Oil Shale Potential - 800 Billion Barrels of Oil!

[SUBMAN1]

Told you there is a ton of oil in Utah, etc! :D :up: I bet some people here will still say that the US Government is lying. Hahahaha! The funny part is that this could make us an 'oil exporter'.

Guess what? We haven't even begun to touch ANWR, Pacific drilling, Atlantic drilling, Tar Sands, or the real biggie - coal to oil.

http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/080722.html

-S

http://www.doi.gov/news/news_header.jpg

Western Oil Shale Potential:
800 Billion Barrels of Recoverable Oil

http://www.doi.gov/images/072208-home.jpg
Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock containing organic matter from which oil may be produced. The regulations would provide for a thoughtful, phased approach to oil shale development on public lands in the West.
[Photo Credit: Argonne National Laboratory]

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management today published proposed regulations to establish a commercial oil shale program that could result in the addition of up to 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from lands in the western United States.
In keeping with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the BLM is proposing regulations that would provide the critical “rules of the road” on which private investors will rely in determining whether to make future financial commitments to prospective oil shale projects.



“As Americans pay more than $4 for a gallon of gasoline and watch energy prices continue to climb higher and higher, we need to be doing more to develop our own energy here at home, through resources such as oil shale,” said Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne. “Instead, I find it ironic that we are asking countries halfway around the world to produce more for us.”


Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock containing organic matter from which oil may be produced. The regulations would provide for a thoughtful, phased approach to oil shale development on public lands in the West. Commercial development of oil shale will not begin until it is technologically viable, which is not expected for several years.


The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is only publishing proposed regulations at this time because the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 prohibits the agency from using FY2008 funds to prepare or publish final regulations. The President has called on Congress to remove the ban on finalizing oil shale program regulations.


Before any oil shale leases are issued, site-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis would be completed on the proposed development. Once a lease is issued, the lessee will also have to obtain all required permits from state and local authorities, under their respective permitting processes, before any operations can begin.



The proposed leasing regulations incorporate provisions of the Energy Policy Act and the Mineral Leasing Act relating to: maximum oil shale lease size; maximum acreage limitations; rental; and lease diligence. The rule will also propose a range of royalty rate options, and will ask for public input on the royalty provisions. The public will have 60 days to comment on the proposed rules.


The regulations address provisions of the Energy Policy Act that establish work requirements and milestones to ensure diligent development of leases. Standard components of a BLM leasing program ─ including lease administration and operations ─ would be included, as well as additional NEPA documentation requirements for lease applicants.


In remarks last month calling on Congress to expand domestic energy production, President Bush noted the “extraordinary potential” of oil shale resources on public lands in the West. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. holds more than half of the world’s oil shale resources.



The largest known deposits of oil shale are located in a 16,000-square mile area in the Green River formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Shale formations in that area hold the equivalent of up to 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Federal lands comprise 72 percent of the total surface of oil shale acreage in the Green River formation.



“Oil shale is a strategically important domestic energy source that should be developed to reduce the nation’s growing dependence on oil from politically and economically unstable foreign sources,” said BLM Director James Caswell.


Throughout the process, the BLM will collaborate and consult with affected states, tribes and local governments to ensure that their interests and concerns surrounding the oil shale program continue to be addressed. For instance, the site-specific NEPA analyses would include the same opportunities for public involvement and comment that are part of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement process.



The regulations are just one of several steps designed to harness these vast energy resources. The BLM has also issued research, development and demonstration (RD&D) leases for five oil shale projects in Colorado’s Piceance Basin and one in Utah. The BLM is also preparing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that would amend several resource management plans to open lands for application for potential oil shale leasing in the future.



The Oil Shale Regulation on the electronic desk of the Federal Register today is at
http://federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2008-16275_PI.pdf

[STEED]

Dose this mean you guys can tell the Arabs to get stuffed?

And the possible war with Iran has been canceled as well?

