2.5 Trillion barrels of Oil Shale Oil

[Big Fitz]

Yes, there is an incredible amount of oil trapped in shale, and under the best of circumstances it can be captured and refined in the $80 - $90 range.

Where this shale is, isn't the best of circumstances for shale recovery, unless there is an underground aquifer nearby that hasn't been discovered yet, and somebody suddenly decides to donate an nuclear power plant nearby to produce the electricity to produce the steam from the aquifer to cook the oil out of the shale.

and just think. The price for finding, pumping and refining is only going to go down. Why? Because that's the way technology has worked from the beginning of time.

Experience begets wisdom.
Wisdom begets efficiency.
Efficiency begets economy.
Economy begets productivity.
Productivity begets Freedom.

 

[Toro]

There is lots of oil. Lots and lots of it.

What there is not a lot of is cheap oil that can be extracted easily. That includes oil from shale.

 

[Big Fitz]

There is lots of oil. Lots and lots of it.

What there is not a lot of is cheap oil that can be extracted easily. That includes oil from shale.

for now. and we haven't explored everywhere yet.

 

[JiggsCasey]

hi kids.

oil shale... not exactly oil...

Wiki: Oil shale, an organic-rich fine-grained sedimentary rock, contains significant amounts of kerogen (a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds) from which technology can be used to extract liquid hydrocarbons. The name oil shale is a misnomer as geologists would not necessarily classify the rock as a shale, and its kerogen differs from crude oil. Kerogen requires more processing to use than crude oil, which increases its cost as a crude-oil substitute both financially and in terms of its environmental impact.[1][2] Deposits of oil shale occur around the world, including major deposits in the United States of America. Estimates of global deposits range from 2.8 trillion to 3.3 trillion barrels (450 × 109 to 520 × 109 m3) of recoverable oil.[2][3][4][5]
​

gosh, where IS the original poster on this issue? he was so passionate. ... let's us know when someone figures out how to use oil shale to make unleaded gasoline, plastics, rubber, etc., on a mass commercial scale.

 

[Eightball]

hi kids.

oil shale... not exactly oil...

Wiki: Oil shale, an organic-rich fine-grained sedimentary rock, contains significant amounts of kerogen (a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds) from which technology can be used to extract liquid hydrocarbons. The name oil shale is a misnomer as geologists would not necessarily classify the rock as a shale, and its kerogen differs from crude oil. Kerogen requires more processing to use than crude oil, which increases its cost as a crude-oil substitute both financially and in terms of its environmental impact.[1][2] Deposits of oil shale occur around the world, including major deposits in the United States of America. Estimates of global deposits range from 2.8 trillion to 3.3 trillion barrels (450 × 109 to 520 × 109 m3) of recoverable oil.[2][3][4][5]
​

gosh, where IS the original poster on this issue? he was so passionate. ... let's us know when someone figures out how to use oil shale to make unleaded gasoline, plastics, rubber, etc., on a mass commercial scale.

He's still passionate about the topic.........and is still here.

The ability or technology is here now...........at $80.00-$90.00/barrel.

Environmental impact is something that comes with any and all energy exploration/utilization.

I still remember when it was said that Lake Erie would take eons become clean, yet it has cleaned up much quicker than greenie/wingnuts had predicted.

We have the technology to mine the oil shale, process it and also to do land-restoration where it is strip mined.

I realize that a lot of strip mining of the past has laid-waste to areas, and polluted ground water tables, but good conservation along with mining is here and now.
******

Crimoney, there pulling large quantities of useable methane gas from old garbage landfills. In Toledo Ohio, there was a project where the Jeep plant was going to utilize landfill methane to power electric generation for the assembly plant.

 

[Big Fitz]

I still remember when it was said that Lake Erie would take eons become clean, yet it has cleaned up much quicker than greenie/wingnuts had predicted.

That is because of three things:

1. Lake Erie water completely recycles about ever 2-3 years.

2. It is the ONLY redeeming factor of Zebra Muscles which filter crap like crazy.

3. Econazis are fucking morons when it comes to their predictions. If something is 1000 years away, they'll tell you it'll happen next Friday at 8:24:31pm. If it's a million years out. I'll happen on a Tuesday sometime next year.

 

[The T]

There is lots of oil. Lots and lots of it.

What there is not a lot of is cheap oil that can be extracted easily. That includes oil from shale.

for now. and we haven't explored everywhere yet.

That is to say where it's been allowed.

 

[JiggsCasey]

The ability or technology is here now...........at $80.00-$90.00/barrel.

