Hubadubalubahu's forum posts

Avatar image for Hubadubalubahu
Hubadubalubahu

1081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Hubadubalubahu
Member since 2005 • 1081 Posts

Too Much sex.

Philokalia
Lol thats an HBO drama for you.
Avatar image for Hubadubalubahu
Hubadubalubahu

1081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Hubadubalubahu
Member since 2005 • 1081 Posts
[QUOTE="bbwwoman"]

as i was sitting i seen a trailer for the game of thrones,has anyone watched the entire 1st season? is it worth buying? i havent seen any episode of the show.

chilly-chill

That poor wooden post!
Avatar image for Hubadubalubahu
Hubadubalubahu

1081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Hubadubalubahu
Member since 2005 • 1081 Posts
Tetonic plate shifts, they're invigorating. But really they do cause some pretty bad earthquakes.
Avatar image for Hubadubalubahu
Hubadubalubahu

1081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Hubadubalubahu
Member since 2005 • 1081 Posts

KC_Hokie

Maybe they're stopping it because it is a incredibly destructive process that doesnt guarantee profit because it is highly dependent on the price of conventional gas. read what I say for once, the economic feasibility of oil shale is highly dependent on the price of conventional oil, and the assumption that the price will remain at a certain level for some time to come. We were oil shale crazy in the 70's but when gas prices fell so did the craze for oil shale. American companies didn't look into mining domestic oil shale again until 2003 – again, thanks to spiking oil prices. George W. Bush's Energy Policy Act of 2005 officially opened federal lands to oil shale extraction. But then once again lowered oil prices, along with environmental concerns and growing enthusiasm for renewable energy sources left oil shale's future in the U.S. again uncertain. It is a risky endeavor that should only be used when there is little oil left. It is a last resort at best.
Avatar image for Hubadubalubahu
Hubadubalubahu

1081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Hubadubalubahu
Member since 2005 • 1081 Posts

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Yea it's more expensive to extract. However, it's profitable at $70 a barrel. Oil is around $100 a barrel right now. That's a significant profit on each barrel.

The only thing stopping extraction is the federal government.

KC_Hokie

It is useful not profitable, at least not in the current economy. It will be useful when we really need oil and the rest of the worlds conventional oil supplys are depleted.

No...it's profitable at $70 a barrel. Oil is currently sitting around $100 a barrel.

Saying we have to import oil before we use our domestic supply is just idiotic. Who came up with that rule?

Where are you getting the 70$? The economic feasibility of oil shale is highly dependent on the price of conventional oil, and the assumption that the price will remain at a certain level for some time to come.
Avatar image for Hubadubalubahu
Hubadubalubahu

1081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Hubadubalubahu
Member since 2005 • 1081 Posts

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]You have no idea what you're talking about. Oil shale land sells for $25,000 an acre. KC_Hokie

Yup im the guy who has no idea what he's talking about. The cost of oil derived from oil shale has been significantly higher than conventional pumped oil.

Yea it's more expensive to extract. However, it's profitable at $70 a barrel. Oil is around $100 a barrel right now. That's a significant profit on each barrel.

The only thing stopping extraction is the federal government.

It is useful not profitable, at least not in the current economy. It will be useful when we really need oil and the rest of the worlds conventional oil supplys are depleted. Plus it takes a much larger toll on the enviroment then oil wells ever will.
Avatar image for Hubadubalubahu
Hubadubalubahu

1081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Hubadubalubahu
Member since 2005 • 1081 Posts
[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]Hahaha most misleading article to show. Do you even know how unprofitable shale deposits are?KC_Hokie
You have no idea what you're talking about. Oil shale land sells for $25,000 an acre.

