrels of oil down there is true. That Headington Oil says that 18% of it, tops, is recoverable is more significant, that other oil companies' estimates range from 3 to 10% is yet more interesting.

There's a lot of oil that's there in some form or other is a fair enough statement, that it's of a realistically efficiently extractable, and then, more crucially, refineable standard has yet to be really seen.

looks like propoganda to me.

looks like propoganda to me.

How so?

And extortion is what it is. Suck it up, squire, people with valuable resources will always use them as a weapon - see Gazprom's (mainly failed) attempts to effect pro-Kremlin revolutions in Eastern Europe based on their control of the gas supplies both to those countries and the rest of Europe.

Nonono.

Just as poverty and resentment cause crimes against society, so too does poverty and resentment cause terrorism which is, after all, simply crime on a really pretty devastating and tragic scale.

We don't really want to piss off the Saudis, with their large amounts of angry young men and weapons from the UK and Russia, now, do we?

I drink neat spirits mostly, not pints.

... don't be stupid.



Sorry,no dice with the crying poverity BS, people have choices,you choose to be a terrorist, there are many "poor" muslims that dont fall for the jihad mind fuck so I dont buy it, the West needs to not play their game.

There is far too much oil in the world to play the game with the Saudi's


Ps what is a " Neat Spirt " lol

Sorry,no dice with the crying poverity BS, people have choices,you choose to be a terrorist, there are many "poor" muslims that dont fall for the jihad mind fuck so I dont buy it, the West needs to not play their game.

There is far too much oil in the world to play the game with the Saudi's
And there are many poor people who don't turn to crime to make a living. On the other hand, the more people you make dirt poor, the more baddies you're going to create, and the less interested the leadership is in keeping that kind of thing down.

Jesus Christ, come on, man. Think about it.
Ps what is a " Neat Spirt " lol
... spirits without mixers, obviously. You twelve or something?

Here, have a picture to illustrate :

http://www.urbanmonarch.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/rusty_nail.jpg

I know I made the same point before, but it's not quite that simple. Plastics are fantastically useful, but they don't have the central role that oil-based transport does in the economy. We could use a tenth of as much plastic, imagine trying to use a tenth of as much oil.

Plastics can also be made from gas or from coal. Being far more expensive wouldn't have the flow-on effect through the whole economy that expensive petrol does.



But if you think about it, buses are only more efficient if they're fairly full. A bus with no passengers (only the driver) has zero fuel efficiency. This is always going to be a problem with public transit, because you have to provide transport even for times when only one or two people will be using it.

Agreed about making it all electric. We need to put more pressure, not less, on our electricity-generation infrastructure ... challenge ourself to find that magic bullet of cheap, non-emitting electric power.

Everyone talks about oil for transport, but in emissions terms electricity is the big emitter and growing fast. It's seen as an 'infrastructure' issue and relatively ignored -- electric cars, trams, even farm and mining machinery would put the focus back on what we desperately need, scalable non-emitting non-polluting power.

That public attention is necessary, or else we'll never get the necessary public spending. Was it Huckabee who said we need "an Apollo program for energy" ? That's damn right, but honestly it will probably happen in China. China isn't afraid of spending big government bucks on a program like that, even if it directly conflict with vested interests ... and they sure can't keep polluting their own country the way they are or growing their oil usage the way they are.

============



Please don't do that.



Here's a hint. Down under the seat is a little lever, which you can pull to move the seat back.



No, collectively we don't have to face any "fact" of our own behaviour. That's the very heart of ignorance: not wanting to know better.

The normative model of society is inherently reactionary. By the time we form an idea of how society "is" ... it's changed already!



Er, no. And I doubt you are of a legal age to drink beer.



And a very silly piece it was too.

===========



Nope, I get that too. It's a very silly name. :)


Here's a hint. Down under the seat is a little lever, which you can pull to move the seat back.

^ Umm No,I like large cars,and trucks,and you Eco-Nuts cant make me buy one of those egg cars :P

No, collectively we don't have to face any "fact" of our own behaviour. That's the very heart of ignorance: not wanting to know better.

^ Stop listening to your teachers brain washing, oil is here to stay,gasoline is here to stay, those are facts, wishing that things are different is in the face of facts is childish but then again socialism,and American Liberalism is that in spades,but hey live the dream,I live in the real world, and that world we need gas.

Er, no. And I doubt you are of a legal age to drink beer.

^ Heheheh the beer I have in my icebox says difffernet :)


:) look at the Brite side! the US might be insane enough to elect Barak Obama,and you will get the Marxist you all want. :D

Oh, hey, look at that. Thirteen pages. Thought that was three.