No, it isn't. Not in any scale that would sustain growth with surplus. I'm pretty sure I know where you're getting your figures, but the honest rate at which it's "cost effective" is more like $200/bl, and at that point, the global economy will have depressed to the point that demand will be crushed, and prices will only plummet anyway.

They've been working on the shale process for 40 years, and have gained about 1 yard. In all the time they've tried to make shale/sands work, they've managed to go from 1:1.5, to 1.8:1 EROEI. Wow! What progress!

It is never going to work, it is never going to sustain our paradigm of 85 million barrels per day, and it's never going to sustain industries of plastics, fertilizers, pesticides, rubber, refridgeration, etc., such that light crude does. To believe otherwise is to buy - hook, line and sinker - the rosie reports of the shale industry itself.

WAKE UP!

Environmental impact is something that comes with any and all energy exploration/utilization.

I still remember when it was said that Lake Erie would take eons become clean, yet it has cleaned up much quicker than greenie/wingnuts had predicted.

We have the technology to mine the oil shale, process it and also to do land-restoration where it is strip mined.

I realize that a lot of strip mining of the past has laid-waste to areas, and polluted ground water tables, but good conservation along with mining is here and now.

This is such a bunch of baseless crap. Please link to where you're getting your information, and hopefully not from shaleforall.com, or some such advocacy Web site. If you're hoping no one calls you on this empty assertion, you're going to lose. Let's analyze your data closely, after we consider the source. Up for that challenge?

There is no such thing as restoration in the wake of strip mining. Not in any honest sense of the explanation. There is also nothing you can do to fix the water table once you've polluted it with sulfur, mercury and other horrible carcinogens.

The technology required to "frack" this SYNTHETIC (or even to isolate and burn it via the in-situ process) from bitumen and/or kerogen rock and clay is EXTREMELY energy intensive, and they have not figured out a way to make it commercially viable in any way/shape/form, regardless of the price of light crude. This says nothing of the later refinement process of this heavy crap that is also insanely expensive compared to refining light crude.

Why do you think Exxon pulled out of the shale failure in 1982? They knew the score.

If shale oil and tar sands were at all viable on a mass commercial scale, it would have been done so... Long ago. ... It's not, and it won't. ... Net investment is leaving, not joining, the cause.

 

[Big Fitz]

Why do you think Exxon pulled out of the shale failure in 1982? They knew the score.

So... Exxon is still using 28 year old technology and techniques? No wonder. I guess they won't be able to compete with those using modern technology. Somebody very soon is going to go "Wyatt" out there in Colorado. Only a matter of time.

Don't know who Wyatt is? Read "Atlas Shrugged".

 

[Big Fitz]

They've been working on the shale process for 40 years, and have gained about 1 yard. In all the time they've tried to make shale/sands work, they've managed to go from 1:1.5, to 1.8:1 EROEI. Wow! What progress!

What do you propose instead? Ethanol or Biodiesel which has a EROEI of even less? And worse environmental impact to make?

 

[JiggsCasey]

What do you propose instead? Ethanol or Biodiesel which has a EROEI of even less? And worse environmental impact to make?

Neither. I propose sensible conservation methods, first and foremost, which MAY buy us the extra decade needed to allow innovation to catch up.

When you're done trotting out laughable straw-man arguments and displaying perpetual cognitive dissonance, I'll be back later today or tomorrow to deal with your laughable response in the other thread.

You a hope-based flat earther who's, ironically, hopeless to ever come around. That much is clear. But this is really for anyone reading your goofiness who might otherwise actually buy your pap if no one holds it accountable.

 

[Big Fitz]

I love it. We who deny the leftist lies are the flat earthers.

I propose sensible conservation methods, first and foremost, which MAY buy us the extra decade needed to allow innovation to catch up.

Hope much? BTW, there has never been a time where mankind has ever 'conserved' its way out of an energy source. It just doesn't work. The only way you can do this level of conservation is to start murdering MILLIONS of people by disease or starvation. War is very energy intensive, so you can't do that... unless you're talking nuclear.

And to top it off, you HOPE, unproven, unstable energy sources that we currently have will shoulder the load. Plus, how you going to replace all the plastics and chemicals and other materials based on petroleum we use to make life on this planet possible? How you going to get your hydrogen since it is currently harvested from the best source of hydrogen dense materials... OIL!!!

When you're done trotting out laughable straw-man arguments and displaying perpetual cognitive dissonance, I'll be back later today or tomorrow to deal with your laughable response in the other thread.

