PDA

View Full Version : Enough accessible hydrocarbons to last for centuries, if not millennia, to come.



Apocalypse
06-02-2011, 11:31 PM
As everyone who follows news about energy knows by now, in the last decade the technique of hydraulic fracturing or "fracking," long used in the oil industry, has evolved to permit energy companies to access reserves of previously-unrecoverable “shale gas” or unconventional natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, these advances mean there is at least six times as much (http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/) recoverable natural gas today as there was a decade ago....


If gas hydrates as well as shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventional sources can be tapped at reasonable cost, then the global energy picture looks radically different than it did only a few years ago. Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come.


So much for the specter of depletion, as a reason to adopt renewable energy technologies like solar power and wind power. Whatever may be the case with Peak Oil in particular, the date of Peak Fossil Fuels has been pushed indefinitely into the future. What about national security as a reason to switch to renewable energy?


http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/31/linbd_fossil_fuels/index.html


But... but... but... the polar bears!!!

Novaheart
06-02-2011, 11:42 PM
But... but... but... the polar bears!!!

The biggest killer of polar bears is ........eskimos.

SarasotaRepub
06-02-2011, 11:45 PM
I think the DUmmies are worried about earthquakes and chemicals used in the fracking liquids...

djones520
06-02-2011, 11:50 PM
I think the DUmmies are worried about earthquakes and chemicals used in the fracking liquids...

Well most of this stuff is happening in texas right now, so I honestly doubt their to worried about it.

megimoo
06-03-2011, 12:09 AM
I think the DUmmies are worried about earthquakes and chemicals used in the fracking liquids...How in hell can a bore hole used in fracking cause an earthquake..The shallowest part of the earths Continental crust is 31 miles thick and the deepest bore hole is slightly over 5000 ft deep .As usual the kneejerk greenies haven't a clue.

Rockntractor
06-03-2011, 01:34 AM
How in hell can a bore hole used in fracking cause an earthquake..The shallowest part of the earths Continental crust is 31 miles thick and the deepest bore hole is slightly over 5000 ft deep .As usual the kneejerk greenies haven't a clue.

Is a bore hole large enough to drop a DUmmie down, I mean after the kidneys are removed of course?:confused:

lacarnut
06-03-2011, 02:24 AM
How in hell can a bore hole used in fracking cause an earthquake..The shallowest part of the earths Continental crust is 31 miles thick and the deepest bore hole is slightly over 5000 ft deep .As usual the kneejerk greenies haven't a clue.

Their newest fear tactic is water contamination. I even read of fracking in PA of all places. The anti-American liberals and Env. will do everything in their power to destroy the oil and gas industry even though natural gas is clean burning. The horrors, it comes out of the ground.

Arroyo_Doble
06-03-2011, 10:17 AM
Well most of this stuff is happening in texas right now, so I honestly doubt their to worried about it.

Texas just passed the first law requiring the companies to publish their recipe (I am not sure if Perry has signed it yet). Not sure about you but I like clean water.

Rockntractor
06-03-2011, 10:27 AM
Texas just passed the first law requiring the companies to publish their recipe (I am not sure if Perry has signed it yet). Not sure about you but I like clean water.

The layer the petroleum comes from is far below the fresh water table There is water mixed with it but it is a heavy undrinkable brine that was there long before the wells were.





Dolby are your kidneys healthy?

Arroyo_Doble
06-03-2011, 10:35 AM
The layer the petroleum comes from is far below the fresh water table There is water mixed with it but it is a heavy undrinkable brine that was there long before the wells were.

I am sure the casings are perfect and migration never happens. No need to look into it at all.


Dolby are your kidneys healthy?

So far.

Rockntractor
06-03-2011, 10:49 AM
I am sure the casings are perfect and migration never happens. No need to look into it at all.



So far.

It is already monitored quite well, I work in the industry, they come around at regular intervals and pressure test the shafts, they have for many years.

