Is it right to deny the American people jobs because of your religion?

[Kathryn]

The oil and gas industry is one of the largest in China, by the way. China's not backing off of oil and gas one iota.

Just so you know.

China's natural gas consumption is rising by 20 percent each year.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/74aed046-4039-11e1-82f6-00144feab49a.html#axzz1kG7zvzhZ

China is the fourth largest oil producing country in the world, and that production is growing in leaps and bounds. It is the second largest consumer of oil in the world and also the second largest importer of oil.

China is the largest energy consumer in the world, and this energy is dominantly fueled by fossil fuels - coal, oil and natural gas (those three sources account for 93 percent of China's energy).

http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=CH

Countries all over the world have billions of gallons of untapped oil and gas reserves, and neither the supply nor the demand are in short supply.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Look, I want to solve the issues of today and work for better technology too. Any way you slice it, going green is going to be expensive.

I have a geothermal heating system, my house is energy star rated. I even installed a grey water system where my shower water flushes my toilets. I have had a solar water heater for 30 years. I can go off grid for months if I have to. I have a back up generator.

I grow and can my own fruit and vegetables, raise my own beef, make my own wine too.

I plant trees every year. I'm not unaware of my carbon footprint.

Good God what are you an ex hippy !

 

[Mathematician]

The oil and gas industry is one of the largest in China, by the way. China's not backing off of oil and gas one iota.

Just so you know.

China's natural gas consumption is rising by 20 percent each year.

China’s hunger for gas fuels hostile bid - FT.com

China is the fourth largest oil producing country in the world, and that production is growing in leaps and bounds. It is the second largest consumer of oil in the world and also the second largest importer of oil. If there weren't untapped resources, we'd be even more screwed.

China is the largest energy consumer in the world, and this energy is dominantly fueled by fossil fuels - coal, oil and natural gas (those three sources account for 93 percent of China's energy).

China - Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Countries all over the world have billions of gallons of untapped oil and gas reserves, and neither the supply nor the demand are in short supply.

Peak Oil has little to do with production alone; each month millions of more consumers who were "off the grid" are requiring access to energy sources in addition to the existing consumption patterns which are logarithmic.

But it's not purely economics: almost all research indicates that greenhouse gas emissions are impacting not only our environment but also the health of our species and the health of our food.

Alternative energy (wind, nuclear, solar, geothermal) is the future; if we don't invest in it while other countries do, we're not remaining competitive.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Peak Oil has little to do with production alone; each month millions of more consumers who were "off the grid" are requiring access to energy sources in addition to the existing consumption patterns which are logarithmic.

Kinda like our debt problem, it is unsustainable. We know we need to get off fossil fuels, we know we need to quit borrowing money but we are addicted.

But it's not purely economics: almost all research indicates that greenhouse gas emissions are impacting not only our environment but also the health of our species and the health of our food.

Some of this is debatable, but there is some truth to this as well.

Alternative energy (wind, nuclear, solar, geothermal) is the future; if we don't invest in it while other countries do, we're not remaining competitive.

But we have invested in it to no avail. You know why? because it is expensive.

You do realise we are in a recession and you want Obama to deny us dirty jobs and keep investing money we don't have on things we can't afford right now right?

 

[Kathryn]

Peak Oil has little to do with production alone; each month millions of more consumers who were "off the grid" are requiring access to energy sources in addition to the existing consumption patterns which are logarithmic.

But it's not purely economics: almost all research indicates that greenhouse gas emissions are impacting not only our environment but also the health of our species and the health of our food.

Alternative energy (wind, nuclear, solar, geothermal) is the future; if we don't invest in it while other countries do, we're not remaining competitive.

I didn't say we shouldn't also look for alternative fuel and energy sources, and develop them as well. It would be foolish not to do so. Who knows what other sources we may perfect?

 

[Kathryn]

By the way, my husband works in the oil and gas industry. The safeguards that the companies he works with implement when it comes to the environment are truly impressive. The regulations on this industry are massive and complex as well (not saying they shouldn't be). They recycle, they use biodegradable and "green" chemicals, and their safety and cleanup policies are very impressive.

I'm not saying there aren't mistakes made, or that there aren't some irresponsible people in the industry - that's true of any industry. But what I am saying is that it's not as if they are operating with a reckless, wild wild west mentality or careless with our environment as a whole.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I didn't say we shouldn't also look for alternative fuel and energy sources, and develop them as well. It would be foolish not to do so. Who knows what other sources we may perfect?

