I really think we need to get rid of middle east oil now -

[bill for obama]

Really -

We have about a trillion barrels of oil in shale - proven reserves in the United States.

Probably times 5 or more - if you looked at coal liquification.

Not a permanent solution - but enough to run Saudi Arabia et al out of business.

Gives time to find a more permanent solution and avoid a 3rd world war.

Increase cafe standards - conserve - I don't think we need the middle east anymore.

[wuushew]

1. I see you have completely ignored the environmental impact of such activities

well done, I shall enjoy the warm swampy paradise our carbon lust has caused. :sarcasm:

[bill for obama]

4. You know - if we end up in a fight over resources -

you won't have time to sweat anything.

It is going that way too.

[Captain Angry]

2. Not so much.

1: The #1 country we buy from is Canada.
2: The #3 country we buy from is Mexico.
3: Oil shale is terribly costly to extract oil from. Costly in price, and environmental impact.

We don't need to get off of Middle Eastern Oil, we need to get off of oil.


The data:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

[bill for obama]

5. I don't disagree in the end result -

Just the speed we need to get out.

And I have no problem with intermediate solution - especially to a problem like this - consequences like this.

[Captain Angry]

10. Cool deal.

There are far too many people who think that the only problem with oil is its origin.

Oil, like coal, has had its day. We have the technology and the need to move to non polluting sources of energy.

If it is in our national interest that we have electricity, then it should be in our national interest to be able to fully supply our electric needs in the most energy efficient and clean method possible.

If it is in our national interest that we have mobility, then it should be in our national interest to deploy a fully fault tolerant electrical grid, and electric vehicles. Transporting heavy goods is going to need diesel or jet-fuel for some time. But passenger transportation is easily done with electric vehicles.

Until we get the Bush types out of Washington, we're not going to see any progress on that front.

[bill for obama]

13. You understand - our cars right now - our trucks -

run on gas and diesel - there is no magic spell anyone can place over them and change it for years.

Maybe we don't have years.

[Captain Angry]

14. We have years.

It's not going to run out, or even get hard to find that soon.

There is spiking demand. There is flattening supply. These are both controllable.

I'm saying rather than wait and see what happens, that we need to actively get off of oil. Are we going to convert the old cars? Nope.

Neither is Japan, China, Germany, etc. There are millions of cars on the planet that are obsolete, but don't realize it yet.

New vehicles that are 100mpg can be released, tomorrow, but there is no incentive to do so. I have no doubt that Toyota has a 100mpg car sitting in a datafile right now. All they have to do is upload it to the factory, and away they go. But why would Toyota release something when the closest American car gets 40mpg?

This is bigger than the market. Which is why nations need to decide to do this, not the consumer.

[bill for obama]

15. How do you control diminishing supply??

You think China's demand is somehow manageble - and how fast you think we can get the existing car and truck fleet off the road??

And every single day we dump food supply into ethanol - food riots break out - NO -

The only thing "bigger than the market" - is our future as a country. It is real.

I am not willing to throw the United States into cardiac arrest over this - we can wean off.

[Captain Angry]

17. If anybody's growth is manageable, it's China's.

Their government still has extremely tight control over what cars hit the road, etc. But that's not important to this.

Ethanol is a disaster. Wasting our water and topsoil on automobiles is a great way to provoke food riots.

If we really want to get off of oil, there are ways.


Increasing MPG requirements - Car company tries to sell car under 35/35 city/highway and the new owner pays $5000 or something.

Reducing MPH - Other than Montana/Utah, is 75 MPH really needed?

Investment in mass transit in and between towns - When I was little, there were wires strung above the streets of Philadelphia where electric trolleys could maintain their power and go throughout the city. It existed, and can be improved so that it's aesthetically pleasing and more efficient.

[bill for obama]

18. We have no control at all over what they do or don't do -

you think.

[Captain Angry]

19. No, China's government can control their growth. That was my point.

They still have a very centralized system in many ways.

We don't need to control anybody. If we make our own moves toward fuel efficiency and reduce its use dramatically, the amount of oil we produce domestically would sustain us as we continue to reduce it further towards finally stopping its use in passenger vehicles.

[bill for obama]

21. We can't control what they do - and

We produce about a third of what we consume - think we can somehow conserve 2/3rds over night??

What happens if the 2/3rds get cut off - what then?? We have no back up.

Take a barrel of oil - the money in that barrel is in the gasoline - the rest - is byproduct. And what is really scary - we are even dependent on the damn byproducts at this point.

There is no grand solution here- just compromise to get to a grand solution. And it will take decades to get it - and the longer we wait the risk builds of "convergent interests" butting heads - and these interests - we both have nuclear weapons. Bad risk.

[Captain Angry]

23. I can't tell by your posts.

I think we agree that we need to stop using fuel, that there are solutions, and that they should be advanced.

Nothing whatsoever is going to change this year. Nothing is going to change next year, because no matter who takes office they'll have so much crap to fix from Bush's reign that they'll be too busy.

The market isn't going to embrace the change.

At this point, we wait. In reality it will probably be the EU that paves the way through their own measures that our companies will have to meet to do business there.

The USA does not exist in a vacuum. But we have the capability of leading if we choose to do so. It's just going to be a while before we can take a leadership role in this.

We're not going to see hyper efficient vehicles until consumers demand them. When SUVs still sell like hotcakes, the consumer demand isn't there yet. When SUV sales basically cease, you'll see the car companies stumbling over each other to release a more efficient vehicle. Toyota brought their small cars over. Chevy is considering the release of a very small car they sell around the world, but not here. Changes are taking place. It's not a fast process.

We have plenty of time to make the move if we start soon.

