Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming Equal to Entire World’s Proven Oil Reserves

[Jroc]

Ladies and Gentlemen: I have been labeled as a "loon", by Moses. Why? Because I understand gas exchange and pH balance.

Moses has questionable allegience.

I'm a hypochodriac, because I understand hyper and hypocarbia. He's angry at me because he "believe$" these politicians who say that carbon dioxide is "harmless". Not in your bu$ine$$ interest, Moses?

Since Michele Bachmann is one of the imbeciles (regarding science) who started this myth, (CO2 is harmless) I would like to see her volunteer to place a plastic bag over her head, and see how long she can endure hypoxia before she passes out, or suffocates. And afterward, I would like to hear her give the same speech proclaiming that CO2 is harmless. Oh, and her laughable estimation of the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. A quoted percentage that is incompatible with human life. That was the moment that I stopped taking her seriously.

Just like Moses, who didn't do his homework. He doesn't understand pH acidosis/alkalosis very well, or he wouldn't attack me by telling me that I'm crazy.

Loons like you have an inflated view of man's ability to change the climate, the more we squeeze business here in the U.S. the more manufacturing will be sent over to countries that have less stringent regulations thus defeating the purpose. Yes you're a loon and most people who read these posts can see it

The seasonal cycle clearly shows a terrestrial biomass (vegetation) source, as we expect from the seasonal cycle in Northern Hemispheric vegetation growth. The interannual variability looks more like it is driven by the oceans. The trends, however, are weaker than we would expect from either of these sources or from fossil fuels (which have a C13 signature similar to vegetation).

Secondly, the year-to-year increase in atmospheric CO2 does not look very much like the yearly rate of manmade CO2 emissions. The following figure, a version of which appears in the IPCC’s 2007 report, clearly shows that nature has a huge influence over the amount of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere every year

If temperature is indeed forcing CO2 changes, either directly or indirectly, then there should be a maximum correlation at zero months lag for the change of CO2 with time versus temperature (dCO2/dt = a + b*T would be the basic rate equation). And as can be seen in the above graph, the peak correlation between these two variables does indeed occur close to zero months.

And this raises an intriguing question:

If natural temperature changes can drive natural CO2 changes (directly or indirectly) on a year-to-year basis, is it possible that some portion of the long term upward trend (that is always attributed to fossil fuel burning) is ALSO due to a natural source?

After all, we already know that the rate of human emissions is very small in magnitude compared to the average rate of CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the surface (land + ocean): somewhere in the 5% to 10% range. But it has always been assumed that these huge natural yearly exchanges between the surface and atmosphere have been in a long term balance. In that view, the natural balance has only been disrupted in the last 100 years or so as humans started consuming fossil fuel, thus causing the observed long-term increase.

Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade

 

[bripat9643]

TOP 10 MOST POLLUTED CITIES IN THE WORLD - YouTube

Did you notice that none of these cities were in the United States or Western Europe? In fact, most of them were in the Socialists paradises that left-wing turds like you have been defending for decades.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numbnuts.

Only imbeciles believe we can live in an industrialized world with zero pollution. The only question: what is the acceptable level? Any rational person should be perfectly satisfied with curent levels.

Or maybe a flag waving imbecile like you.
Amazon destruction threatens Enawene Nawe tribe on Vimeo
Chevron challenges $18bn Ecuador fine - Americas - Al Jazeera English
Tar Sands in Alberta - YouTube
Air Pollution - YouTube

What does any of your propaganda have to do with the United States? If you're so concerned about mining tar sands, then go to Canada and whine to them about it. I'm sure they will have a good laugh after they run you out of the country at gun point.

 

[mskafka]

Ladies and Gentlemen: I have been labeled as a "loon", by Moses. Why? Because I understand gas exchange and pH balance.

Moses has questionable allegience.

I'm a hypochodriac, because I understand hyper and hypocarbia. He's angry at me because he "believe$" these politicians who say that carbon dioxide is "harmless". Not in your bu$ine$$ interest, Moses?

Since Michele Bachmann is one of the imbeciles (regarding science) who started this myth, (CO2 is harmless) I would like to see her volunteer to place a plastic bag over her head, and see how long she can endure hypoxia before she passes out, or suffocates. And afterward, I would like to hear her give the same speech proclaiming that CO2 is harmless. Oh, and her laughable estimation of the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. A quoted percentage that is incompatible with human life. That was the moment that I stopped taking her seriously.

Just like Moses, who didn't do his homework. He doesn't understand pH acidosis/alkalosis very well, or he wouldn't attack me by telling me that I'm crazy.