Thats what our young friend misses, change comes slowly if at all. I want a better mouse trap, but it has not been invented yet. When the better mouse trap gets here it better not cost ten times more than the reusable wooden one does or guess what people will buy?

 

[Kathryn]

Thats what our young friend misses, change comes slowly if at all. I want a better mouse trap, but it has not been invented yet. When the better mouse trap gets here it better not cost ten times more than the reusable wooden one does or guess what people will buy?

That's true.

I also remember when VCRs were new technology and they cost $600 each. Now we can buy one for $30 and we don't even want them anymore.

Necessity is the mother of invention. I believe that most people are aware that oil and gas are finite fuel sources. I also believe that there's enough of a promise of return on investment for capitalists, private individuals and companies to continue to research and develop possible alternatives to our fossil fuel based economies.

Meanwhile, though, we continue to discover oil and and natural gas all over the world, and technology continues to advance allowing us more and continued access to those resources. I don't believe that we should ignore the resources that we have available -OR ignore the reality that we need some backup sources of energy as well.

What I am opposed to is the demonization of the fossil fuel industries. We NEED that fuel and they're providing it to us. No need to cut off our nose to spite our face. We have some of the lowest oil and gas prices in the world in the US - and some very large reserves of fossil fuels beneath our feet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By the way, my husband works in the oil and gas industry. The safeguards that the companies he works with implement when it comes to the environment are truly impressive. The regulations on this industry are massive and complex as well (not saying they shouldn't be). They recycle, they use biodegradable and "green" chemicals, and their safety and cleanup policies are very impressive.

I'm not saying there aren't mistakes made, or that there aren't some irresponsible people in the industry - that's true of any industry. But what I am saying is that it's not as if they are operating with a reckless, wild wild west mentality or careless with our environment as a whole.

The environmental impacts of an oil pipeline aren't just a function of its operation; it also has to be constructed.

Even an organic daisy garden would have significant environmental impacts if it was 1700 miles long and dug through sensitive natural areas and people's homes.

 

[Falvlun]

Thats what our young friend misses, change comes slowly if at all. I want a better mouse trap, but it has not been invented yet. When the better mouse trap gets here it better not cost ten times more than the reusable wooden one does or guess what people will buy?

The better mousetrap has been invented. The problem is that the factory for it has not yet been built-- hence the reason the new and improved mousetrap is so expensive. And the factory hasn't been built because the old mousetrap factories are bending all their political and economic force to make sure that it doesn't get built, and drive them out of business.

The reason green energy is expensive is not because we don't know how to do it. It's because the infrastructure is not yet there. Invest the money in the infrastructure-- hey, you're willing to invest money and faith into this pipeline for maybe 5,000 people to have jobs for two years-- and the price will come down and the effectiveness will go up. If jobs are so important that you are willing to invest money into old, dirty, and damaging technology, then why aren't they important enough to invest into new, clean, and progressive technology?

Obviously, the telegraph wouldn't have caught on if people weren't willing to buy into it, and string the wires across the continent. Imagine where we'd be if the Pony Express had bigger lobbying powers!

 

[Reverend Rick]

The better mousetrap has been invented. The problem is that the factory for it has not yet been built-- hence the reason the new and improved mousetrap is so expensive. And the factory hasn't been built because the old mousetrap factories are bending all their political and economic force to make sure that it doesn't get built, and drive them out of business.

The reason green energy is expensive is not because we don't know how to do it. It's because the infrastructure is not yet there. Invest the money in the infrastructure-- hey, you're willing to invest money and faith into this pipeline for maybe 5,000 people to have jobs for two years-- and the price will come down and the effectiveness will go up. If jobs are so important that you are willing to invest money into old, dirty, and damaging technology, then why aren't they important enough to invest into new, clean, and progressive technology?

Obviously, the telegraph wouldn't have caught on if people weren't willing to buy into it, and string the wires across the continent. Imagine where we'd be if the Pony Express had bigger lobbying powers!

I'm not willing to invest, we as a country are broke.

I'm for letting private industry invest in Keystone just as I am for green technology too. The government needs to get out of the way.

 

[Falvlun]

I'm not willing to invest, we as a country are broke.

I'm for letting private industry invest in Keystone just as I am for green technology too. The government needs to get out of the way.

The thing is, the infrastructure for much of the "old" way is needing to be repaired anyway. We're already spending the money on old technology, when better is to be had. (Not to mention all those tax credits for the oil companies-- or does that not count as "investing" or "being in the way"?)