Remember the whole Enron scam where we had brownouts on the West Coast? Amazingly overnight the West cut it's power consumption because of mandatory reduction. The city I lived in cut itself off the grid completely. It has 200,000 people in it. What they did was a mandatory reduction in non essential lighting in private and public areas.

There is a big difference between a crisis and a gradually-developing situation, and this seems like a "life during wartime" situation where people WILL make an effort for the collective good, as opposed to the more chronic oil situation, where they will only make pragmatic decisions based on their own interests.

When it's a crisis, a situation which will surely pass, people are a lot more tolerant of mandatory restrictions AND a lot more responsive to arguments for the common good. We're proving to be very resistant to both in the case of situations which can only get worse, like global warming.

They then operated the city off of diesel powered generators. They claimed that it was cheaper to run the generators over the cost of the Enron engineered power supply problem.

Interesting.

Nuclear power FTW.

I think we should use solid graphite to cool it, too.

What that article is talking about, minus the hype, is OIL SHALE. That is basically oil trapped inside of the rock.

For the past seventy years, various corporations, knowing of this deposit, have tried to find an economical way to mine the oil.
So far, none have.
Right now, it costs about $1000 per barrel of crude brought up from oil shale.

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

Nuclear power FTW.

I think we should use solid graphite to cool it, too.


Agrees, nuclear power is also the way to go,BUT the nuts wont let anyone open one of those up either,without 10 years worth of redtape,lawsuits,and protests, funny the left wants cleaner power,but wont let you build it.

* Shrugs *

But hey, in 30 years I will be dead,so dont really give a fuck.


* Drinks Beer*

Nuclear power FTW.
Where are you going to put the waste, eh?
I think we should use solid graphite to cool it, too.
... why not just use water?

Where are you going to put the waste, eh?

The moon.

... why not just use water?

Graphite seems like a better idea to me.

^ Umm No,I like large cars,and trucks,and you Eco-Nuts cant make me buy one of those egg cars :P

Don't call me an eco-nut. It doesn't really offend me, I'm just telling you now because there are far ruder posters than me, and if you are calling names already you're in line for trouble.

We can't force you, no. But we can, have done and will more and more do this: win the public debate based on appeals to the common good, as you lose the public debate with whiny assertion of your "right" to do things for no reason other than that you enjoy them.

Then, as we win the public debate, we call for and get regulations and taxes, and we make you pay more and more for what you like to do. Driving around in your big car or truck costs us all, and we WILL make you pay for it.

Try not to even think about what we're going to do with the money when we've taken it off you. Land rights for gay whales, that sort of thing.

[/Liberal Conspiracy]


^ Stop listening to your teachers brain washing, oil is here to stay,gasoline is here to stay, those are facts, wishing what things are different is i nthe face of facts is childish but then again socialism,and American Liberalism is that in spades.

Oil is not here to stay, it is a limited resource. I don't expect you to plan for the future or even consider what happens as oil becomes scarcer. That's more a boring, adult sort of thing. Drink your beer and hoon around in your truck, but please ... NOT both at the same time.

Us childish Liberals will take your license off you for that. For bleeding-heart reasons you probably don't care about, we have a problem with you running people over or smashing into them from carelessness. You killing people who haven't done a damn thing wrong strikes us as sort of unfair.

^ Heheheh the beer I have in my icebox says difffernet :)

That almost makes sense. Get drunk and feel like an adult.

I think you will be disappointed when you find what being an adult is really like though. If you drive the way you post, that might never happen.

LOL LOL LOL

I'm going to ask you a question, and I want you to dig deep and find something funnier than "you!" in reply.

What are you laughing at ?

The moon.
... aye, how are you going to get it there?

Rocket? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9maWcIatweM&feature=related
Graphite seems like a better idea to me.
... why?

... aye, how are you going to get it there?

Rocket? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9maWcIatweM&feature=related

Well sure, we can use all the fossil fuels that we're not using for power. And it'd be ok because most of the waste would be in space or on the moon.

... why?

I have a very strong feeling that graphite works better than water. Less waste or something like that. Graphite is definitely better.

Well sure, we can use all the fossil fuels that we're not using for power. And it'd be ok because most of the waste would be in space or on the moon.
Yeah, or not, and have a lower risk of spreading nuclear waste all over the place when rockets explode as they are, by their nature, somewhat wont to do.
I have a very strong feeling that graphite works better than water. Less waste or something like that. Graphite is definitely better.
Why would there be less waste?

Graphite doesn't magically get less irradiated than water, you know...