Oh boy! I'm sure some Chicken Littles are hoping you can rebuild their faith. You're pushing perpetual motion Jiggles. So you can go find those who support your point of view and assuage your tortured psyche by telling you, bad math trumps basic logic, a historical trend of wrong predictions and the fact your solutions are no solutions at all for billions of people, unless you count mass extermination. Sucks to be them I guess.

I'll help you out though and maybe some speck of reality will sink in.

1. (problem existence)How can you say we've got no more oil and it's all been discovered when oil companies have been either politically or technologically prevented from searching more than 70% of the Earth's Surface? Them oceans is big. Them politicians are very NIMBY.

2. (solution functionality) Since there are only two sources of electrical power capable of supporting the US infrastructure, Coal and Nuclear and still be able to grow, how do you propose to replace this with far far far less capable and dependable sources? Will you shut down econazi law suits and interference stopping all capital power grid improvements like transmission lines even from 'green' sources like wind and solar? Do you agree that T. Boone Pickens is right that Wind is NOT viable?

3. (transportation) How do you conquer the portable fuel problems for transportation? Electricity works for trains and light cars, but it cannot work at current technological levels for heavy transport for road freight which is a key lynchpin to global society. How will you power aircraft when Hydrogen requires petroleum and you can't use electricity?

Just see if you can get through these logic problems first.

 

[Big Fitz]

Wow... the crickets are deafening.

 

[Old Rocks]

Them oceans is very big, and now one of them is very dirty.

Come on, Fritz, altogether now, Drill, baby, Drill.

 

[Big Fitz]

Them oceans is very big, and now one of them is very dirty.

Come on, Fritz, altogether now, Drill, baby, Drill.

I'm sorry, what's the size of the Gulf of Mexico, and what's the size of the spill? Yes it's bad, but let's not lie about the scale here. The spill probably won't even reach the atlantic.

Now, fun little surpise today. I met a guy who overheard me and others talking about the oil spill. The guy interjected himself into the conversation (oh noes! Personal contact can't be trusted! It has no truthiness unless its from the interwebz!) to talk about his personal experience with the clean up effort and aftermath of the Exxon Valdez.

He stated that the areas that he worked on the clean up effort are still dead As in doornails. But the areas that were NOT cleaned by man have bounced back nicely. When he looked into it, he found out that the detergents used killed off the greatest cleaning tool the ocean has for oil: Plankton. The plankton, he stated, eats the oil, and then the fish and other creatures eat them. In this method the ocean had metabolized much of the oil slick allowing the area to bounce back while the manmade 'clean' areas are still dead or barely recovering.

All this on the heels of Rush Limbaugh IIRC reporting on a study pointing out that cleaning chemicals harm the environmnt worse than the oil spills.

Maybe we should let mother nature handle the clean up on this one too.

And yes. Drill, baby drill. Unless you're some sort of an anti-human luddite.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Wow... the crickets are deafening.

Hey there pumpkin, let's understand something early on in our blossoming relationship: I don't spend every waking moment of every day on here like you do. If I don't respond right away, rest assured it's because I've forgotten about your dime-a-dozen fossil fuel views, and not visited the site in a while. I've been busy with real world stuff, like making sure Cape Wind passed, thanks.

In short, I don't duck pablum like yours. If I see, I'm happy to hammer it.

I love it. We who deny the leftist lies are the flat earthers.

No, you're flat earthers because you talk like flat earthers. There's really no agenda behind the acknowledgement whatsoever... Further, I'm not a "leftist," and I'm not sure of what lies you're even referring to.

Hope much? BTW, there has never been a time where mankind has ever 'conserved' its way out of an energy source. It just doesn't work.

What does this even mean, exactly? "Conserved it's way out of an energy source?" Proofread your work before hitting "submit."

If you mean an "energy crisis," quantify your claim. What past energy crisis? This is an unprecedented situation that you can not compare anything to from the past, making your assertion an unfalsifiable claim. Do better. Hollow cliche might work for you with other posters, but not here.

The only way you can do this level of conservation is to start murdering MILLIONS of people by disease or starvation. War is very energy intensive, so you can't do that... unless you're talking nuclear.

The only way? Based on what? Your opinion? LOL. ... Regardless, dieoff is inevitable, whether conjured by man or forced by mother nature... Learn about the exponential function and tell me how a planet of 7+ billion people is sustainable. .... Regardless, who's arguing that demand destruction isn't already well under way? Certainly not me, so it appears you're arguing with your own straw man again. How do you think the summer 2008 oil price spikes were halted and reversed? Demand destruction.... by way of global recession/depression. Energy dictates to the markets, not the other way around.

