RunRyder RC
WATCH
 3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ] 1689 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Obama lose???
10-17-2015 04:48 PM  34 months agoPost 21
jharkin

rrApprentice

Holliston, MA - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

There is a far less chance of anyone manipulating oil prices except for maybe us since we now know we have enough oil on our own soil to last us another 400 to 500 years.
Put down the foil hat....

----

For the rest of you who might not know what dennis is getting at he is using questionable numbers based on shale reserves.

The US burns 20 million barrels of oil a day give or take.

Proven traditional crude reserves are 30 billion barrels = 5 years if we just pumped and burned it all at once. 10-30 years left at our current rate of importing half of what we burn, depending how much more we find (estimates are maybe 50-100 B more to be found)

Share reserves are believed to contain possibly 2-2.25 trilion barrels of oil equivalent. Doing some simplistic 1st grade math that gives you about 275-300 years.

BUt there are a few problems with that math:

#1 - Share formations contain heavy bitumin and kerogen mixied with rock. Turning that to oil is an expensive and energy intensive process of mining it, melting it down and chemically processing it to synthetic crude. Whereas conventional oil makes 20-100 barrels of product for every 1 barrel burned to fuel the process the ratio for shale might be less than 5 for 1. SO those 2 trillion barrels might yield a lot less crude at very high prices. And we dont know becasue nobody has done it yet at scale.

#2 the math assumes constant consumption at today rate with no room for consumption growth.

A realistic estimate is far less than those 300 years.. Far less... Even assuming we could produce it as fast as we consume.

And none if it matters anyway since if we burn it all without a viable carbon capture scheme the environment is doomed.

-Jeremy
Whiplash-G
Helix 700G
T-Rex 450 fbl conversion
alot of planks

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-17-2015 05:00 PM  34 months agoPost 22
ICUR1-2

rrElite Veteran

Ottawa, Ontario

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

in the big picture of things regardless of how much fossil fuel there is.
If it is consumed irresponsibly we will all pay dearly for the pollution is creates.

it is very obvious which governments don't care to manage pollution

spending time, paying attention

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-18-2015 08:17 AM  34 months agoPost 23
nitro fun

rrApprentice

Oc ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

No one will live under a tree and cover them self with a leaf, so all oil will be pumped out and used for all that plastic crap people buy.......

When oil gets low, it will skyrocket in price... And only the rich will buy it....

Everyone else will have to walk or build a gasifier for thier car, maybe just buy a horse....

It will hit hard when that day comes...

So what is the IsIs rate of oil from iraq?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-18-2015 08:29 AM  34 months agoPost 24
shawmcky

rrElite Veteran

Isle of Wight,United Kingdom

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Name and shame the ISIS oil buyers!

Team- unbiased opinion.K.I.S.S principle upheld here

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-18-2015 08:40 AM  34 months agoPost 25
nitro fun

rrApprentice

Oc ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The homless drug people living under the freeway are eco friendly, they dont have a car, ( use no gas), use no electricity, dont flush a toilet, dont water grass, dont take a shower, that my friends is how a liberal democrap wants you to live, while they fly arround on private jets, live in mansions with help, and live it up!!!

And you get a free obama phone

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-19-2015 01:31 PM  34 months agoPost 26
jharkin

rrApprentice

Holliston, MA - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

it is very obvious which governments don't care to manage pollution
Some would argue the USA as we where the first to bail on the original Paris climate treaty... But we have started to do a lot more recently.You could argue we do an excellent job on everything but CO2

A few years ago you could have said China also, but in recent years their coal usage has finally leveled off and they have made some big pledges before the upcoming Paris conference to peak and begin reducing emissions by 2020

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/...a/1/China';s%20INDC%20-%20on%2030%20June%202015.pdf

Russia and India are the other elephants in the room - India especially needs a strategy to keep supporting their economic growth end fix their emissions problem.

-Jeremy
Whiplash-G
Helix 700G
T-Rex 450 fbl conversion
alot of planks

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-19-2015 01:39 PM  34 months agoPost 27
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Some would argue the USA as we where the first to bail on the original Paris climate treaty... But we have started to do a lot more recently.You could argue we do an excellent job on everything but CO2
Life requires Co2 in order to survive.

Most people have no clue.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-19-2015 05:51 PM  34 months agoPost 28
tadawson

rrElite Veteran

Lewisville, TX

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

That's one of the reasons I suggest biofuels. Yes, the energy density isn't as great as some other technologies, but the fast groeing biomass consumes CO2, it's renewable, it gives work to American farmers and the rural community, andnit does not push us to purchase things from overseas, since the EPA has pushed so much manufacturing out of the US.