Yeah, or not, and have a lower risk of spreading nuclear waste all over the place when rockets explode as they are, by their nature, somewhat wont to do.

Eh, but then odds are pretty low. And we can just launch them from Antarctica or something. No one cares about Antarctica.

It would work out perfectly: drill the oil from Antarctica and use it to launch the nuclear waste rockets.

Why would there be less waste?

Graphite doesn't magically get less irradiated than water, you know...

It absorbs radiation better. It'd be like a giant heat-sink made of graphite. It's much safer than water-cooling.

@All this nuclear power jabber.

We could also just use other forms of renewable energy(which nuclear is not) that pollute less and such. Primarily wind and solar.

@All this nuclear power jabber.

We could also just use other forms of renewable energy(which nuclear is not) that pollute less and such. Primarily wind and solar.

Not efficient or reliable enough.

Possibly some day in the future.

For now I advocate nuclear rockets to the moon.

I have been opposed to nuclear power since I was a teen, but I'm not as strongly opposed as I once was.

I think we need to actually build some modern reactors, and we need to find better ways of reprocessing: cheaper, but at the same time aimed towards long-term storage of NO waste.

The reason is this: second-tier economies are going to use nuclear in the next 20 years, but they will cut corners on design and they'll store instead of recycling waste. They will not take the risk of building newer and safer designs of reactor unless those have been demonstrated to work.

(... yes, I know. It's another common-good argument for wasting government money. I can't stop doing that ...)

For now I advocate nuclear rockets to the moon.

Absolutely. For the same reason that underground nuclear testing is wrong: THINK OF THE WORMS!

Eh, but then odds are pretty low. And we can just launch them from Antarctica or something. No one cares about Antarctica.

It would work out perfectly: drill the oil from Antarctica and use it to launch the nuclear waste rockets.
Antarctica is protected by international treaty, you simply cannot drill oil from it or launch rockets there.
It absorbs radiation better. It'd be like a giant heat-sink made of graphite. It's much safer than water-cooling.
... much safer?

There have only ever been three really proper accidents in the history of nuclear power. Safety is not really an issue. Cost and long-term storage of waste is the problem. Graphite is a pain in the arse for both of these things compared to water, which is easy, safe and cheap to store, and can simply be let out into rivers after 'cooling off' for ten years.

You start using once-radiactive graphite, which holds its radioactivity longer, and hence needs to be stored for longer, and cannot really just be let out in the same way that water can, and it's a bit of a problem, as well as the costs incurred in its production.



@ Bann-ed : Agreed. There's lots of untapped potential out there, on the other hand, there's also lots of coal out there, so there we go.

I have been opposed to nuclear power since I was a teen, but I'm not as strongly opposed as I once was.

I think we need to actually build some modern reactors, and we need to find better ways of reprocessing: cheaper, but at the same time aimed towards long-term storage of NO waste.

The reason is this: second-tier economies are going to use nuclear in the next 20 years, but they will cut corners on design and they'll store instead of recycling waste. They will not take the risk of building newer and safer designs of reactor unless those have been demonstrated to work.

(... yes, I know. It's another common-good argument for wasting government money. I can't stop doing that ...)

There's no such thing as no waste nuclear power until we can figure out cold fusion, but that's not going to happen for a very long time.

As it stands, though, nuclear power is still the cleanest available for its efficiency. Consider: several billion tons of CO2 to power a city versus a couple tons of nuclear waste to power half a state. And amazing advances in waste storage have been made. Now, you can't actually do anything with it except for store it and wait for the radioactivity to go away, but there are plenty of big open spaces (at least in America and Russia and a few others) to do that, so long as you do it properly. Keep it out of the water table and you're fine, which is actually fairly easy to do.

What most people don't realize is that you are constantly bombarded by radiation at all times, and the vast majority of nuclear waste is about the equivalent of a week's worth of this background radiation, which is bad, but not INSTACANCER!

For now I advocate nuclear rockets to the moon.
Yeah, big safety risk. Just no.

Antarctica is protected by international treaty, you simply cannot drill oil from it or launch rockets there.

You can when you have nuclear waste rockets. Who's going to argue? No one, that's who.

... much safer?

There have only ever been three really proper accidents in the history of nuclear power. Safety is not really an issue. Cost and long-term storage of waste is the problem. Graphite is a pain in the arse for both of these things compared to water, which is easy, safe and cheap to store, and can simply be let out into rivers after 'cooling off' for ten years.
Yeah no. Several tens of thousands of years. Depending on which part the water is cooling. The water directly cooling the control rods doesn't come out of storage within several thousand lifetimes. The water cooling the water cooling the water cooling the water cooling the control rods might.

