Running out of OIL ??

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles Suitt @ May 13 2006, 02:59 PM) [snapback]254828[/snapback]</div>

Good, cause I don't live right by the coast, but pretty close to it. With the ice caps melting, eventually, I'll have prime coastal real estate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles Suitt @ May 13 2006, 03:59 PM) [snapback]254828[/snapback]</div>

Stossel always comes up with this bizzare stuff. The oil sands haven't been extracted yet because of the
cost and energy it would take to remove the oil.

"100 years of oil for the USA" - subtract the oil sold to other countries, energy lost in extraction and transportation to the states. How much do you think we would actually end up with?
<_<

 

A solution to a problem cannot use the same methods that caused the problem in the first place.

It is neither energy nor cost effective to make use of tar sands. We can skip the whole process and mess by moving to renewables - solar, wind and hydro. We need more light rail transportation and less emphasis on individual vehicles. Tar sands are still hydrocarbons. Global climate change mandates we cut our costs by at least one-half by doubling our efficiency, not doing "more of the same."

 

A better idea yet: Let's raise fuel taxes and lower income taxes.

See: http://www.enn.com/aff.html?id=1289

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ May 13 2006, 01:25 PM) [snapback]254837[/snapback]</div>

Then, briefly, if you were lucky, an island. Then...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles Suitt @ May 13 2006, 03:59 PM) [snapback]254828[/snapback]</div>

That ain't news. Yeah, my High School physics teacher told us that years ago (hewas an engineer that use to work finding the stuff)

But consiter that the 100 year supply is only a 100 year supply if china and india do not exist.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles Suitt @ May 13 2006, 12:59 PM) [snapback]254828[/snapback]</div>

Nice. I don't hear anybody saying that. We will never "run out" of oil. It'll just be too hard to extract it.

When we started pulling oil out of the ground, we got a 300:1 ratio. We put in one unit of energy to get 300 units out. Those were the gold old days when the oil was just squirting out the easy holes. Today, we're down to about 8:1. At some point... certainly at 1:1, there's no more reason to use oil. I don't know what the ratio is for tar sands, but it is nowhere near as good as the 8:1 that we're "enjoying" now.

There will always be oil. We just won't have any reasonable way of getting it.... which is likely a good thing. If we managed to burn every damn drop of oil in this planet, we'd be screwed.

 

TOny... ROFL... just simple ROFL.... and so true!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ May 18 2006, 09:17 AM) [snapback]257428[/snapback]</div>

Love it except...

Why invade a country that already is in essence an appendage of ours?

However,

If we needed to invade canada:
1. we could use the Boy Scouts to invade - since canada has no military to speak of
2. we could enlist Quebecs help since they would only be too willing to stick it to the other canadians
3. we could just declare war and they would probably surrender given their lack of nationalism/patriotism.
4. we could just declare a military draft for all past and present felons/murderers and then let them all be free and then watch them move to canada - you know how canada loves American draft dodgers. this option would obviously take a little longer but be painless and real fun to watch . I love this one the best so far.
5. We can stop buying canadian produced goods and services for one year and switch all production to china/india/iraq - whatever - then let the people do it for us.
6. Declare canada our 51st state and offer them even more generous social and welfare programs than they now enjoy - that would work for sure since they dont like to; or
6a offer canadians an option to keep what they earn instead of giving it to the government

However before we invade we need to be certain that canada does have WMD's because there is doubt to be had because:
1. they cant afford to develop them.
2. they dont have the brainpower to do so with the mass migration of their young and educated to the US.
3. they dont believe in war, in maintaining a strong national defense posture.
4. they dont believe canada is worth defending, so why would they be willing to die conquering other lands??

But dont worry, by the time it comes to us deciding what to do - the UN will have taken care of it - for sure.

 

Darell, the net energy loss doesn't matter. They are building a nuclear power plant to extract the oil up there. Wouldn't it be nice just to put that electricity into batteries at the house instead?

Nate

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles Suitt @ May 13 2006, 03:59 PM) [snapback]254828[/snapback]</div>

Whoa, you just misssed a BIG problem with Canada's oil sands. Not only is the oil more expensive to extract from the oil sands, it is WAY more polluting! The extraction process involves burning large amounts of coal. This greatly increases carbon dioxide emissions (to say nothing of NOx, SO2, mercury, etc). CO2 is emitted not only when the oil/gas is burned but when it is produced. Some claim Canada has as much or more more oil in its oil sands as Saudi Arabia. Imagine what would happen to climate if we started using large amounts of it.

