Still can’t get over posting meaningless sarcastic remarks? Yea, I am that old. Old enough to have seen your type of entrenched ignorance from people who draw conclusions without all the facts. Take Thomas K, for example. He claims there’s only one trillion gallons of oil left which is a fantasy estimate at best.

He has not taken into account Canadas oil sands, Americas coal and shale oil, new finds by Mexico, new estimates on Iraqi reserves, ANWR, several other areas of Alaska, gas hydrates and a host of other energy sources. There is also the possibility presented by some scientists who say oil is not the result of dinosaurs and vegetation, but came from other methods of creation which is intriguing.

Heres a fact for you. The U.S. Department of Energy puts estimated global [gas] hydrate resources at 875,000 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas, more energy content than all the worlds coal, oil and natural gas combined. If we or the Japanese who are also working on taping that reserve, figure out how to extract it, things could change significantly. There are an estimated 10 tcf off the coast of Alaska alone.

Quit worrying about your anti-Semitism and get with the discussion. Please try to get your juvenile mind around reality. Energy is not the problem! There are even billions of tons of coal still beneath European counties. The problem is environmentalism and GW religionists who swallow a ton of false assumptions, or as you illustrate in your own entrenched ignorance, have the desire to have total control over peoples lives using the green religion to define sin as energy use. Marx said if he controlled the tools of industry he controlled the people....energy is just another form of tool fiberals want to use to control people.

Here’s a suggestion or two. Get your entrenched ignorant politicians to let us drill off the coasts, in Alaska, build new refineries and go after technology to use coal more cleanly. In 50 years we might have solved the hydrogen problem and carbon will all become moot and we’ll be able to quit trying to turn our agricultural industry into an oil company.

haunyocker wrote:
Still can’t get over posting meaningless sarcastic remarks? Yea, I am that old. Old enough to have seen your type of entrenched ignorance from people who draw conclusions without all the facts. Take Thomas K, for example. He claims there’s only one trillion gallons of oil left which is a fantasy estimate at best.

He has not taken into account Canadas oil sands, Americas coal and shale oil, new finds by Mexico, new estimates on Iraqi reserves, ANWR, several other areas of Alaska, gas hydrates and a host of other energy sources. There is also the possibility presented by some scientists who say oil is not the result of dinosaurs and vegetation, but came from other methods of creation which is intriguing.

Heres a fact for you. The U.S. Department of Energy puts estimated global [gas] hydrate resources at 875,000 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas, more energy content than all the worlds coal, oil and natural gas combined. If we or the Japanese who are also working on taping that reserve, figure out how to extract it, things could change significantly. There are an estimated 10 tcf off the coast of Alaska alone.

Quit worrying about your anti-Semitism and get with the discussion. Please try to get your juvenile mind around reality. Energy is not the problem! There are even billions of tons of coal still beneath European counties. The problem is environmentalism and GW religionists who swallow a ton of false assumptions, or as you illustrate in your own entrenched ignorance, have the desire to have total control over peoples lives using the green religion to define sin as energy use. Marx said if he controlled the tools of industry he controlled the people....energy is just another form of tool fiberals want to use to control people.

Here’s a suggestion or two. Get your entrenched ignorant politicians to let us drill off the coasts, in Alaska, build new refineries and go after technology to use coal more cleanly. In 50 years we might have solved the hydrogen problem and carbon will all become moot and we’ll be able to quit trying to turn our agricultural industry into an oil company.

This is what happens when you inhale exhaust fumes. Take a deep breath and exhale before you explode. BTW, you misquoted my quote. Makes you wonder what else you misquoted here, no matter.

Go ahead drill off the coast of Alaska. Removing contaminates from coal is a challenge. If you think energy costs are going to decrease because of that, go back to inhaling exhausts. And if you think fossil fuels don't come from fossil fuels you've been listening to Coast-to-Coast way to much.

I'm all for harvesting oil from oil sands. Quite expensive but $100 a barrel makes it worthwhile. BUT, the production of oil from this will only put a dent in our future needs. Unless of course you have exciting news from Coast-to-Coast-to-Coast otherwise.

The point, ThomasK, is that there is lots of carbon energy available. And excuse my “one” typo, which is immaterial. If you want to check my other facts I’ll happy to provide credits. It is estimated that there are 1-trillion barrels of oil in shale in Utah alone, more than all of the middle east. The blovating over energy that comes from the environmentalists gets ridiculous including yours.

Sorry, don’t know what you mean by Coast-to-Coast. If you are suggesting that we drill coast to coast...that’s a good change from the oil exploration now. The Florida coast and the California coasts along with the Gulf of Mexico (deep drilling) are good possibilities. Oil drilling technology has improved dramatically.

Regarding fossil fuels. There is a theory that the nature of the creation oil is a renewable source. Some scientists think it may come from biological reactions below the surface of the earth.

And the fact that we can get all the carbon fuels we need until there are other reasonable sources. Reports are indicating that commodities (food) are rising because switching to bio fuels is helping destroy the Brazilian rain forest and pushing farmers to produce fuel instead of food. Get your ten year supply of food ready. A good investment might be long lasting food commodities.

Oil production from coal, oil sands, potentially oil shale, will be a big dent in our energy needs. Obviously, the cost of oil today does make it fiscally possible. The benefit would be energy independence, a worthy goal by itself.

haunyocker wrote:
The point, ThomasK, is that there is lots of carbon energy available. And excuse my “one” typo, which is immaterial. If you want to check my other facts I’ll happy to provide credits. It is estimated that there are 1-trillion barrels of oil in shale in Utah alone, more than all of the middle east. The blovating over energy that comes from the environmentalists gets ridiculous including yours.