You start using once-radiactive graphite, which holds its radioactivity longer, and hence needs to be stored for longer, and cannot really just be let out in the same way that water can, and it's a bit of a problem, as well as the costs incurred in its production.

The graphite radiates it all back outward, which you then pick up with more graphite and eventually water coolant, by which time the radiation is diluted when it gets into the water.

Where are you going to put the waste, eh?

Not in the atmosphere. :p


Just out of piqued interest...

Exactly how is using hydrogen going to solve any 'energy crisis'? :p

Unless you're talking about fusion power but that's at least a generation away - Thanks to infinitesimally small funding compared to say, frickin' useless, wind power.

How is it ever useless to tap into free energy no matter how small a percentage of national need it might be?

Because:
1. Energy produced by wind power in large quantities, in range of megawatts, is hideously expensive.

2. You cannot rely on windpower which means that for wind power capacity to be used you *MUST* have back up power system which can stabilize the inherent fluctuations in wind power capacity and, naturally, can take off the entire load from wind generators if the air is too calm. Usually these backup systems are built as cheaply as possible, ie. by using fossil fuel plants.

3. Building windpower isn't as enviromentally friendly or as conserving as it's hyped up to be: The sheer quantity of wind plants - in optimal conditions - needed to replace, for example, a single nuclear reactor is huge - in range of 100s of turbines each requiring considerable energy expenditure in construction and maintenance. A wind farm geared up for large scale electricity production also produces both noise pollution and aestethic problems which considerably reduce wind power's usability near urban areas.


For example, the model country of wind power with probably one of the most ideal wind conditions - Denmark - produces *more* CO2 emissions than any other Nordic country. Imagine that, even with wind power nominally providing 18% of total energy consumption (source: Wiki).

Here's (http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/01/213-something-fishy-in-denmark.html) a link trying to explain why:
"Impact on CO2 reduction

"There is no CO2 saving in Danish exchange with Norway and Sweden because wind power only displaces CO2-free generated power. When the power is consumed in Denmark itself, fluctuations in wind output have to be managed by the operation of fossil-fired capacity below optimum efficiency in order to stabilise the grid (ie, spinning reserve). Elsam, the Jutland power generator, stated as recently as May 27th at a meeting of the Danish Wind Energy Association with the Danish government that increasing wind power does not decrease CO2 emissions.

Seems to me that self-sufficiency is a laudable goal, especially on a household-by-household basis, wherever it's possible.
Self-sufficiency is a great goal, but wind power *cannot* be used to reach that goal *until* an efficient way to stabilize and store wind energy is devised.

Solar power, good thermal insulation, geothermal energy and maybe even bio-reactors (waste plants) are currently much better ways to achieve the target.

In Sweden they've built a city block (http://www.malmo.se/servicemeny/malmostadinenglish/sustainablecitydevelopment/augustenborgecocity/energyeffeciencyandproduction.4.1dacb2b108f69e3b8880002114.html) that's purpotedly self sufficient for most energy purposes using aforementioned ways - There's no need to bring wind into the equation.

Self-sustained energy can be used in other forms too: In Finland some farmer devised a way to run a car using bio-gas (primarily methane) produced by cows.
It doesn't cost more in energy than you receive to tap wind, unlike ethanol (I risk arrest in this state by saying that publicly, but what the hell, live dangerously).

Ethanol is just one more way to tap into solar power, just like wind power :)

@All this nuclear power jabber.

We could also just use other forms of renewable energy(which nuclear is not) that pollute less and such. Primarily wind and solar.

Ok, I'm putting another word beside "Renewable energy" and that is reliable. So I am now looking for Reliable Renewable Energy. Which Winds and Solar is not.

Ok, I'm putting another word beside "Renewable energy" and that is reliable. So I am now looking for Reliable Renewable Energy. Which Winds and Solar is not.

Geothermal, most importantly.

However, wind and solar are getting far more reliable thanks to new technologies for on-site storage (especially solar) which help to offset volatility in the grid. And, as we all know, the more distributed your generation, the lower overall variance in the amount of power supplied to the grid. Really, reliability is the only real barrier to total penetration of wind and solar in to the energy supply; address that problem, and you're set.

... spirits without mixers, obviously. You twelve or something?

Here, have a picture to illustrate :

http://www.urbanmonarch.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/rusty_nail.jpg


We don't call them neat spirits here in the states.

Geothermal, most importantly.

However, wind and solar are getting far more reliable thanks to new technologies for on-site storage (especially solar) which help to offset volatility in the grid. And, as we all know, the more distributed your generation, the lower overall variance in the amount of power supplied to the grid. Really, reliability is the only real barrier to total penetration of wind and solar in to the energy supply; address that problem, and you're set.