Loons like you have an inflated view of man's ability to change the climate, the more we squeeze business here in the U.S. the more manufacturing will be sent over to countries that have less stringent regulations thus defeating the purpose. Yes you're a loon and most people who read these posts can see it

The seasonal cycle clearly shows a terrestrial biomass (vegetation) source, as we expect from the seasonal cycle in Northern Hemispheric vegetation growth. The interannual variability looks more like it is driven by the oceans. The trends, however, are weaker than we would expect from either of these sources or from fossil fuels (which have a C13 signature similar to vegetation).

Secondly, the year-to-year increase in atmospheric CO2 does not look very much like the yearly rate of manmade CO2 emissions. The following figure, a version of which appears in the IPCC’s 2007 report, clearly shows that nature has a huge influence over the amount of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere every year

If temperature is indeed forcing CO2 changes, either directly or indirectly, then there should be a maximum correlation at zero months lag for the change of CO2 with time versus temperature (dCO2/dt = a + b*T would be the basic rate equation). And as can be seen in the above graph, the peak correlation between these two variables does indeed occur close to zero months.

And this raises an intriguing question:

If natural temperature changes can drive natural CO2 changes (directly or indirectly) on a year-to-year basis, is it possible that some portion of the long term upward trend (that is always attributed to fossil fuel burning) is ALSO due to a natural source?

After all, we already know that the rate of human emissions is very small in magnitude compared to the average rate of CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the surface (land + ocean): somewhere in the 5% to 10% range. But it has always been assumed that these huge natural yearly exchanges between the surface and atmosphere have been in a long term balance. In that view, the natural balance has only been disrupted in the last 100 years or so as humans started consuming fossil fuel, thus causing the observed long-term increase.

Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade

Oh, Jesus! That's also a sign of borderline personality disorder. Everything is black and white with you. I would vote for Paul, if he had a snowball's chance in winning. But I strongly suspect that you don't want that nomination. Am I right? Auditing the Federal Reserve. Not asking Israel "how high?" when they tell 300 million people to jump.

You want to explain to me why your bretheren are killing paramedics in Palestine? I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around that one; since you are "the chosen ones".

A scientist, you are not. A bully, you are. And little by little, Americans are catching on and growing weary of it. I don't give a fuck who is causing the increase in carbon dioxide-whether it's humans, Michele Bachman running her mouth, or the Almighty Himself.

You said that it isn't a pollutant. And the rest of you who've never seen a cyanotic person (outside of Law and Order) believe UNDERQUALIFIED people, when they tell you that too much CO2 isn't harmful. I don't give a rat's ass where it comes from or how it got there. Stop lying to people and telling them that CO2 is a natural chemical that isn't to be concerned about. Helium is natural also, but we wouldn't survive breathing it.

My Gawd, your ego is the size of Texas. Get down there with the "roughnecks" and drill. They would eat your pansy ass for lunch on the first day of the job.

 

[Jroc]

Ladies and Gentlemen: I have been labeled as a "loon", by Moses. Why? Because I understand gas exchange and pH balance.

Moses has questionable allegience.

I'm a hypochodriac, because I understand hyper and hypocarbia. He's angry at me because he "believe$" these politicians who say that carbon dioxide is "harmless". Not in your bu$ine$$ interest, Moses?

Since Michele Bachmann is one of the imbeciles (regarding science) who started this myth, (CO2 is harmless) I would like to see her volunteer to place a plastic bag over her head, and see how long she can endure hypoxia before she passes out, or suffocates. And afterward, I would like to hear her give the same speech proclaiming that CO2 is harmless. Oh, and her laughable estimation of the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. A quoted percentage that is incompatible with human life. That was the moment that I stopped taking her seriously.

Just like Moses, who didn't do his homework. He doesn't understand pH acidosis/alkalosis very well, or he wouldn't attack me by telling me that I'm crazy.

Loons like you have an inflated view of man's ability to change the climate, the more we squeeze business here in the U.S. the more manufacturing will be sent over to countries that have less stringent regulations thus defeating the purpose. Yes you're a loon and most people who read these posts can see it

If temperature is indeed forcing CO2 changes, either directly or indirectly, then there should be a maximum correlation at zero months lag for the change of CO2 with time versus temperature (dCO2/dt = a + b*T would be the basic rate equation). And as can be seen in the above graph, the peak correlation between these two variables does indeed occur close to zero months.