Over the past 400,000 years, ice core samples from around the world show atmospheric carbon concentrations have moved within a certain band. Average global temperature almost perfectly tracks atmospheric carbon concentrations. In the past 100 years, human carbon emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels, has increased atmospheric carbon to more than 30% higher than it's been at any time in the past 400,000 years. Large shifts in climate, such as the onset of ice ages, have accompanied much smaller shifts in atmospheric carbon than the one we've brought about. As a result, it is highly likely we've already set in motion a large climate shift that will be extremely disruptive to humanity. Using oil sands as a substantial source of oil supply will greatly increase global warming and be massively irresponsible to our children!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 18 2006, 10:02 AM) [snapback]257454[/snapback]</div>

Article keywords and LC subject headings for indexers:

Arrogance--US foreign policy (see Project for a New American Century--subheading "Full Spectrum Dominance"
Xenophobia--ibid
Ignorance--ibid
Hatred of US --reasons for (broader term - hate literature - internet)
Plagerism (ideas from shop- worn neocon talk radio)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles Suitt @ May 13 2006, 12:59 PM) [snapback]254828[/snapback]</div>

Since when are Canada's natural resources "For the USA"? Might they feel a little different? How would you feel if Canada looked upon a newly discovered oil field in Texas as "For Canada"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ May 18 2006, 11:57 AM) [snapback]257506[/snapback]</div>

You take things way too personally - I was just poking some fun - relax - take a deep breath....
But if you insist - you can start by refuting some of my points I made above or I can use your response as additional fodder:

Arrogence - US Foreign policy - at least we have a foreign policy people actually pay attention too.

Stupidity - the long held belief that just because we are neighbors we will always protect you and/or trade with you. Although recent evidence exists that canada is waking up by voting in a conservative government.

Xenophonia - tough one to comment on, so I'll give it to you showing that canada can actually win one every now and then - almost like the stanley cup.

Ignorance - the fact that the number of people from around the world who want to immigrate to canada is so small that the worlds ignorance must be so great. or having and allowing two totally separate cultures fail to assimilate.

Hatred of US - jealousy, a deep yearning or desire to be greater than it [canada] is and knowing that it will never be? Refer in part to Arrogence.

Remember, this was just for fun. I really dont mean any of it - just having toooo much fun.

Plagerism - I would cite something but that would be evidence in and of itself

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 18 2006, 12:27 PM) [snapback]257521[/snapback]</div>

Frankly, this level of discourse is not worth my time, except to point out that your xenophobic rant is exactly why Americans are often hated around the world. Your post is the evidence: I rest my case.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ May 18 2006, 01:25 PM) [snapback]257552[/snapback]</div>

Seriously, I am just having a little fun here. Relax, we can all get along here. Just poking some fun here. We are all Americans.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ May 18 2006, 12:22 PM) [snapback]257517[/snapback]</div>

Actually, according to a number of people here - we would just invade Canada (refer to my earlier post to see how much easier that would be than our current situation in Iraq)

Really actually - they would do what every other country would do with a natural resource in demand - put it on the open marketplace and get PAID for it. Then they could further support their socialistic policies that much better.

Or, in a really really actually, a good deal of their natural resources could be bought by American or multinational corporations - something that is/has being done.

And Canada can look at us is a way you described above - how about free national defense for them while we spend big bucks, how about jobs made in the USA, how about all the benefits they derrive by their proximity to us, how about the economic benefits of being our biggest trading partner (well at least until we move everything to India/China/Asia) ??

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 18 2006, 01:55 PM) [snapback]257571[/snapback]</div>

And permanent residents

And by the way, it is Canada, not canada. (Imagine me getting all nationalistic!)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naterprius @ May 18 2006, 07:50 AM) [snapback]257474[/snapback]</div>

Sounds like the Fuel Cell proponents.

"Battery EVs are bad because of all the coal power that will be needed to charge them."
"Fuel Cells are good because we'll make all the energy to create the H2 with green sources of electricity."

But wait a sec here, Nate... You telling us that it takes electricity to make gasoline? Come on.... I thought gasoline was a pure, clean form of energy. Nothing like that horrible coal electricity!