And to top it off, you HOPE, unproven, unstable energy sources that we currently have will shoulder the load.

I do? Where? At what point did I insist anything would "shoulder any load?"

Plus, how you going to replace all the plastics and chemicals and other materials based on petroleum we use to make life on this planet possible? How you going to get your hydrogen since it is currently harvested from the best source of hydrogen dense materials... OIL!!!

You seem to have a real problem understanding my position on this matter, entirely. I'll be less subtle, so you can hopefully stop assigning straw man arguments I've never uttered. Ready?

As "Industrial Man," we're largely fucked. That's the whole point. There is no substitute for the versatility that oil provides -- rubber, plastics, pesticides, fertilizers, computer chips, medicines, refrigeration, etc. ... What only matters is mitigating this predicament so as to avoid full-blown resource war. Life is going to change very rapidly over the next 15-20 years, and no amount of shale or tar sands is going to change that. People better learn to conserve, and get very local in the process. ... This isn't a choice, it's mother nature talking. ...

Your shale/sands pipedream will never become economically viable on a mass commercial scale in time to stave off the major energy shock that is already started, and due for full-on 10 million bpd shortball by 2015. .... Sorry, it just won't.

Do you have any idea what a 10 million barrel per day shortfall will mean for the global economy, as predicted by the IEA, EIA, DoE and Joint Chiefs? ... Let's just say, no one will have the money to invest in the next 1-yard gain by oil shale here on 4th-and-25.

Oh boy! I'm sure some Chicken Littles are hoping you can rebuild their faith. You're pushing perpetual motion Jiggles. So you can go find those who support your point of view and assuage your tortured psyche by telling you, bad math trumps basic logic, a historical trend of wrong predictions and the fact your solutions are no solutions at all for billions of people, unless you count mass extermination. Sucks to be them I guess.

See above, smarmy one. And do let me know where I EVER ONCE suggested there were "solutions" to this situation. Only mitigation.

I'll help you out though and maybe some speck of reality will sink in.

You'll "help me out?" Dude, I'm dumber for having to absorb your naive, long-debunked pablum regarding heavy oils.

1. (problem existence)How can you say we've got no more oil and it's all been discovered when oil companies have been either politically or technologically prevented from searching more than 70% of the Earth's Surface? Them oceans is big. Them politicians are very NIMBY.

My God. It's like you can't read. Where did I say "we've got no more oil?" This is about the end of cheap energy, and cost and EROEI. If you miraculously find a trillion barrels 100 miles under the Earth, who's going to invest the capital and develop the technology in time to get it to the surface before shortfall, which is here now? It takes 7-10 years to find the stuff and get it into your gas tank, and that's just the easy stuff on dry land in stable regions.

We're an empire built on an EROEI of 100:1 to 20:1 until we peaked in 1971. Now global production is yielding closer to 4:1 on investment,and getting worse. Energy IS the economy. Is has allowed us to be where we are. Empire.

Do you see how energy depletion up against population explosion can't sustain an economic paradigm utterly dependent on "infinite growth?" It's fairly basic stuff here. This is about economics, not running dry at the pump overnight.

Again... learn about the exponential function by a physics professor.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyOw9IgtjY&feature=PlayList&p=5A77AC29E2E95E23&index=2&playnext=3&playnext_from=PL[/ame]

2. (solution functionality) Since there are only two sources of electrical power capable of supporting the US infrastructure, Coal and Nuclear and still be able to grow, how do you propose to replace this with far far far less capable and dependable sources? Will you shut down econazi law suits and interference stopping all capital power grid improvements like transmission lines even from 'green' sources like wind and solar? Do you agree that T. Boone Pickens is right that Wind is NOT viable?

Once again, there are no "solutions" that will allow us to maintain the lifestyles we now enjoy. No where did I suggest renewables could "replace" anything. But the more renewable infrastructure that is in place for when collapse hits, the better off we'll be as individual communities. I'm not coming at this from a position of sustaining our gluttony. That is impossible. You seem to believe that digging deeper for more disgusting fossil fuels is the "solution." I'm saying there are no solutions. ... The mantra by the Michael Ruppert's of the world is "evolve or perish; grow up or die." ...It's a fitting one when faced with people, like you, who insist we can just burn our way out of this problem.

3. (transportation) How do you conquer the portable fuel problems for transportation? Electricity works for trains and light cars, but it cannot work at current technological levels for heavy transport for road freight which is a key lynchpin to global society. How will you power aircraft when Hydrogen requires petroleum and you can't use electricity?