And this raises an intriguing question:

If natural temperature changes can drive natural CO2 changes (directly or indirectly) on a year-to-year basis, is it possible that some portion of the long term upward trend (that is always attributed to fossil fuel burning) is ALSO due to a natural source?

After all, we already know that the rate of human emissions is very small in magnitude compared to the average rate of CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the surface (land + ocean): somewhere in the 5% to 10% range. But it has always been assumed that these huge natural yearly exchanges between the surface and atmosphere have been in a long term balance. In that view, the natural balance has only been disrupted in the last 100 years or so as humans started consuming fossil fuel, thus causing the observed long-term increase.

Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade

Oh, Jesus! That's also a sign of borderline personality disorder. Everything is black and white with you. I would vote for Paul, if he had a snowball's chance in winning. But I strongly suspect that you don't want that nomination. Am I right? Auditing the Federal Reserve. Not asking Israel "how high?" when they tell 300 million people to jump.

You want to explain to me why your bretheren are killing paramedics in Palestine? I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around that one; since you are "the chosen ones".

A scientist, you are not. A bully, you are. And little by little, Americans are catching on and growing weary of it. I don't give a fuck who is causing the increase in carbon dioxide-whether it's humans, Michele Bachman running her mouth, or the Almighty Himself.

You said that it isn't a pollutant. And the rest of you who've never seen a cyanotic person (outside of Law and Order) believe UNDERQUALIFIED people, when they tell you that too much CO2 isn't harmful. I don't give a rat's ass where it comes from or how it got there. Stop lying to people and telling them that CO2 is a natural chemical that isn't to be concerned about. Helium is natural also, but we wouldn't survive breathing it.

My Gawd, your ego is the size of Texas. Get down there with the "roughnecks" and drill. They would eat your pansy ass for lunch on the first day of the job.

It doesn't take much to draw out people like you, what does the fact that I'm a Jew have to do with anything? Whatever...no need to answer that.. Thanks for your input loon.

 

[starcraftzzz]

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numbnuts.

Only imbeciles believe we can live in an industrialized world with zero pollution. The only question: what is the acceptable level? Any rational person should be perfectly satisfied with curent levels.

Or maybe a flag waving imbecile like you.
Amazon destruction threatens Enawene Nawe tribe on Vimeo
Chevron challenges $18bn Ecuador fine - Americas - Al Jazeera English
Tar Sands in Alberta - YouTube
Air Pollution - YouTube

What does any of your propaganda have to do with the United States? If you're so concerned about mining tar sands, then go to Canada and whine to them about it. I'm sure they will have a good laugh after they run you out of the country at gun point.

If you want the short version of britparts post its "I am a retard"

 

[mskafka]

Loons like you have an inflated view of man's ability to change the climate, the more we squeeze business here in the U.S. the more manufacturing will be sent over to countries that have less stringent regulations thus defeating the purpose. Yes you're a loon and most people who read these posts can see it

If temperature is indeed forcing CO2 changes, either directly or indirectly, then there should be a maximum correlation at zero months lag for the change of CO2 with time versus temperature (dCO2/dt = a + b*T would be the basic rate equation). And as can be seen in the above graph, the peak correlation between these two variables does indeed occur close to zero months.



Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade

Oh, Jesus! That's also a sign of borderline personality disorder. Everything is black and white with you. I would vote for Paul, if he had a snowball's chance in winning. But I strongly suspect that you don't want that nomination. Am I right? Auditing the Federal Reserve. Not asking Israel "how high?" when they tell 300 million people to jump.

You want to explain to me why your bretheren are killing paramedics in Palestine? I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around that one; since you are "the chosen ones".

A scientist, you are not. A bully, you are. And little by little, Americans are catching on and growing weary of it. I don't give a fuck who is causing the increase in carbon dioxide-whether it's humans, Michele Bachman running her mouth, or the Almighty Himself.

You said that it isn't a pollutant. And the rest of you who've never seen a cyanotic person (outside of Law and Order) believe UNDERQUALIFIED people, when they tell you that too much CO2 isn't harmful. I don't give a rat's ass where it comes from or how it got there. Stop lying to people and telling them that CO2 is a natural chemical that isn't to be concerned about. Helium is natural also, but we wouldn't survive breathing it.

My Gawd, your ego is the size of Texas. Get down there with the "roughnecks" and drill. They would eat your pansy ass for lunch on the first day of the job.

It doesn't take much to draw out people like you, what does the fact that I'm a Jew have to do with anything? Whatever...no need to answer that.. Thanks for your input loon.