Not cutting every tree in sight to build new malls and other useless crap wouldn't hurt either . . .

- Tim

Friends don't let friends become electrotarded . . . .

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-19-2015 06:05 PM  34 months agoPost 29
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

That's one of the reasons I suggest biofuels. Yes, the energy density isn't as great as some other technologies, but the fast groeing biomass consumes CO2, it's renewable, it gives work to American farmers and the rural community, andnit does not push us to purchase things from overseas, since the EPA has pushed so much manufacturing out of the US.
Please tell us what sense it makes to use millions of acres of our agriculture land that produces food to feed people to produce fuel is economically feasible.

Especially when we already have enough oil under our own soil to last us another 400 to 500 years without purchasing oil from overseas.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-19-2015 09:54 PM  34 months agoPost 30
tadawson

rrElite Veteran

Lewisville, TX

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

No, you use the millions of acres that are either not being used, or which are being used to grow crops for export, which is not our problem in any way, shape, or form . . .

Never said it was the best solution, just one that does have a positive impact on CO2 . . . And I think the 400 to 500 years may be questionable in it's accuracy . . . but have no hard data myself.

- Tim

Friends don't let friends become electrotarded . . . .

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-19-2015 10:43 PM  34 months agoPost 31
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

No, you use the millions of acres that are either not being used, or which are being used to grow crops for export, which is not our problem in any way, shape, or form . . .
You might want to try a bit more research into this.

It's been awhile for me. But, the last time I checked that type of fuel was not cost worthy to produce. In the first place it takes millions upon millions of gallons of water to get to a harvestable crop. Water is a valuable commodity as well. Depending on location it could get quite expensive.

Then in order to produce fuel from that crop once it's ready to harvest it's takes more fuel to process that crop into useable fuel.

It turned out that it costs more to produce than the practical value you get from it.

Now, as far as using land that is not now being used to grow crops, you should wonder why it's not being used to grow crops. Could be several reasons. One being private owned by an owner that does not want it utilized that way. More likely it would be federal land that environmentalists would refuse you to utilize it that way. If they did you would have 10 years of environmental studies with no guarantee of the outcome. And many more reasons that just does not come to mind at the moment. In any case it would take millions upon millions of acres of land to have any significant difference at all.

Bottom line, there is no replacement for oil any time in the foreseeable future. None at all.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-21-2015 03:45 PM  34 months agoPost 32
jharkin

rrApprentice

Holliston, MA - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Life requires Co2 in order to survive.

Most people have no clue.
Correct. However there is a difference between burning renewable carbon and fossil carbon.

All the fossil carbon (coal, oil, gas) we are burning now was sequestered underground during the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago. the planet was far warmer during that time, neither polar cap had ice and the mean sea level was 300 feet higher. Massive super storms of a size we have never seen were common.

Putting all that CO2 that took millions of years to bury back into the air in a mere century threatens to return the earth back to those conditions putting much of the current inhabited land area back underwater and wreaking havoc on the agriculture we depend on to eat. We dont even know what will happen to ecosystems as they have never changed that fast before. Over 40% of the world population live on coasts within 100 miles of an ocean - the area most at threat.

-Jeremy
Whiplash-G
Helix 700G
T-Rex 450 fbl conversion
alot of planks

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-21-2015 04:01 PM  34 months agoPost 33
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Putting all that CO2 that took millions of years to bury back into the air in a mere century threatens to return the earth back to those conditions putting much of the current inhabited land area back underwater and wreaking havoc on the agriculture we depend on to eat. We dont even know what will happen to ecosystems as they have never changed that fast before. Over 40% of the world population live on coasts within 100 miles of an ocean - the area most at threat.
Having read that, why aren't we all dead? We are birds not falling from the sky from to much CO2? Why aren't all the animal species falling over dead from to much CO2? Why aren't plant life dying from to much CO2?

Etc, etc, etc.

Please explain.

???????

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-21-2015 05:05 PM  34 months agoPost 34
nitro fun

rrApprentice

Oc ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

10-30 years left at our current rate of importing half of what we burn
So what you are saying is we are doomed in 10-30 years!!!!!

buy oil stocks now because it's going to skyrocket !!!!!!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-21-2015 06:51 PM  34 months agoPost 35
jharkin

rrApprentice

Holliston, MA - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

aving read that, why aren't we all dead? We are birds not falling from the sky from to much CO2? Why aren't all the animal species falling over dead from to much CO2? Why aren't plant life dying from to much CO2?