Quite so, but until we get there, we can at least build more Nuclear power Plants.

Geothermal, most importantly.

However, wind and solar are getting far more reliable thanks to new technologies for on-site storage (especially solar) which help to offset volatility in the grid. And, as we all know, the more distributed your generation, the lower overall variance in the amount of power supplied to the grid. Really, reliability is the only real barrier to total penetration of wind and solar in to the energy supply; address that problem, and you're set.

I know this has been hashed out on here before. But wasn't it decided that a true reliable Solar energy was a orbital platform?

Geothermal, most importantly.
Let's not forget hydropower or forms of bioenergy.

Let's not forget hydropower or forms of bioenergy.

Yes. That's provided, of course, that the hydroelectric source itself is stable; a severe drought that reduces water levels will leave it as dead as a wind farm on a still day.

However, biomass and other forms of bioenergy are both excellent as well; a significant amount of natural gas could be replaced with gas produced from biological sources. Of course, that doesn't exactly eliminate consumption of this fossil fuel, but it does make it more or less CO2 neutral and enables the replacement of far dirtier fuels like coal or oil with natural gas. Nuclear power is also a great source, but given the cost and time it takes to get them online (barring major cultural shifts) it's not likely it will be a major new component of energy needs in the developed world.

Let's not forget hydropower or forms of bioenergy.

Problem with Hydropower is if the world is going through drastic climate change the dams are in fixed positions and cannot respond to lower water flows to well. Hoover dam is a good example of a potential water flow problem.

In related news, the Republic of Lakotah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USA_Map_2008_2.png) has just announced that they are joining OPEC.

I know this has been hashed out on here before. But wasn't it decided that a true reliable Solar energy was a orbital platform?

But you'd have to beam it down with microwaves, which is all sorts of hated by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Specifically, what happens when you miss, what happens when you don't miss, and what keeps you from missing on purpose.

No one knows.

In related news, the Republic of Lakotah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USA_Map_2008_2.png) has just announced that they are joining OPEC.

In related news the US has occupied The Republic of Lakotah. It was reported that it was not because of oil but humanitarian reasons only.

Quite so, but until we get there, we can at least build more Nuclear power Plants.

And cool them with graphite! It's a good idea! Really!

Problem with Hydropower is if the world is going through drastic climate change the dams are in fixed positions and cannot respond to lower water flows to well. Hoover dam is a good example of a potential water flow problem.

Hydropower is still one of the best ways to obtain regulatable renewable energy.

It can also have other benefits, think Assuan dam.

But you'd have to beam it down with microwaves, which is all sorts of hated by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Specifically, what happens when you miss, what happens when you don't miss, and what keeps you from missing on purpose.

No one knows.

A big long extension cord! Seriously though if they can make a space elevator work then it is possible to run some type of line down to the Earth.

A big long extension cord! Seriously though if they can make a space elevator work then it is possible to run some type of line down to the Earth.

IF


Big if. Get it? Big? If?

Meh...

Hydropower is still one of the best ways to obtain regulatable renewable energy.

It can also have other benefits, think Assuan dam.

Good example of a river system affected by global climate change. Egyptians probably won't be able to sustain the new irrigation project out in the western desert.

IF


Big if. Get it? Big? If?

Meh...

Just finished a project with my younger son about the Space Elevator project. They don't seem to be to far off.

Good example of a river system affected by global climate change. Egyptians probably won't be able to sustain the new irrigation project out in the western desert.

We'll see - The Assuan dam still produced more welfare and security than comparable amount of wind power would've done. :p

Besides, considering the rainfall patterns and glacier melting around the globe not every dam project will be doomed. :D

Just finished a project with my younger son about the Space Elevator project. They don't seem to be to far off.

Huh. Go fig.







Maybe we can use the space elevator to get rid of the nuclear waste.

Then we won't need the rockets.

We'll see - The Assuan dam still produced more welfare and security than comparable amount of wind power would've done. :p

Besides, considering the rainfall patterns and glacier melting around the globe not every dam project will be doomed. :D

Little known fact: global warming is all caused by the Dutch. When the icecaps melt a huge damn will completely encompass Holland, and then they wait until the seas recede and claim all the land on earth from the drowned inhabitants.

Don't try to lie, Holland.




We know you're building the damn.

We know.

Wait your telling me we don't have to put up with OPEC's crap anymore? Hurray! Invasions all around....Chavez shouldn't of been talking smack....Whats that you say? We don't need to invade to secure oil anymore? O right...that would make sense...