I don't propose any of it. Breakdown in commercial food distribution will be the biggest contributor to dieoff. The age of the 10,000 mile Caesar salad will be over. .... Communities will have to get very local, or cease to exist.... One last time... there is no "conquering" this situation. .... Maybe if we started to get serious about this 30 years ago when warned, but it's largely too late after decades of corporate presidents.

Just see if you can get through these logic problems first.

Logic problems. Now there's some irony, from a poster who honestly believes we've made any substantial progress in bitumen and kerogen-based heavy oil extraction and refinement. Good one.

In conclusion: demand is already outstripping supply, has since 2005, and nothing -- NOTHING -- is remotely ready to make up for that shortfall. The IEA expects a 10 million barrel per day shortfall by 2015, which be disastrous on a Biblical scale. Prices will spike, the global economy will crash (starting to already), and resource war will become likely.

I've accepted it, mainly because all the signs predicted to occur by now 7-10 years ago have all come true. May as well build some damn turbines. Grab a hammer.

But you're free to link to all the optimistic sites you can find insisting great, 1-yard advances in shale by strip mining and burning the Rocky Mountains. Surely dirtier, far more expensive fossil fuels will somehow save everything we hold sacred -- from the internet to our yachts to our guns to our humvees.

 

[sitarro]

Wow... the crickets are deafening.

Hey there pumpkin, let's understand something early on in our blossoming relationship: I don't spend every waking moment of every day on here like you do. If I don't respond right away, rest assured it's because I've forgotten about your dime-a-dozen fossil fuel views, and not visited the site in a while. I've been busy with real world stuff, like making sure Cape Wind passed, thanks.

In short, I don't duck pablum like yours. If I see, I'm happy to hammer it.

I love it. We who deny the leftist lies are the flat earthers.

No, you're flat earthers because you talk like flat earthers. There's really no agenda behind the acknowledgement whatsoever... Further, I'm not a "leftist," and I'm not sure of what lies you're even referring to.



What does this even mean, exactly? "Conserved it's way out of an energy source?" Proofread your work before hitting "submit."

If you mean an "energy crisis," quantify your claim. What past energy crisis? This is an unprecedented situation that you can not compare anything to from the past, making your assertion an unfalsifiable claim. Do better. Hollow cliche might work for you with other posters, but not here.



The only way? Based on what? Your opinion? LOL. ... Regardless, dieoff is inevitable, whether conjured by man or forced by mother nature... Learn about the exponential function and tell me how a planet of 7+ billion people is sustainable. .... Regardless, who's arguing that demand destruction isn't already well under way? Certainly not me, so it appears you're arguing with your own straw man again. How do you think the summer 2008 oil price spikes were halted and reversed? Demand destruction.... by way of global recession/depression. Energy dictates to the markets, not the other way around.



I do? Where? At what point did I insist anything would "shoulder any load?"



You seem to have a real problem understanding my position on this matter, entirely. I'll be less subtle, so you can hopefully stop assigning straw man arguments I've never uttered. Ready?

As "Industrial Man," we're largely fucked. That's the whole point. There is no substitute for the versatility that oil provides -- rubber, plastics, pesticides, fertilizers, computer chips, medicines, refrigeration, etc. ... What only matters is mitigating this predicament so as to avoid full-blown resource war. Life is going to change very rapidly over the next 15-20 years, and no amount of shale or tar sands is going to change that. People better learn to conserve, and get very local in the process. ... This isn't a choice, it's mother nature talking. ...

Your shale/sands pipedream will never become economically viable on a mass commercial scale in time to stave off the major energy shock that is already started, and due for full-on 10 million bpd shortball by 2015. .... Sorry, it just won't.

Do you have any idea what a 10 million barrel per day shortfall will mean for the global economy, as predicted by the IEA, EIA, DoE and Joint Chiefs? ... Let's just say, no one will have the money to invest in the next 1-yard gain by oil shale here on 4th-and-25.



See above, smarmy one. And do let me know where I EVER ONCE suggested there were "solutions" to this situation. Only mitigation.



You'll "help me out?" Dude, I'm dumber for having to absorb your naive, long-debunked pablum regarding heavy oils.



My God. It's like you can't read. Where did I say "we've got no more oil?" This is about the end of cheap energy, and cost and EROEI. If you miraculously find a trillion barrels 100 miles under the Earth, who's going to invest the capital and develop the technology in time to get it to the surface before shortfall, which is here now? It takes 7-10 years to find the stuff and get it into your gas tank, and that's just the easy stuff on dry land in stable regions.