Etc, etc, etc.

Please explain.

???????
The rate of species extinction in the last century is already up to something like 1000x the pre-industrial natural rate. Weather patterns are changing, coastlines are eroding, glaciers are melting. It is happening if you open your eyes to see.

But its not going to happen overnight... These processes are slow - naturally they take millions of years... even greatly accelerated they will take decades. The pre industrial CO2 level was around 250ppm. current level is not up to about 380pm. Carboniferous period level was 800ppm.

You are obviously an educated man - there is tons of research out there in the scientific literature and online.

-Jeremy
Whiplash-G
Helix 700G
T-Rex 450 fbl conversion
alot of planks

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-21-2015 06:58 PM  34 months agoPost 36
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You are obviously an educated man - there is tons of research out there in the scientific literature and online.
Sure there is. Our world is saturated with it.

A surprising amount of it is pure BS written by those who get large government grants and directed towards a government opinion so that that same government can tax the living crap out of you so that they can give away more government grants to the same people to print the same opinions, quite often with no scientific evidence what so ever.

But, the animals still live. The plants still live. Humans still lives and birds still fly.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-21-2015 07:00 PM  34 months agoPost 37
Castlebravo

rrNovice

Hillsboro,Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Having read that, why aren't we all dead? We are birds not falling from the sky from to much CO2? Why aren't all the animal species falling over dead from to much CO2? Why aren't plant life dying from to much CO2?
Etc, etc, etc.
Please explain.
???????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

CB

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-22-2015 02:06 AM  34 months agoPost 38
jharkin

rrApprentice

Holliston, MA - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

A surprising amount of it is pure BS written by those who get large government grants and directed towards a government opinion so that that same government can tax the living crap out of you so that they can give away more government grants to the same people to print the same opinions, quite often with no scientific evidence what so ever.
YOu attitude proves only that you have a general distrust of the scientific method and haven't bothered to read much of it - just regurgitate the drivel from fox news.

I think the 300 billion dollars of revenue that Exxon Mobil alone makes is much more of an incentive to fund BS than some research grants. You must not know many scientists because most of the ones I know are not living in the palaces that oil company executives and their lobbyists are.

Open your mind. Turn off Glenn Beck for a minute and go read the research. Look at the satellite photos of glacial ice changes. Read the NOAA data. you might be surprised.

-Jeremy
Whiplash-G
Helix 700G
T-Rex 450 fbl conversion
alot of planks

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-22-2015 02:45 AM  34 months agoPost 39
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I think the 300 billion dollars of revenue that Exxon Mobil alone makes is much more of an incentive to fund BS than some research grants. You must not know many scientists because most of the ones I know are not living in the palaces that oil company executives and their lobbyists are.
$300 billion that Exxon makes????

Ok, let's say Exxon takes in $300 billion. But, their net profit margin on that $300 billion is no larger than any other corporation. In fact our government makes far more profit in taxes levied on gasoline sales than any other corporation that exists in the USA. That's just on gasoline sales alone. Exxon has other corporate taxes to pay as well in addition they pay the government for drilling rights to the tune of millions and they also pay environmental impact studies that go on for years and also cost millions. Who else do you suppose pays those costs? Santa clause? And, of course all those costs are passed onto us, the consumer.

So, you have the same not so smart and uninformed opinion about oil companies that other not so smart and uninformed people have. But, you drive some type of vehicle and use the same products as anyone else does that is derived from the production of oil.

BTW: just for your information, I no longer have cable TV. In fact I no longer own a TV set. I gave it to a nice neighbor after I called my old cable outfit and told them to shove it some time ago.

Also, I never did like that little cry baby glen beck. He's just another dipstick that went way off the deep end long ago. I can't stand that little turd.

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-22-2015 02:51 AM  34 months agoPost 40
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Open your mind. Turn off Glenn Beck for a minute and go read the research. Look at the satellite photos of glacial ice changes. Read the NOAA data. you might be surprised.
Glacial ice changes?????

What does that mean????

Right now we have an unprecedented growth of ice on both the north and south ice packs.

Look it up yourself.

Who the heck are you. AlGore Jr. ?????

Liberty once lost, is lost forever.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ] 1689 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Obama lose???
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 6  Topic Subscribe

Sunday, August 19 - 2:45 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online