Yup im the guy who has no idea what he's talking about. The cost of oil derived from oil shale has been significantly higher than conventional pumped oil.
Avatar image for Hubadubalubahu
Hubadubalubahu

1081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Hubadubalubahu
Member since 2005 • 1081 Posts
Hahaha most misleading article to show. Do you even know how unprofitable shale deposits are?
Avatar image for Hubadubalubahu
Hubadubalubahu

1081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Hubadubalubahu
Member since 2005 • 1081 Posts

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Increasing domestic supply will effect prices due to an increase in supply itself and due to the futures market. There are billions of barrels of oil in federal land/water that would be extremely profitable to extract. KC_Hokie

Are you being dense on purpose? Im beginning to feel trolled. Reading comp fail. Your right we do have billions of barrels in oil...that isnt sh*t. At the risk of redundency yet again, and please read this time, the United States has 21 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2000. The U.S. uses about 6.6 billion barrels per year. That is only enough oil to last the U.S. about three and a half years without importing oil from other countries. Billions of barrles isn't a thing when we are a quarter of the worlds oil consumers.

It's estimated there are over a trillion barrels total in the U.S. That's into Saudi Arabia levels. Our President has zero interest in allowing further drilling on federal land/water.

And it only took an unexpected increase of 9 million barrels Wednesday for futures to drop 2.4.% in a single day. So saying billions of barrels wouldn't do anything is just flat out wrong.

We are no where near Saudi Arabia levels. Your talking out your ass.
Avatar image for Hubadubalubahu
Hubadubalubahu

1081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Hubadubalubahu
Member since 2005 • 1081 Posts
[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]And economists who understand the futures market and OPEC's patterns will tell you that if the U.S. opened all federal land/water to drilling you effect both supply and the futures market. The Keystone pipeline also would have taken oil directly from Canada to refineries in the U.S. President Obama blocked it. KC_Hokie
What are you on about? According to the EIA, the United States has 21 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2000. The U.S. uses about 6.6 billion barrels per year. That is only enough oil to last the U.S. about three and a half years without importing oil from other countries. 84% of the reserves are concentrated in four states. Texas has 25%, both onshore, and offshore. Alaska has 24%, California has 21%, and Louisiana has 14% onshore, and offshore. Since 1990, U.S. oil reserves have dropped about 20%. New oil discoveries made in 1999 were made almost entirely in the Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska. (321 million barrels). All other discoveries were extensions of existing oil fields, or new reservoirs discovered in old fields. (404 million barrels). With few exceptions, 16,000 feet is the maximum depth at which oil is found. Below that depth, only gas exists, because of the temperature of the earth. The United States has large areas of oil shale deposits, which are sometimes misconstrued as being a readily available resource. (sound familiar?) However, oil shale deposits are not the same thing as conventional oil fields. Oilsands, which is another kind of oil deposit, are found in large quantities in Canada. It has been estimated that the oilsands contain 1.7 trillion barrels of oil, but this oil cannot be recovered by standard methods of well drilling, and has to be strip mined. After it is dug up, the oil is removed by a water flotation process. Then, the waste sand has to be safely disposed. The strip mining process now being used takes the energy equivalent of two barrels of oil to produce one barrel. In other words, the price to produce it is double the price for which it can be sold. Another problem with the oilsands, is that much of it is too deep to be reached by strip mining. Other methods of removing the deeper oil are being experimented with, but they are all very costly. Canada's oilsands will probably not be produced in large amounts until the world's supply of conventional oil is nearly depleted. Both are very costly ways of obtaining oil. I don't know why you believe we are sitting on vast amounts of oil but we're not. Our reserves should be just that, reserves. Reserved for a time when we can no longer import our oil. We are far from being independant when it comes to oil production.

Increasing domestic supply will effect prices due to an increase in supply itself and due to the futures market. There are billions of barrels of oil in federal land/water that would be extremely profitable to extract.

Are you being dense on purpose? Im beginning to feel trolled. Reading comp fail. Your right we do have billions of barrels in oil...that isnt sh*t. At the risk of redundency yet again, and please read this time, the United States has 21 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2000. The U.S. uses about 6.6 billion barrels per year. That is only enough oil to last the U.S. about three and a half years without importing oil from other countries. Billions of barrles isn't a thing when we are a quarter of the worlds oil consumers.