Wait your telling me we don't have to put up with OPEC's crap anymore? Hurray! Invasions all around....Chavez shouldn't of been talking smack....Whats that you say? We don't need to invade to secure oil anymore? O right...that would make sense...

Eh, we'll just have to do it for fun now. But that's harder to explain to the UN.



I vote we invade the UN. Then they'll shut up.




Or launch nuclear waste rockets at them from Antarctica.

Invade the UN? pshhhhh lets invade OPEC. We'll start with Venezuela, just to show we mean business. Then we can let the remaining countries bid against each other to keep their sovereignty.

Invade the UN? pshhhhh lets invade OPEC. We'll start with Venezuela, just to show we mean business. Then we can let the remaining countries bid against each other to keep their sovereignty.

I like the way you think.


After that, let's invade Canada and steal all their meds.



And then invade France, so we can point and laugh at them.

There's no such thing as no waste nuclear power until we can figure out cold fusion, but that's not going to happen for a very long time.

I dunno. "Cold" fusion is BS -- even if it starts cold, it's not going to stay that way.

It's interesting how fusion isn't as "clean" as we thought it would be. The containment vessel gets radioactive, and the fusion products aren't as simple as they were meant to be. Stellar processes turned out to be a very poor guide, because we need fusion to go a lot faster (by fuel mass) than stars burn.

As it stands, though, nuclear power is still the cleanest available for its efficiency. Consider: several billion tons of CO2 to power a city versus a couple tons of nuclear waste to power half a state.

That's comparing apples with oranges. CO2 emission isn't pollution in the traditional sense, it doesn't poison us at the levels which are significant for warming. Nuclear waste is pollution (unless it's kept out of the ecosystem, our current best strategy) and it's pollution with unique characteristics: rare isotopes of common elements. Some of them very very rare: although fairly stable, they were never produced in stellar processes or natural fission.

And amazing advances in waste storage have been made. Now, you can't actually do anything with it except for store it and wait for the radioactivity to go away, but there are plenty of big open spaces (at least in America and Russia and a few others) to do that, so long as you do it properly. Keep it out of the water table and you're fine, which is actually fairly easy to do.

Fine ... sure, fine. Just store it. For a while. Longer than recorded human history. And of course, everything will be fine for the foreseeable future. [/irony]

I see nuclear waste as a loan against the future. One day, we will have the cheap energy and the nuclear technology to go get that waste out of storage, and transmute it into non-radioactive common isotopes. It will probably take more energy to do that than we got out when we fissioned it.

But we will have lots of energy by today's terms -- energy is the stuff of life, it's our very substance (input of energy from the sun is what allows entropy to run backwards, ie, life on earth). We have a far higher energy budget in the future, unless we fail catastrophically or make some collective decision to live very humbly in the universe. We probably shouldn't rule out any of the three options, it's the future and no-one in the past seems to have done any good at all at predicting the future. But to me, the future will be high-energy, closed-cycle (no more mining) and divorced from nature, hopefully leaving a bit of the planet for non-humans.

I'm OK with a high-energy future, but I think we should be honest about what sort of debt we're running up. We have a terrible record of putting things out of sight and out of mind, and pretending that rare isotopes are fine because there are "only a few tons" of them is a shoe that fits.

What most people don't realize is that you are constantly bombarded by radiation at all times, and the vast majority of nuclear waste is about the equivalent of a week's worth of this background radiation, which is bad, but not INSTACANCER!

It's not being near the stuff that's a problem. It's the way it becomes a part of your body. Because the material is not just radioactive, but a chemical element, it concentrates in particular places when it becomes part of your flesh. It gets into one place and it stays there, radiating the flesh around it. That's a far higher risk factor than all-over-the-body radiation.

Just finished a project with my younger son about the Space Elevator project. They don't seem to be to far off.

www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/521Edwards.pdf

Basically, it's just a question of who wants to pay for it. It's completely feasible with current technology, but it ain't cheap.

<snip>
Fusion actually is perfectly clean. Two hydrogens *smash* you get one helium cation and a shyte ton of heat. That's it.

The problem is that currently it takes the power of a not-clean fission reaction to make the fusion happen. And then, fusion is not a chain reaction, so you have to fission around it again and again. And finally, it's a shyte ton of heat. Too much to contain properly, much less use.

But if we found a way to maintain a fantastic amount of pressure (which creates the heat normally produced by the fission reaction) and a way to contain the resultant hydrogen cations (which naturally repel each other fiercely) then we get absolutely perfectly clean energy that only produces helium from hydrogen, with some water on the side.

Currently, the leading candidate for all of this is stupidly powerful solenoids. They're still working on that.