Also, this is the sort of policy that's leaving America in the dust. Instead of being innovators, the developers of the next leap in human ingenuity, we are going to be the backwards yokels, looking for scraps from those who are-- like China.

You know why the American car industry came to the brink of collapse? Because they didn't get the green message, and fought it tooth and nail. So while they were still producing their gas guzzlers, Toyota et al were creating the smaller, fuel efficient vehicles that *gasp* the rest of the world and eventually Americans, wanted. We got left behind. I'm sick of being left behind.

 

[work in progress]

The oil and gas industry is one of the largest in China, by the way. China's not backing off of oil and gas one iota.

Just so you know.

China's natural gas consumption is rising by 20 percent each year.

China’s hunger for gas fuels hostile bid - FT.com

China is the fourth largest oil producing country in the world, and that production is growing in leaps and bounds. It is the second largest consumer of oil in the world and also the second largest importer of oil.

China is the largest energy consumer in the world, and this energy is dominantly fueled by fossil fuels - coal, oil and natural gas (those three sources account for 93 percent of China's energy).

China - Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Countries all over the world have billions of gallons of untapped oil and gas reserves, and neither the supply nor the demand are in short supply.

You're dead wrong on that last point! Why do you think the oil companies are digging up the tar sands and trying to turn it into useable oil products? It's been sitting there all along, and was only used for paving roads until the conventional oil started running out. It's the same thing with expensive deep sea drilling rigs that are going more than two miles under the ocean floor to get at oil deposits. This is an act of desperation of an economic system that runs on consuming increasing amounts of cheap energy. 90% of the world's oil which has been used so far, has been consumed since 1960. First, they went after the cheap, easy to get oil with the highest energy-return-on-energy-invested numbers - EROEI, and as the years have gone by, an oil-based economy has to go for deposits which require more energy to extract, upgrade and refine.

MOst of China's increasing energy demands are being used to expand manufacturing operations to make consumer products for U.S. and other markets. Therefore, if your concern about China's growing oil consumption and imports is more than rhetorical, I would suggest solving it by supporting the moratorium on Keystone XL and the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines. Without the pipelines, big oil's dream of turning Northern Alberta into the next Saudi Arabia does a faceplant! And without that oil coming online, oil prices are going to rise to a level where the Neoliberal experiment in globalization comes to an end! Industry and agriculture will become re-localized and have a lower carbon footprint than today's wasteful system of mass production and mass distribution.

 

[Kathryn]

You're dead wrong on that last point!

Nope. New oil reserves and gas shales are being discovered on a regular basis. Just here in the US, recent discoveries include the Marcellas, Haynesville, and Brown Dense shales, and business is BOOMING in these areas. Estimates of natural gas reserves in the US are 35% higher than they were in 2006 and the figures keep growing with each new discovery. In fact, in 2009 natural gas production increased by 54 percent!
Shale gas in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this is just in the US - I'm not even including reserves being discovered world wide.
Shale gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you think the oil companies are digging up the tar sands and trying to turn it into useable oil products? It's been sitting there all along, and was only used for paving roads until the conventional oil started running out. It's the same thing with expensive deep sea drilling rigs that are going more than two miles under the ocean floor to get at oil deposits. This is an act of desperation of an economic system that runs on consuming increasing amounts of cheap energy. 90% of the world's oil which has been used so far, has been consumed since 1960.

Sorry but you're dead wrong on that last point. Where are you getting that figure? Source please.

Experts know that we have, literally, barely scratched the surface when it comes to the oil that the earth has to offer.
Oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That being said, we HAVE tapped much of the "easy" oil - that we KNOW about. But there are vast amounts of oil that is more difficult to reach. However, as technology advances and more discoveries of oil pockets are made, it is reasonable to believe that we will be able to extract more oil for many decades to come.

As for the tar sands, why WOULDN'T we want to continue to explore uses for it as technology continues to grow?

Of COURSE we need to continue to research and determine and develop alternative sources of energy. Always. So far, every single energy source we've pinpointed is limited -either in supply or effectiveness.

First, they went after the cheap, easy to get oil with the highest energy-return-on-energy-invested numbers - EROEI, and as the years have gone by, an oil-based economy has to go for deposits which require more energy to extract, upgrade and refine.

Well, of course. Is there something wrong with this scenario? Why wouldn't anyone do that?