We're an empire built on an EROEI of 100:1 to 20:1 until we peaked in 1971. Now global production is yielding closer to 4:1 on investment,and getting worse. Energy IS the economy. Is has allowed us to be where we are. Empire.

Do you see how energy depletion up against population explosion can't sustain an economic paradigm utterly dependent on "infinite growth?" It's fairly basic stuff here. This is about economics, not running dry at the pump overnight.

Again... learn about the exponential function by a physics professor.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyOw9IgtjY&feature=PlayList&p=5A77AC29E2E95E23&index=2&playnext=3&playnext_from=PL]YouTube - The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 3 of 8)[/ame]



Once again, there are no "solutions" that will allow us to maintain the lifestyles we now enjoy. No where did I suggest renewables could "replace" anything. But the more renewable infrastructure that is in place for when collapse hits, the better off we'll be as individual communities. I'm not coming at this from a position of sustaining our gluttony. That is impossible. You seem to believe that digging deeper for more disgusting fossil fuels is the "solution." I'm saying there are no solutions. ... The mantra by the Michael Ruppert's of the world is "evolve or perish; grow up or die." ...It's a fitting one when faced with people, like you, who insist we can just burn our way out of this problem.

3. (transportation) How do you conquer the portable fuel problems for transportation? Electricity works for trains and light cars, but it cannot work at current technological levels for heavy transport for road freight which is a key lynchpin to global society. How will you power aircraft when Hydrogen requires petroleum and you can't use electricity?

I don't propose any of it. Breakdown in commercial food distribution will be the biggest contributor to dieoff. The age of the 10,000 mile Caesar salad will be over. .... Communities will have to get very local, or cease to exist.... One last time... there is no "conquering" this situation. .... Maybe if we started to get serious about this 30 years ago when warned, but it's largely too late after decades of corporate presidents.

Just see if you can get through these logic problems first.

Logic problems. Now there's some irony, from a poster who honestly believes we've made any substantial progress in bitumen and kerogen-based heavy oil extraction and refinement. Good one.

In conclusion: demand is already outstripping supply, has since 2005, and nothing -- NOTHING -- is remotely ready to make up for that shortfall. The IEA expects a 10 million barrel per day shortfall by 2015, which be disastrous on a Biblical scale. Prices will spike, the global economy will crash (starting to already), and resource war will become likely.

I've accepted it, mainly because all the signs predicted to occur by now 7-10 years ago have all come true. May as well build some damn turbines. Grab a hammer.

But you're free to link to all the optimistic sites you can find insisting great, 1-yard advances in shale by strip mining and burning the Rocky Mountains. Surely dirtier, far more expensive fossil fuels will somehow save everything we hold sacred -- from the internet to our yachts to our guns to our humvees.

Hey Jiggs, what's your answer to population growth? It would appear that the people that traditionally vote for the Democrats are behind the vast amount of population growth....... especially, society robbing, government teet sucking, criminal breeding, drains on everything worth a shit population growth. The poorest, least educated legal and illegals are growing at ridiculous rates, what are you and your buddies that have all the answers going to do about it? It's not like they don't consume electricity and multiple forms of fossil fuel, we have the richest poor in the world. Most have cars, cell phones, big screen televisions and plenty of liquor and guns....... what they don't have is marketable skills or a desire to get them when it's so much easier to get the government handouts and steal from what the Democrats tell them are the evil rich. What the big plan?

 

[KissMy]

There is no energy crisis. We just need to import less.

Matt Simmons & T. Boone Pickens are full of shit & have helped Wall Street Bankers Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, & BP conspire to rip you off. We did not have global peak oil production in 2005 & did not have peak USA oil production in 1970s. Governments are restricting production. Global oil production in 2008 reached 87.3 mb/d. That exceeded these experts prediction of 85 mb/d in 2005.

Here are details about how Wall Street uses tank farms & tanker ships holding oil offshore along with other aspects of the ongoing Enron-ification of the entire energy system.

 

[Big Fitz]

::pens mouth... closes it again:::
:::rereads Jiggs' post:::



Nope. Not even worth talking to.

 

[JiggsCasey]

::pens mouth... closes it again:::
:::rereads Jiggs' post:::



Nope. Not even worth talking to.

that's because you've got nothing to offer.... especially after realizing you have a real problem representing my position accurately.

very well, Mr. Drebbin. Run along now.