<snip>CO2 v nuclear waste<snip>

Gobbeldygook. Not that I really care about CO2, as I never particularly believed it was responsible for GW, but to shut Greenpeace up, the environmental impact of nuclear power is exponentially smaller than CO2 emissions. It's absurdly more efficient than anything else possible at the moment, with a far lower pollution level. More dangerous pollution, perhaps, but there is far less of it.

So, pick your poison: radioactive waste in a single Glad bag, or several hundred thousand crappy, leaky off-brand bags of CO2.

Don't get rad, get Glad!


<snip>Dealing with waste<snip>
The radioactivity DOES go away on its own. And most of the waste that gets put away isn't all that radioactive (for example, all the stuff that gets sent to South Carolina...not that SC minds too much, as they get lots of money for it). The radioactivity on that goes away in a couple lifetimes, if that.

The highly radioactive stuff won't go away for a while. But there's a lot less of that. And we're not doing anything else with the dirt several miles under the Rockies.

<snip>Future<snip>

I honestly don't particularly care what people do for their energy. I'm no conservationist, nor do I think there is any kind of energy crisis. I just want Greenpeace and so on to face the reality: the only currently viable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power. Take it or leave it, or shut up until something better comes long.

Microwave satellites. The nuclear missile analog of the future? Tune in next time to find out! Same Bat-time, same Bat-channel.

<snip>waste dangers<snip>

Which is why you keep it out of the water table. I'm referring to the small leaks people complain about (like what happened last year or so in South Carolina; which, incidentally, was the fault of the 1970s storage, not the modern methods). The amount of radioactivity anyone is likely to be exposed to from properly stored waste is about the same as what you get from space and naturally occurring isotopes anyways.

Well, I'm out for the night, as I have a paper to write.

But, Yootopia, if you happen to wander through again and find this post: Second bullet point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Flawed_design_theory).

Also the last one, as it was a result of construction methods mentioned in the second point.

Fusion actually is perfectly clean. Two hydrogens *smash* you get one helium cation and a shyte ton of heat. That's it.

OK, if it's that simple -- in what form is this "heat" released?

Microwave satellites. The nuclear missile analog of the future? Tune in next time to find out! Same Bat-time, same Bat-channel.

Expect the same Bat-Shit.

OK, if it's that simple -- in what form is this "heat" released?

Dammit, I'm supposed to be writing a paper about Lavoisier's Elements of Chemistry.

The heat is released as...heat. Specifically through radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat#Radiation), which is not to say the radiation of charged particles, but through the radiation of heat. You get a lot of light. Forgot to mention that. But yes, you get a lot of electromagnetic spectra: butt-tons of infrared, lots of visible light, and bob's your uncle: heat transfered without the need for nasty radioactive charged particles that harm people. The only danger to people is melting if they are on the wrong side of whatever is containing the heat. Or if there isn't anything containing the heat.

As for how that makes power: heat boils water, water makes steam, steam is under pressure, steam turns turbines, which run a generator.

Thus, the products of fusion (not counting the fission to start it): helium, unused hydrogen maybe, water, heat, light.


Granted, you can fuse heavier elements, theoretically, and create nasty radioactive isotopes that way, but the bigger the element, the harder it is to fuse (whereas fission is generally easier as the element gets bigger). Which is the main reason why they use hydrogen and make helium.

Edit: they may possibly use one of the slightly radioactive isotopes of hydrogen (tritium - more neutrons with less protons makes it slightly easier to fuse, I believe). In which case the products would include a couple neutrons. Which is negligibly radioactive (ie: all water anywhere is some small percentage tritium, which goes away and is created continuously).

Dammit, I'm supposed to be writing a paper about Lavoisier's Elements of Chemistry.

OK, I'll let you go. But just for the record, helium has four hadrons. Two hydrogen nuclei make deuterium and one positron.

That ain't nice cosy heat. Go, write the paper and we'll do this some other day. It's well off-topic, and it will wait. :)

Edit: they may possibly use one of the slightly radioactive isotopes of hydrogen (tritium - more neutrons with less protons makes it slightly easier to fuse, I believe). In which case the products would include a couple neutrons. Which is negligibly radioactive (ie: all water anywhere is some small percentage tritium, which goes away and is created continuously).

The neutron bombardment is what causes the container to become radioactive as neutrons cannot be contained by the electromagnetic field as they're, yes, neutral.

However, radioactivity from a nuclear plant - be it fusion or fission - is a negligible threat to human life when compared to fossil fuels and their emissions.