 

[work in progress]

Nope. New oil reserves and gas shales are being discovered on a regular basis. Just here in the US, recent discoveries include the Marcellas, Haynesville, and Brown Dense shales, and business is BOOMING in these areas. Estimates of natural gas reserves in the US are 35% higher than they were in 2006 and the figures keep growing with each new discovery. In fact, in 2009 natural gas production increased by 54 percent!
Shale gas in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Very few of these deposits have truly been "discovered" in recent years. Oil company geologists knew of most of these shale gas and shale oil deposits decades ago. How many times did simple farmers discover natural gas venting into their wells after they dug them? The problems with shale gas are already well documented, such as leaking into aquifers. Check out the movie "Gasland" for examples of rural residents who have so much gas coming up through their pipes that they can set their tap water on fire! It has also been noted recently that many fracking operations so far are leading to minor earthquakes, tremors, and uncontrolled methane leaks out of the ground -- the most dangerous greenhouse gas of all. But, be that as it may, natural gas makes a poor choice for a transportation fuel, since it has to be compressed and is highly flammable. It also burns hotter, and expected engine life is cut in half. And how are airplanes going to fly on natural gas?

Sorry but you're dead wrong on that last point. Where are you getting that figure? Source please.

With total oil reserves estimated to be around 1,800 to 2,200 billion barrels, about 1,080 billion barrels have been extracted between the beginnings of commercial exploitations in 1860 and 2005. Another 1,500-1,600 billion barrels thus remain to be extracted, of which 1,000 billion barrels are proven reserves, the remaining 500-600 billion barrels consisting of reasonable assumptions. About 50% of all the petroleum consumption took place after 1984 and about 90% of all the petroleum that has ever been consumed was so after 1958. Under such circumstances, most of the remaining oil could be extracted by 2060.

World Annual Oil Production (1900-2009) and Peak Oil (2010)
​

Yes, alot of people are shocked when they see some of the numbers on resource and energy use that have risen faster than population growth over the last half century; but why should they be? Whether it's a liberal or a conservative who pose as the only alternatives for running an economy, the debate is always centered around "how do we restart the engine of economic growth?" And this is because both liberals and conservatives who are wedded to debt-financed currency systems and the massive borrowing needed to run globalized capitalism, have created economies that depend on annual growth of at least 3%. Anything less is stagnation, and leads to decline. And the narrow choice between Keynsians and Monetarists would be fine if we lived in an expanding world that would accommodate continuous growth, or we had cheap space travel to nearby worlds to keep taking away excess people....like what happened at the start of the Renaissance and the Age of Exploration. But, there are no more worlds to run to, and the alternative is either a cooperative approach to ensure that resources and ecological niches survive, or we have the dangerous and destructive fight for the spoils of war and the taking of resources from others....and I believe that is what is behind most of modern America's new militarism that has to keep looking for new conquests that are rich in oil or other resources.

Experts know that we have, literally, barely scratched the surface when it comes to the oil that the earth has to offer.
Oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That being said, we HAVE tapped much of the "easy" oil - that we KNOW about. But there are vast amounts of oil that is more difficult to reach. However, as technology advances and more discoveries of oil pockets are made, it is reasonable to believe that we will be able to extract more oil for many decades to come.

This is getting repetitive, but as already mentioned many times, that increasing EROEI number keeps adding financial and environmental costs to the economies. More and more of the economy has to be devoted to providing energy and other natural resources that are also running out btw.

As for the tar sands, why WOULDN'T we want to continue to explore uses for it as technology continues to grow?

Back in the early 70's, I recall several Popular Science and similar publications running cover stories on shale oil and how it could be extracted. It's exactly the same as the tar sands -- everyone knew it was there, but did not think it was worth more than providing asphalt for paving roads. It's the cost (EROEI) of these deposits, the ecological damage from extraction, and their high carbon footprint that kept them off the oil market until now.

Tar sands oil extraction and development produces three times the carbon emissions of standard oil, and it even has a higher carbon output in energy costs to move the crud through oil pipelines. So far, less than 3% of the known available tar sands deposits have been extracted, and most people who live in Alberta's Northern Boreal Forest, and along the proposed pipeline routes for dirty oil want to keep it that way! Two or three barrels of fresh water are used for the production of each barrel of what they are calling "oil" and the runoff goes into massive tailing ponds that already dwarf the sludge ponds of so called "clean coal" electric generating stations, like that one that the TVA owned which broke and contaminated a section of the Tennessee Valley that had the misfortune of being downstream. Time and time again, the proponents of these systems live far away from the site. In Tennessee, it was mostly poor, rural farmers who were downstream and had their lands ruined; in Alberta, it is Northern Cree and other Aboriginal nations that are very poor and don't have large sums of money to lobby for their interests, which will have their land destroyed by an expansion of tar sands developments.

