WrongAgain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or one that scares the shit out of the Saudis and
> gets THEM to produce more oil at lower prices
> without us ultimately even having to even pump
> much. Kind of what Star Wars did...a mind game to
> gets your adversary into a game you want them to
> play, which we know is to our advantage.
>
> Sorry if your head just exploded.
>
> Game...Set...Match.
>
> Goodnight.


I dont think keystone xl is going to have a substantial contribution to the Jedi mind trick you're referencing.

Using that genius logic there would be no profit and economic incentive to get the oil. "Takes as much energy to get as it produces." That's ridiculous.

Hmmm. Have you seen the price of Saudi oil today? And how much tar sands has flowed? Far fetched, but might actually make some sense.

Remember, you are the hig conspiracy theorist. Maybe someone smarter than you found a way to lower gas prices. Hint: it wasnt Obama.

JJxmG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Using that genius logic there would be no profit
> and economic incentive to get the oil. "Takes as
> much energy to get as it produces." That's
> ridiculous.


Actually that is the logic for extracting oil. The net gain in energy. What planet are you on?

Tar sands basically breaks even. Some of the worst oil on earth. If Canada didnt have gas to waste they would't be producing it.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tar sands basically breaks even. Some of the worst
> oil on earth. If Canada didnt have gas to waste
> they would't be producing it.


You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just repeating bs that you've read somewhere. Now just STFU before I have to embarrass you further.

Conventional oil is 25 to 1 of energy it produces to energy it takes to produce.

Tar sands is 2.9 to 1.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JJxmG Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Using that genius logic there would be no
> profit
> > and economic incentive to get the oil. "Takes
> as
> > much energy to get as it produces." That's
> > ridiculous.
>
>
> Actually that is the logic for extracting oil. The
> net gain in energy. What planet are you on?


No, it's not. It's getting energy in a usable form for an intended purpose(s) at an economically feasible cost.

"Net gain in energy" can be anything you want depending on what you want to count. Which is why dumb balance analyses are done by opponents to make whatever it is look as bad as possible. Which is why nobody who knows what they're talking about pays any attention to such nonsense. Very few, if any, means of generating energy result in a "net gain in energy." Virtually all result in net losses on that same basis. But in the end they provide usable energy at a feasible cost which makes them worthwhile. Again, that includes solar, wind, batteries for electric cars, etc.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conventional oil is 25 to 1 of energy it produces
> to energy it takes to produce.
>
> Tar sands is 2.9 to 1.


Your bullshit is 1,000,000:1. It approaches a perpetual machine of 100% bullshit efficiency.

Bullshit, wtf are you talking about. Not all energy production has anywhere close to such a devastating cost of production. U.S. shale looks like heaven on earth compared to it.

At least with shale, advancements in technology will continue to drive down energy consumption for extraction. Tar sands will always need gas to turn it into oil.

We have tar sands in the US. 12 to 19 billion barrels of it in Utah we can tap if we need to waste our natural gas on it. What do we need pipelines to Canada for?

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bullshit, wtf are you talking about. Not all
> energy production has anywhere close to such a
> devastating cost of production. U.S. shale looks
> like heaven on earth compared to it.


If the costs were that "devasting" then it wouldn't be economically feasible and they wouldn't be doing it.


>
> At least with shale, advancements in technology
> will continue to drive down energy consumption for
> extraction. Tar sands will always need gas to turn
> it into oil.

No, it probably won't. Fracking hasn't taken off because of advances in technology. It's using enhanced recovery approaches which have been around since probably WWII. The boom in shale isn't due primarily to technology (although there is some), it's more related to finding large areas which are suitable the application of such techniques and the value of the recovered product being at a level to make it economically feasible. Just as I said above - getting energy in a usable form for an intended purpose(s) at an economically feasible cost. It has little to nothing to do with the "net energy gain." Whether it needs gas or not largely is irrelevant.

Oh its very relevant. Not to mention it requires 3 barrels of water for every barrel of oil to produce. But still it is what it is and will continue to be what it is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2015 11:23PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have tar sands in the US. 12 to 19 billion
> barrels of it in Utah we can tap if we need to
> waste our natural gas on it. What do we need
> pipelines to Canada for?


Because, generally speaking, tar sands there are much more rich, they have huge amounts in single areas which makes it practical to build the infrastructure to mine it and process it, they have the water resources nearby required to process it, it tends to be in a more loosely bound form which is easier to mine and extract... Among others...

A lot of our tar sands look more like a rock. It's also in areas where you and your pals would shit out a tar baby if anyone wanted to go after it. In addition to more limited water resources in the West, socioeconomic considerations, etc.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh its very relevant. Not to mention it requires 3
> barrels of water for every barrel of oil to
> produce. How Canada has such abundant resources
> for tar sands production to the tune of 1 million
> barrels per day is amazing. But still it is what
> it is and will continue to be what it is.
>
> The pipeline wont mean shit for the price of oil
> or jobs in America.


So now that your shit's been shot down as far as "net energy gain" you're back to the jobs bullshit. lol

You don't have a clue wtf you're talking about.

Obviously the president realizes you can only work with Republicans by holding incentives for purposes of negotiation. The pipeline will be approved. The question is what are Republicans willing to do for the American people in return.

It now his job to compromise like every good president has done, Its not his personal railroad or a one way street. Dont try to put any bullshit back on the GOP you stupid fuck, they won in 2014. As you fuckers were saying "elections have consequences" Now SHUT UP Dammn It.

And what consequences did elections have when he wiped the floor with you two years ago?

PjVhP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OPEC is trying to kill the US shale oil industry.
> The low gas prices won't last.


Been a year, and its just down further. Why are you wrong on literally everything?

fagnut wrong again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Been a year, and its just down further. Why are
> you wrong on literally everything?

Same reason it votes Republican. Inability to think clearly, follow logic, etc.

But you knew that.