Arroyo_Doble
06-03-2011, 10:52 AM
It is already monitored quite well, I work in the industry, they come around at regular intervals and pressure test the shafts, they have for many years.

My brother works for the company that has a statue of its founder in Duncan. I am not opposed to process (he is involved in that process) and I see this as an economic opportunity and necessity.

Doesn't mean people who want to ensure it is safe hate America.

Odysseus
06-03-2011, 12:46 PM
Is a bore hole large enough to drop a DUmmie down, I mean after the kidneys are removed of course?:confused:
I always assumed that it was for that purpose. Where else would you drop a DUmmie bore?

Texas just passed the first law requiring the companies to publish their recipe (I am not sure if Perry has signed it yet). Not sure about you but I like clean water.
Being conservatives, we actually drink toxic waste that has been mixed with the blood of virgins and spiced with the tears of orphans, but we're not entirely unsympathetic. :rolleyes:

My brother works for the company that has a statue of its founder in Duncan. I am not opposed to process (he is involved in that process) and I see this as an economic opportunity and necessity.

Doesn't mean people who want to ensure it is safe hate America.

No, but so many environmentalists do hate capitalism that it becomes hard to separate those who are sincerely concerned with potential issues from those who are simply trying to enforce their agendas. For example, a solar farm in San Luis Obispo, CA, is under attack from environmentalists, who used to claim that they supported renewable energy. This is the third lawsuit that has sought to shut it down (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2011/05/30/1621960/lawsuit-california-valley-solar.html), and the lawsuits against windfarms are also pretty hypocritical.

Arroyo_Doble
06-03-2011, 12:55 PM
Being conservatives, we actually drink toxic waste that has been mixed with the blood of virgins and spiced with the tears of orphans, but we're not entirely unsympathetic. :rolleyes:


I've listened to Mark Levin on the radio. His contempt for those who like clean air and water is awesome to behold. I assume his regular audience agrees with him about the America hating Marxists that don't like their rivers to catch on fire.


No, but so many environmentalists do hate capitalism that it becomes hard to separate those who are sincerely concerned with potential issues from those who are simply trying to enforce their agendas.

You are parroting him now.

But I agree with second part to a certain extent. But I think the problem isn't people pissing and moaning about wind farms blocking the view or bird carcasses. The problem is the environmental movement has been appropriated by the climate change crowd (along with a complacent public because of the success of the environmental movement in cleaning up the pollution that existed in this nation) who have muddied (so to speak) the waters on what pollution actually is.

lacarnut
06-03-2011, 02:01 PM
But I agree with second part to a certain extent. But I think the problem isn't people pissing and moaning about wind farms blocking the view or bird carcasses. The problem is the environmental movement has been appropriated by the climate change crowd (along with a complacent public because of the success of the environmental movement in cleaning up the pollution that existed in this nation) who have muddied (so to speak) the waters on what pollution actually is.

That's on the LIBERAL'S dime. Correct.

Odysseus
06-03-2011, 04:46 PM
I've listened to Mark Levin on the radio. His contempt for those who like clean air and water is awesome to behold. I assume his regular audience agrees with him about the America hating Marxists that don't like their rivers to catch on fire.

Most environmental regulations today have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with control of the economy. It's watermelon Marxism, green on the outside, red on the inside. As I pointed out, in order for you to believe that conservatives don't want clean air or water, you have to accept the premise that we somehow live without breathing or drinking. It's absurd on its face, but it's par for the course. Levin, of course, comes at this from a strict construtionist view of the government's powers, and sees the gradual erosion of limits on the powers of that government, and the expansion of its reach into areas that are none of its business, unless you think that the business of government is to run our business, because we cannot. Thus, we get a ban on incandescent bulbs, which throws billions of dollars to GE, a major DNC contributor, and forces the purchase of more expensive, and toxic, bulbs upon us in the name of environmental protection. We also get bans on things like DDT, which has never been harmful to anyone except mosquitos, because one hysteric claimed, without proof, that it was making eggshells thinner. The body count from that absurdity is in the tens of millions, as malaria is borne by mosquitos, as are a host of other illnesses.