Sorry, don’t know what you mean by Coast-to-Coast. If you are suggesting that we drill coast to coast...that’s a good change from the oil exploration now. The Florida coast and the California coasts along with the Gulf of Mexico (deep drilling) are good possibilities. Oil drilling technology has improved dramatically.

Regarding fossil fuels. There is a theory that the nature of the creation oil is a renewable source. Some scientists think it may come from biological reactions below the surface of the earth.

And the fact that we can get all the carbon fuels we need until there are other reasonable sources. Reports are indicating that commodities (food) are rising because switching to bio fuels is helping destroy the Brazilian rain forest and pushing farmers to produce fuel instead of food. Get your ten year supply of food ready. A good investment might be long lasting food commodities.

Oil production from coal, oil sands, potentially oil shale, will be a big dent in our energy needs. Obviously, the cost of oil today does make it fiscally possible. The benefit would be energy independence, a worthy goal by itself.


You mentioned in a previous post "solving the hydrogen problem". We could move to hydrogen and fuel cell technolgoy now, if people would stop staying on the fossil fuel bandwagon. Pushing more use of fossil fuels will result in scarcity in the long run. The technology exists now for alternative, renewable fuels. What is lacking is the market and capital power to commercialize them. If we drill more, people will continue to use the same cars, drive the same,a nd think all is well in the long run. Perhaps we could instead use this energy crisis as a catalyst for removing our thirst for oil?

haunyocker wrote:
The point, ThomasK, is that there is lots of carbon energy available. And excuse my “one” typo, which is immaterial. If you want to check my other facts I’ll happy to provide credits. It is estimated that there are 1-trillion barrels of oil in shale in Utah alone, more than all of the middle east. The blovating over energy that comes from the environmentalists gets ridiculous including yours.

Sorry, don’t know what you mean by Coast-to-Coast. If you are suggesting that we drill coast to coast...that’s a good change from the oil exploration now. The Florida coast and the California coasts along with the Gulf of Mexico (deep drilling) are good possibilities. Oil drilling technology has improved dramatically.

Regarding fossil fuels. There is a theory that the nature of the creation oil is a renewable source. Some scientists think it may come from biological reactions below the surface of the earth.

And the fact that we can get all the carbon fuels we need until there are other reasonable sources. Reports are indicating that commodities (food) are rising because switching to bio fuels is helping destroy the Brazilian rain forest and pushing farmers to produce fuel instead of food. Get your ten year supply of food ready. A good investment might be long lasting food commodities.

Oil production from coal, oil sands, potentially oil shale, will be a big dent in our energy needs. Obviously, the cost of oil today does make it fiscally possible. The benefit would be energy independence, a worthy goal by itself.

OK, we're mostly on the same page. I don't have a problem extracting energy as long as we do it with as small of an environmental impact as possible. I believe we are capable of that.

Bio fuels are absolutely ridiculous. For the reasons you mentioned and then some. What's disheartening is that BOTH parties have jumped on this bandwagon. Doesn't leave us much hope.

I've heard of the renewable creation of oil theory. It's a bit out there. My reference to Coast-to-coast is a radio show by Art Bell that is a bit out there and would air something like this.

I'm all for oil shale, oil sands etc. Oil sands are more viable right now. Oil shale not yet.

Right now, I'm still willing to allow the market to reign in our inefficient use of energy. I see the government's role not to stop us from energy exploration and production but to insure we don't destroy the environment doing it.

unaffiliated_person wrote:
haunyocker wrote:
The point, ThomasK, is that there is lots of carbon energy available. And excuse my “one” typo, which is immaterial. If you want to check my other facts I’ll happy to provide credits. It is estimated that there are 1-trillion barrels of oil in shale in Utah alone, more than all of the middle east. The blovating over energy that comes from the environmentalists gets ridiculous including yours.

Sorry, don’t know what you mean by Coast-to-Coast. If you are suggesting that we drill coast to coast...that’s a good change from the oil exploration now. The Florida coast and the California coasts along with the Gulf of Mexico (deep drilling) are good possibilities. Oil drilling technology has improved dramatically.

Regarding fossil fuels. There is a theory that the nature of the creation oil is a renewable source. Some scientists think it may come from biological reactions below the surface of the earth.

And the fact that we can get all the carbon fuels we need until there are other reasonable sources. Reports are indicating that commodities (food) are rising because switching to bio fuels is helping destroy the Brazilian rain forest and pushing farmers to produce fuel instead of food. Get your ten year supply of food ready. A good investment might be long lasting food commodities.

Oil production from coal, oil sands, potentially oil shale, will be a big dent in our energy needs. Obviously, the cost of oil today does make it fiscally possible. The benefit would be energy independence, a worthy goal by itself.


You mentioned in a previous post "solving the hydrogen problem". We could move to hydrogen and fuel cell technolgoy now, if people would stop staying on the fossil fuel bandwagon. Pushing more use of fossil fuels will result in scarcity in the long run. The technology exists now for alternative, renewable fuels. What is lacking is the market and capital power to commercialize them. If we drill more, people will continue to use the same cars, drive the same,a nd think all is well in the long run. Perhaps we could instead use this energy crisis as a catalyst for removing our thirst for oil?

I agree, that's why I think the market and the profit motive is going to get us there quicker than anything els.