 

[Storm]

Where are the Obama supporters?

Wondering what the hell anything in the OP has to do with religion.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Wondering what the hell anything in the OP has to do with religion.

Obama's green religion. :bow:

 

[Reverend Rick]

Yes, being a green President is a religion. The government has spent billions on the Chevy Volt and sold less than 10,000 of them.

The very first sentance of the very first post.

 

[Kathryn]

/quote]

Very few of these deposits have truly been "discovered" in recent years. Oil company geologists knew of most of these shale gas and shale oil deposits decades ago. How many times did simple farmers discover natural gas venting into their wells after they dug them?

Sorry but...so what? Oil has been around for millions of years - we just didn't posess the technology to use it or see it's value.

The problems with shale gas are already well documented, such as leaking into aquifers. Check out the movie "Gasland" for examples of rural residents who have so much gas coming up through their pipes that they can set their tap water on fire!

No thanks. Though the movie is well regarded from an artistic point of view, it's well known that it is also scientifically inaccurate and agenda -driven.

But, be that as it may, natural gas makes a poor choice for a transportation fuel, since it has to be compressed and is highly flammable. It also burns hotter, and expected engine life is cut in half. And how are airplanes going to fly on natural gas?

This is all very interesting but I wasn't discussing natural gas as a transportation fuel. I said "energy source." It is a viable source of energy with many uses. And it's natural - unlike nuclear energy, for instance.

And abundant.

Yes, alot of people are shocked when they see some of the numbers on resource and energy

Maybe some people are shocked, but I'm not. With my husband's career depending on oil and gas, he and I stay as informed as possible.

In fact, he's currently working in the Marcellas shale. If you are truly interested in how oil and gas companies implement policies and practices in order to protect the environment, maybe you could write out your specific questions and I can pass them along to him to address. As an oilfield consultant with over 30 years of experience in fracking, he is a good source of first hand information.

Back in the early 70's, I recall several Popular Science and similar publications running cover stories on shale oil and how it could be extracted. It's exactly the same as the tar sands -- everyone knew it was there, but did not think it was worth more than providing asphalt for paving roads. It's the cost (EROEI) of these deposits, the ecological damage from extraction, and their high carbon footprint that kept them off the oil market until now.

Technology continues to advance, and supply and demand will continue to force us to develop and implement new innovations for energy sources, including but not limited to tar sands, gas shales, etc.

For the record, I agree that our research and development of energy sources should NOT be limited to what we know to be a finite energy source (fossil fuels). That would be incredibly stupid and short sighted.

Tar sands oil extraction and development produces three times the carbon emissions of standard oil, and it even has a higher carbon output in energy costs to move the crud through oil pipelines. So far, less than 3% of the known available tar sands deposits have been extracted, and most people who live in Alberta's Northern Boreal Forest, and along the proposed pipeline routes for dirty oil want to keep it that way! Two or three barrels of fresh water are used for the production of each barrel of what they are calling "oil" and the runoff goes into massive tailing ponds that already dwarf the sludge ponds of so called "clean coal" electric generating stations, like that one that the TVA owned which broke and contaminated a section of the Tennessee Valley that had the misfortune of being downstream. Time and time again, the proponents of these systems live far away from the site. In Tennessee, it was mostly poor, rural farmers who were downstream and had their lands ruined; in Alberta, it is Northern Cree and other Aboriginal nations that are very poor and don't have large sums of money to lobby for their interests, which will have their land destroyed by an expansion of tar sands developments

Be cautious when reading up on this topic - there's lots of hyperbole and exxageration out there from a wide variety of sources.

There are huge advances in ecological protection. For instance, my husband is working with a research and development company that is developing a method to clean and recycle the water used in fracking operations. I can't say more about it at this point, but let's just say it's very exciting and will probably be implemented in 2012. This is a huge step toward continuing to improve safety standards and practices and typical of the ongoing focus on protecting our environment, which is, contrary to some "sources" actually very important to the vast majority of oil and gas companies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Obama's green religion. :bow:

You asserting that environmentalism is a religion doesn't actually make it a religion.