You are parroting him now.
Right. Because I can't possibly have an independent thought without my talk radio fix. Independent thought only comes from listening to NPR, which provides approved independent thought. :rolleyes:

Annoy you_DoublyBut I agree with second part to a certain extent. But I think the problem isn't people pissing and moaning about wind farms blocking the view or bird carcasses. The problem is the environmental movement has been appropriated by the climate change crowd (along with a complacent public because of the success of the environmental movement in cleaning up the pollution that existed in this nation) who have muddied (so to speak) the waters on what pollution actually is.[/QUOTE]

This, I do agree with. But the reason that it has been appropriated is that it long ago ceased to be about the environment and more about political control. The fact is that America, at its worst, most polluted time, was cleaner than most of the rest of the world, but the enviros were blinded by ideology. Compare the environmentalism of today's activists with the Conservationism of Teddy Roosevelt, and you see the long, slow collapse of the moral underpinnings of the movement. Roosevelt was an outdoorsman who loved nature and sought to understand it. He hunted, as all carnivores do. He fished. He explored and he saw nature as a challenge to himself, to both conquer and protect it, and he set aside huge swathes of it to be both protected from, and used by, mankind. The activists of the world are romantics whose understanding of nature is tainted by their alienation from their own species. Many of them see us as intruders against nature, and speak or write of us as if we were a disease. There is a huge body of environmental literature about population control as a means to protect the Earth (and, of course, to control the population). Humanity is both part of nature, and apart from it, in that we, unlike other animals, cannot survive in our environment without adapting it to our needs. The urbanized environmental activists, completely clueless in the wild (remember the guy who got eaten by the bears that he thought he knew?), have a Disneyesque view of nature that is completely at odds with reality.

Arroyo_Doble
06-03-2011, 05:30 PM
Most environmental regulations today have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with control of the economy. It's watermelon Marxism, green on the outside, red on the inside.

Polly wants a cracker ... bad.


As I pointed out, in order for you to believe that conservatives don't want clean air or water, you have to accept the premise that we somehow live without breathing or drinking. It's absurd on its face, but it's par for the course.

The Norquist wing of modern conservatives doesn't give a rat's ass about clean air and water. They only concern themselves with the eventual elimination of the United States' governing institutions. Free Market Anarchism is their utopian philosophy and if they think about pollution at all, it is in the context of their religious belief that The Market (S.A.W.) will cure all problems with Its mysterious and wonderful Market Forces (amen).


Levin, of course, comes at this from a strict construtionist view of the government's powers, and sees the gradual erosion of limits on the powers of that government, and the expansion of its reach into areas that are none of its business, unless you think that the business of government is to run our business, because we cannot.

Interstate commerce is the business of the United States government and so is the contamination of the environment. Levin is a douche who sells outrage to the weak minded wrapped in a pathetic, cartoonish caricature of a "strict constructionist" (which I have found to simply mean belief in, and interpretation of, the Constitution when it suits their purposes and ignoring it completely when it doesn't).


Thus, we get a ban on incandescent bulbs, which throws billions of dollars to GE, a major DNC contributor, and forces the purchase of more expensive, and toxic, bulbs upon us in the name of environmental protection. We also get bans on things like DDT, which has never been harmful to anyone except mosquitos, because one hysteric claimed, without proof, that it was making eggshells thinner. The body count from that absurdity is in the tens of millions, as malaria is borne by mosquitos, as are a host of other illnesses.

Yea, yea. Bad old gubmint. :rolleyes:


Right. Because I can't possibly have an independent thought without my talk radio fix.

Apparently. Although I like the neo-conservative loon pdf you posted in another thread from the same group that entertained a guy who thought we should ethnically cleanse Iraq of Arabs. Great guys, there.


Independent thought only comes from listening to NPR, which provides approved independent thought. :rolleyes:


Probably.


This, I do agree with.