Oh, here we go. Pulling the "anti-semite" card. I told you in PM that I have paternal Jewish ancestry. It goes ALL the way back to the 1500's, but it's there. I'm also part limey and chickasaw. But I support the US first and foremost. I support the health of the citizens of this country.

What does the fact that you're a Jew have to do with it? Your avatar demonstrates exponential pride, and your dual flags make me question your allegience.

Frankly-however off-point this may be-the whole Iran situation makes me angry. The mobsters coming into the US from Russia, makes me angry.

THIS makes me furious: WikiLeaks: US wary of rising organized crime in... JPost - Israel

Why?

 

[mskafka]

I'm trying to figure out what happened to: "You're either with us; or you're against us." Coming to the US and committing racketeering and God knows what else is-in my mind-enemy activity.

Why are we allowing these people into our country? I guess for the same reason that we're allowing the gangsters from the South of us to enter.

Most of us love this country, and feel that if you don't hold the same values...then keep your ass out. Oh, I'm really holding my tongue...or rather, restraining my fingers. Russian Mafia-youtube it. Read about it. What the hell is going on?

 

[waltky]

More oil gonna cost more money?...

IMF paints grim picture for oil future
WASHINGTON, May 15,`12 (UPI) -- Incremental increases in global oil production may translate to a doubling of oil prices by the next decade, the International Monetary Fund warns.

The International Energy Agency warned last year that historically high oil prices during the Libyan war could erase upbeat assessments about the potential for global economic recovery.

The International Monetary Fund warns that, despite a modest decline in global oil prices this year, the world economy was headed for "unchartered territory," the Daily Telegraph newspaper in London reports. "Our prediction of small further increases in world oil production comes at the expense of a near doubling, permanently, of real oil prices over the coming decade," an IMF report states.

IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said in Australia that concerns from last year were continuing into 2012. "Prices remain very high," she was quoted as saying."High prices pose a real threat to the economic recovery."

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, in its May report, said global oil demand stood at around 900,000 barrels per day. "Given the stabilization of the U.S. economy and the shutdown of Japanese nuclear power plants, world oil demand growth has, at least for the short-term, stopped its declining trend and is showing some growth," the report read.

Read more: IMF paints grim picture for oil future - UPI.com

 

[Avorysuds]

Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko

Pollution? Oil is as natural as wind or solar. The only pollution is in your mind.

ROTFL yep and cigarettes dont cause cancer either its just in your mind

And windmills don't kill birds.

 

[American Horse]

In 2007 (the last good economic year) the US imported $166-billons of oil. If we were producing full out, that and the economic activity that that would produce could eradicate our negative balance of trade dollars on world markets, we could become a net exporter, and we would no longer be energy dependent on the most volatile and unstable region of the world, which could justify a smaller military presence for budget reductions.

 

[GWV5903]

Ohh btw the shale oil is expensive to extract it will have to be sold for around $4/gal as gas.

We were extracting shale oil back a long time ago then we found convenient pools of liquid oil under the ground and abandoned the practice.

Unless the retail market for gasoline drops below $4/gallon. Then it would be sold at a loss, which often happens.

Careful H, you'll confuse him with facts...

 

[uscitizen]

Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming Equal to Entire World’s Proven Oil Reserves


Very interesting since the oil being discussed in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming is not proven at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

In 2007 (the last good economic year) the US imported $166-billons of oil. If we were producing full out, that and the economic activity that that would produce could eradicate our negative balance of trade dollars on world markets, we could become a net exporter, and we would no longer be energy dependent on the most volatile and unstable region of the world, which could justify a smaller military presence for budget reductions.

We are exporting gasoline and diesel. To the point where it has become our biggest export. Were we to be able to produce all the oil that we could use, why do you think that the petroleum companies would keep it here? They will sell to where ever the price is highest. Which means, no matter how much we produce, the price will still be pegged at the world price.

However, it is a physical impossibility for us to produce as much as we use. For there is not that much oil in the US. And what is left is becoming more expensive to find, produce, and process. And don't bother to bring up the oil shales unless you have a way to process the kerogen out of the shale that does not use water, and only a small amount of energy.

The technology to get off the oil tit for transportation is rapidly developing. Bio fuels produced by single celled organisms, batteries that approach the energy density of gasoline, and alternate energies, including cold fusion, are all approaching a threshold where they will be competative in price with fossil fuels. And, while the cost of processing fossil fuels will continue to go up, the curve for the alternatives is down for all of them.

 

[Jroc]

In 2007 (the last good economic year) the US imported $166-billons of oil. If we were producing full out, that and the economic activity that that would produce could eradicate our negative balance of trade dollars on world markets, we could become a net exporter, and we would no longer be energy dependent on the most volatile and unstable region of the world, which could justify a smaller military presence for budget reductions.