[Speck Tater]

3. There are limits to how fast oil can be extracted from shale.

It will never reach the millions of barrels per day required to displace M.E. oil. Plus it takes HUGE amounts of water, and water is getting almost as hard to find as oil.

[bill for obama]

8. You know HItler had a four plan to go to a synthetic fuel -

In the 1930s - he did it in three years - and with due respect - this is the 21st century, we have made technological advances he could not begin to imagine. He ran a war on two fronts and kept an economy going too!

I think it must take less than half the time.

Remember this - distribution system, refinining capabilites, end use - we don't have to change them at all.

I am not saying it is not a compromise - nor permanent solution - just removes a greater threat.

Economically more than viable - and quick. CUt food prices, dollar bleeding and put a lot of AMericans to work quickly. Keep money in the United States and simultaneously scre the middle east. A true "WIn- Win" situation in a way.

Anyway - avoids a war over resources and increases food output.

[Wiley50]

6. If there's so much oil in the mid east, how come there's so much friction there?

There's also a lot of sand

[Ilsa]

7. Businesses won't build the infrastructure to extract/refine oil from shale

unless it is to be used long enough or for a high enough price for payback. It isn't an overnight solution.

I agree that the day we don't need the ME any more will be a great day for the US.

[bill for obama]

11. Our government will have to give price guarantees to get

the investment - price guarantees about 3.7 a gallon price at the pump - my calculations.

And do it for 5 years too. That is all that is needed - cost one hell of a lot less than this war and guarantee we will not face another one there.

It will employ many people along the Ohio River - The reserves are there and in the west - mostly. The oil companies know where they are - they knew for years.

We will pay 3.70 a gallon for 5 years - and then + or - after that. And the money stays in the United States.

That simple - in a way.

[Extend a Hand]

9. Here is a recent (4/18/2008) discussion by a number of scientists

at the oildrum on a recently published study on the EROI of oil produced from shale and tar sands.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839
Professor Hall has been working in this area for over 30 years. Below are net energy analysis from Hall's group on the unconventional oil sources from tar sands and oil shaletwo resources that theoretically are enormous in energy scale, but practically are limited by flow rates, costs, and externalities.


Here were the conclusions of the study there were also many, many comments from scientists that participate on the oildrum forum.

Tar Sands

In conclusion, tar sands are an economically and energetically viable, although hardly ideal, approach to maintaining liquid fuel supplies. The most severe problem is probably their local and global environmental impact, and they are already impacting Canadian CO2 releases significantly. But the tar sands are unlikely to make a large impact on overall supply of liquid fuels because their supply is likely to be rate, rather than total resource limited. If the maximum rate were to grow to about 2 billion barrels a year this would approximately meet Canada’s demand and could leave relatively little for export if Canada’s production of conventional oil continues to decline. Achieving even this rate of production from tar sands is uncertain because of growing concerns about environmental impacts downstream and insufficient hydrogen and water.

Oil Shale

In conclusion, although shale oils represent a huge potential resource they have a history of “always a bridesmaid and never a bride” because as prices for oil increase the prices for extracting shale oil have increased as well. This history represents the very real problems of generating a useful product from the resource. The main problems include the distance of the shale from both the water and labor needed to extract it, the large environmental impact compared to conventional oil and the relatively low EROI . In addition, with both shale and tar sands there is some disagreement whether the in situ should be charged as an energy opportunity cost, (in the same sense that bagasse could be in sugar cane ethanol). Ultimately, the question is, if conventional oil becomes very scarce whether a resource such as shale oil will be developed regardless of cost.

My conclusion...I'll be surprised if either of these resources allow the USA to continue with business as usual.

[bill for obama]

12. Due respect- - he has no idea what he is talking about.

Where does he think those reserves really are - I am sure it will shock the hell out of him that the significant formations are indeed in the Ohio river valley. I know he is looking at western sources -which exist. Those were proven by private capital in the 1970s - you really think thats it - or more importantly - that little private concerns have any weight on interests of big multinationals??

Come on - you know they looked a little further don't you??

It is very profitable now - it just is.

[Extend a Hand]

16. huh????

who doesn't know what he is talking about?

I provided you a link to very detailed research on the topic of oil shale and tar sands and you reply back by talking about formations in the Ohio river valley??

Looked further at what?

Profitable compared to what?

[bill for obama]

20. I have read Hall before.

He has no idea the reserve capability in that river valley - his research stopped when the private exploratory companies folded in the west.

What is that they say - those that can do - do and those that can't - teach - isn't it?

He has no idea what happened after those private equity companies folded in the 80s- he could not.

As to profitability - in means -YOU CAN MAKE MONEY - Adam Smith stuff, wealth of nations, all that - - you know???

I don't mean to be cute -

Profitability compared to non recovery sources - ie sweet crude + 85 a barrel.

That is the break point - in my math.

[Extend a Hand]

22. you clearly didn't even read the paper

which is very recent work and does address in a limited fashion US deposits outside of the Green River formation(Ohio shale is considered to be a lower quality and more difficult to extract). The paper also includes a long bibliography of recent work on the topic of oil shale.

There are a number of companies currently working on improving the technology for extracting oil from shale (25 according to the DOE), but none yet producing oil from shale commercially yet-- so it's a wee bit early to tell the Saudi's to f*** off.

If you are really interested the topic, why don't you read the paper and the comments over at the oildrum many of the posters there are scientists currently working in various oil related fields.

[bill for obama]

24. Respectfully - I have read his work.

And respectfully - it is based on private small explorary companies with limited capital and abilities. No disrespect to him - it is just the only data he has.

I did not say Ohio you know - I just said in that river valley area.