Then that is the problem that has to be addressed and not running around in circles with Levin blasting through the radio, calling everyone who thinks it's a good idea to ensure the water table is not contaminated a Marxist.

Odysseus
06-03-2011, 07:40 PM
Polly wants a cracker ... bad.
Annoyo needs a new meme. Real bad.


The Norquist wing of modern conservatives doesn't give a rat's ass about clean air and water. They only concern themselves with the eventual elimination of the United States' governing institutions. Free Market Anarchism is their utopian philosophy and if they think about pollution at all, it is in the context of their religious belief that The Market (S.A.W.) will cure all problems with Its mysterious and wonderful Market Forces (amen).
Did you get this from Daily Kos? The Norquist wing wants smaller government within Constitutional limits. This BS caricature is straight out of the DNC playbook, and it's gotten old.


Interstate commerce is the business of the United States government and so is the contamination of the environment. Levin is a douche who sells outrage to the weak minded wrapped in a pathetic, cartoonish caricature of a "strict constructionist" (which I have found to simply mean belief in, and interpretation of, the Constitution when it suits their purposes and ignoring it completely when it doesn't).
No, no and no. The commerce clause was never meant to give the federal government control of commerce, but to allow it to resolve disputes between the states. The weak national government established under the Articles of Confederation lacked the power to adjudicate disputes, and the states squabbled over boundaries, enacted protective tariffs, established customs services, and printed their own currencies. It was this situation that led to the recognition that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate. The purpose of the commerce clause was to break down trade barriers between the states, not to allow the federal government to intrude on every aspect of commerce. Contamination of the environment does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. What does appear is the authority of the federal government over the "navigable waters" of the nation, which has been redefined through regulatory license to cover ponds, puddles and even swimming pools. Finally, your take on Levin is crude, simplistic and wrong. Levin was a solicitor general under Reagan and has a firm grasp of the Constitution and the principles that underly it, while you clearly don't.


Yea, yea. Bad old gubmint. :rolleyes:
Ah, so you favor mercury-laced lightbulbs and increased malaria deaths? Or is it that increasing the power of government is more important to you than the end result of that power grab?


Apparently. Although I like the neo-conservative loon pdf you posted in another thread from the same group that entertained a guy who thought we should ethnically cleanse Iraq of Arabs. Great guys, there.[/QUORE]
Snarky, but not very informative. Can you actually provide proof of that?

[QUOTE=Arroyo_Doble;421666]Probably.
I can see that your irony switch is in the off position.


Then that is the problem that has to be addressed and not running around in circles with Levin blasting through the radio, calling everyone who thinks it's a good idea to ensure the water table is not contaminated a Marxist.

And yet, another straw man. Levin doesn't consider anyone who wants clean water a Marxist. He does, however, recognize that many Marxists use the environmental movement to further their own agenda, because it is a convenient way to centralize power and spread panic, and you seem more concerned with trashing Levin than you do wit solving the problems, which tells me that you are probably more sympathetic to the Marxist take on environmentalism than not. If it weren't for the likes of Levin, these power grabs would go unreported, as the MSM is indifferent to them, or actively supports expanded federal powers at the expense of the states and people. But, since Levin, Norquist and anyone else who actually communicates ideas to the right of Marx have become your boogen, I won't hold my breath while waiting for you to actually come up with a solution to the problem, but I will try to find some amusement in your snarky responses, if there is any to be had.

Rockntractor
06-03-2011, 07:53 PM
Annoyo needs a new meme. Real bad.

I say we part him out, we could get at least an ipad2 and a cell phone!:cool:

Odysseus
06-03-2011, 08:02 PM
I say we part him out, we could get at least an ipad2 and a cell phone!:cool:

I'm reminded of the old joke about secondhand brains being cheaper when they come from blondes, because they have less wear and tear from use. Given that, his spleen has been vented far too often to be of value, his heart bleeds too much and his nads have atrophied from lack of use. We'd be lucky to get an abacus and a rotary-dial princess model.