We are exporting gasoline and diesel. To the point where it has become our biggest export. Were we to be able to produce all the oil that we could use, why do you think that the petroleum companies would keep it here? They will sell to where ever the price is highest. Which means, no matter how much we produce, the price will still be pegged at the world price.

However, it is a physical impossibility for us to produce as much as we use. For there is not that much oil in the US. And what is left is becoming more expensive to find, produce, and process. And don't bother to bring up the oil shales unless you have a way to process the kerogen out of the shale that does not use water, and only a small amount of energy.

The technology to get off the oil tit for transportation is rapidly developing. Bio fuels produced by single celled organisms, batteries that approach the energy density of gasoline, and alternate energies, including cold fusion, are all approaching a threshold where they will be competative in price with fossil fuels. And, while the cost of processing fossil fuels will continue to go up, the curve for the alternatives is down for all of them.

Wrong we have new drilling technology which allows us to extract oil from old well,s we have plenty of oil here enough to get into the next century, which is plenty of time to develop other energy sources. We export gas because oil is shipped here for refinement, we are the largest refiner although the EPA is busy shutting them down

 

[American Horse]

In 2007 (the last good economic year) the US imported $166-billons of oil. If we were producing full out, that and the economic activity that that would produce could eradicate our negative balance of trade dollars on world markets, we could become a net exporter, and we would no longer be energy dependent on the most volatile and unstable region of the world, which could justify a smaller military presence for budget reductions.

We are exporting gasoline and diesel. To the point where it has become our biggest export. Were we to be able to produce all the oil that we could use, why do you think that the petroleum companies would keep it here? [The market would determine where it would be sold; exporting it adds cost for shipping] They will sell to where ever the price is highest. Which means, no matter how much we produce, the price will still be pegged at the world price. [I for one am ok with that; my comments revolved around price but advantageous trade deficits; but our development of such a huge world resource would stabilize markets, making speculation less relevant]
However, it is a physical impossibility for us to produce as much as we use. [new research shows that is an incorrect assumption] For there is not that much oil in the US. [reserves are there, and as new processes are developed the become proven reserves] And what is left is becoming more expensive to find, produce, and process. [as processes are developed they become easier to find; current events prove that] And don't bother to bring up the oil shales unless you have a way to process the kerogen out of the shale that does not use water, and only a small amount of energy. [we could use sea water piped in as a part of the cost; right now there are arguments about piping water wholesale from Lake Michigan to the Western US]

The technology to get off the oil tit for transportation is rapidly developing. Bio fuels produced by single celled organisms, batteries that approach the energy density of gasoline, and alternate energies, including cold fusion, are all approaching a threshold where they will be competitive in price with fossil fuels. [They will continue to be developed, and driving that development will be paid for by rising oil prices] And, while the cost of processing fossil fuels will continue to go up, the curve for the alternatives is down for all of them.

I buy into that, and that turn of events would best be left to the free market to determine. If oil development in all its phases were left to government decree we would be much further from that than leaving it all to free markets. The marketplace will determine the development of energy. The govt can ban the use of coal (as it increasingly has) and coal will simply be loaded on ships, either at the coast from trains or from the Great Lakes and shipped to China, and elsewhere, but it will still be mined and used; we will lose the use of the resource and the development of ways to clean up the process. The only thing that will result is American jobs will be lost and the economy harmed and your new solutions will still wait their natural turn

 

[RGR]

Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming Equal to Entire World’s Proven Oil Reserves


Very interesting since the oil being discussed in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming is not proven at all.

It is proven, has been for decades, and I can even hand you a piece of it, have a few samples around the office. But it is certainly not reserves.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have to agree with RGR. The amount of kerogen in the oil shales in those states are well known and mapped. And it is not reserves. The cost, in dollar terms, environmental terms, is far too high to even be considered.

 

[uscitizen]

Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming Equal to Entire World’s Proven Oil Reserves


Very interesting since the oil being discussed in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming is not proven at all.

It is proven, has been for decades, and I can even hand you a piece of it, have a few samples around the office. But it is certainly not reserves.

Ok and what is the cost effective price of gasoline to make the shale oil viable to extract/process?

 

[Unkotare]

When we don't have access to conventional reserves, what good are these?

We don't hve access because of the libs and evironmental whack jobs. What exactly is your point?

Yes not wanting pollution is totally whacko

You are so fucking stupid, it's unbelievable.