Also, simple hydrogen is not what the proposed fuel of a fusion generator will be. I guess tritium-deuterium reaction would be most easily obtainable reaction, though not the cleanest.

edit:
How did I forget the stable of sci-fi? D-He3 fusion, very low neutron emission fusion limited by supply of He3 (aside from other fusion related problems).

... radioactivity from a nuclear plant - be it fusion or fission - is a negligible threat to human life when compared to fossil fuels and their emissions.

Coal slag and fly-ash also contain large quantities of radioactive elements.

But coal burning is heinous, it is really really bad. I would never attack fission power on the basis that coal power is better.

I know I'm supposed to take sides and express a preference. I like solar, because it's the fundamental power source of all life on earth, and we can use large quantities of it without doing anything that prairies and forests and sea algae aren't doing already.

Photovoltaic power is slowly improving. Manufacture costs are still prohibitive, but efficiency is in the useful range for household use (light falling on the house can power the house 24/7). If plants can do it, we can do it.

As usual in a controversy, I go lateral. What we need is an efficient, safe, portable form of power storage. Hydrogen is efficient and it's somewhat portable. It's also effectively closed-cycle, since water (oxidized hydrogen) is harmless and omnipresent.

EDIT: and yes, the breakthrough in solar power might infact come from genetic engineering. Plants you can plug into the grid, or plants which make liquid fuel directly.

Here's the trick...

You make a space that can contain say, 10, 000 cows. You encircle this space with rods that support a correspondingly large platform of space, as many layers as you like, I'd say 5 is a nice number.

So you have cows at the bottom then five open platforms stacked on top of each other, you might want to wrap it all in a form of netting or gauze for reasons that will become apparent later.

Now, you stick a hose up the cows ass as well as over it's mouth.

This means you collect vast quantities of methane gas, certainly more than this structure needs. The cow can be fed and watered through the mouth piece as well, much as the throat handles air, solids and water.

On the first level of your greenhouse, you grow barley, or whatever cows eat. The remaining four can be used to grow what you like, vegetables or whatever. The netting protects these to some extent but I'm really hoping that people get creative and light guaze might make for an incredible sight - huge wispy light-refracted towers dotting the landscape.

All using cow manure for fertilizer.

You now have a completely sustainable, self contained space-saving farm that produces excess energy, excess food, minimal evolutionary impact, provide jobs...

I'm not sure of the figures but I'd say we kill a good 50 million cows in America alone each year - that's a huge amount of methane and vegetables produced. That's only 5, 000 such structures, though they'd be a good kilometer in circumference if not more.

Methane is very clean burning as well.

You can drive cars on it.

Energy crisis solved, environment wins.

Please don't flood this thread with congratulatory posts, you can TG your admirations instead.

You can when you have nuclear waste rockets. Who's going to argue? No one, that's who.
If a rocket blew up on ascent, there would be nuclear waste all over the place, which is a severe pain in the arse for everyone. That's why people would say no.
Yeah no. Several tens of thousands of years. Depending on which part the water is cooling. The water directly cooling the control rods doesn't come out of storage within several thousand lifetimes. The water cooling the water cooling the water cooling the water cooling the control rods might.
Err, nope.

Water used for cooling and cleaning , amonst other purposes, is considered to be low-level waste by the UK authorities: http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/sources/nuclear/decommissioning/page22157.html

This means they can release it after ten years. So there we go.
The graphite radiates it all back outward, which you then pick up with more graphite and eventually water coolant, by which time the radiation is diluted when it gets into the water.
Right... so you're just creating more and more waste to have clean up. Nice one.



As to the Chernobyl post - aye, they were trying for champage nuclear power on a beer budget. Making control rods out of water is a poor idea indeed, making a reactor so flawed that it actually buckles and makes inserting the control rods impossible is pretty terrible.

That we should use graphite or beryllium for control rods is fine, that it should be used for all of our cooling when water is a much more affordable and sensible option for a lot of what needs doing is what I disagree with.

Maybe we can use the space elevator to get rid of the nuclear waste.

Then we won't need the rockets.
Sounds good to me.

The problem with a space elevator, though, is that it's just about the biggest "attack me if you're some kind of evil jihadobaddie" symbol one could even imagine. Ah well.

Stop listening to your teachers brain washing, oil is here to stay,gasoline is here to stay, those are facts, wishing that things are different is in the face of facts is childish but then again socialism,and American Liberalism is that in spades,but hey live the dream,I live in the real world, and that world we need gas.

No, it isn't, the supply is finite.

:) look at the Brite side! the US might be insane enough to elect Barak Obama,and you will get the Marxist you all want. :D

You "live in the real world" but think Obama is a marxist?