[SUBMAN1]

Dose this mean you guys can tell the Arabs to get stuffed?

And the possible war with Iran has been canceled as well?Pretty much a Saudi Arabia in Utah. And this is just proven resources. There plenty more unproven here.

The US is probably bleeding those guys dry over there. There must be some form of strategy going on.

-S

[Fish]

Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock containing organic matter from which oil may be produced. The regulations would provide for a thoughtful, phased approach to oil shale development on public lands in the West. Commercial development of oil shale will not begin until it is technologically viable, which is not expected for several years.

So, when will it be at the pump and at what price?:|\\

[SUBMAN1]

Just doing a bit of math here. If the US uses approximately 20 million barrels per day, that means it could live off this resource exclusively for 40,000 days, which is equal to 110 years alone!

This means I have to revive my calculations. Add another 100 years for whats sitting in AK, 250 years for coal to oil, Tack on another 50 years from drilling off our shores the tar sands, and this leads me to my next question:

WHY THE FRICK IS MY OIL COSTING HOW MUCH PER BARREL? CRAP! (#%@*@$#(&*#

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock containing organic matter from which oil may be produced. The regulations would provide for a thoughtful, phased approach to oil shale development on public lands in the West. Commercial development of oil shale will not begin until it is technologically viable, which is not expected for several years.
So, when will it be at the pump and at what price?:|\\

BP has got it down to about $30 a barrel, so that is not true. Leave it to the Brits to find a solution for weird problems.

-S

[STEED]

Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock containing organic matter from which oil may be produced. The regulations would provide for a thoughtful, phased approach to oil shale development on public lands in the West. Commercial development of oil shale will not begin until it is technologically viable, which is not expected for several years.
So, when will it be at the pump and at what price?:|\\

BP has got it down to about $30 a barrel, so that is not true. Leave it to the Brits to find a solution for weird problems.

-S

Come on SUBMAN1 I'm not a bloody miracle worker you know. :rotfl:

Or maybe I am. :roll: :rolleyes:

[STEED]

The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management today published proposed regulations to establish a commercial oil shale program that could result in the addition of up to 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from lands in the western United States.


Have they 100% no legal guff & BS established this as a real hard fact set in stone?

[Tchocky]

There is a major water crisis on the way for many regions, including the Western US.
For each barrel of shale oil produced, 2.5 barrels of water are required.
So that's 2 trillion barrels of water that has to come from somewhere.

For every tonne of oil shale you process, 6 gallons of contaminated waste water is produced. Given that there's 3.3 trillion tonnes of oil shale in the US, that makes 19.8 trillion gallons of sludge.

Let's not forget that this stuff has to be burnt before it's usable, so there's that environmental damage as well.

There's probably a cleaner way to do things.

EDIT - From Fortune magazine, don't fall for the energy independence implications

Shell declines to get too specific about how much oil it thinks it can pump at peak production levels, but one DOE study contends that the region can sustain two million barrels a day by 2020 and three million by 2040. Other government estimates have posited an upper range of five million. At that level, Western oil shale would rival the largest oilfields in the world.
Of course, considering the U.S. uses almost 21 million barrels a day and imports about ten million (and rising), even the most optimistic projections do not get the country to the nirvana of “energy independence.”

[Sailor Steve]

...proposed regulations...could result...
Have they 100% no legal guff & BS established this as a real hard fact set in stone?
Nowhere close to 100%, and hardly set in stone; but it's a good start.

I should know - I live in Utah.

There's probably a cleaner way to do things.
I completely agree, but it's good to have options.

[Platapus]

We just had a thread on this topic

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=140058

Had a good discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of oil shale there.

[Tchocky]

I hear you Steve, but unrenewable fossil fuels form such a central part of modern economies that there is no avenue that won't be fully exploited. The prize for companies is just too great. Large-scale moves towards renewables won't happen by themselves until every last drop has been squeezed. Hence governments.

[STEED]

...proposed regulations...could result...
Have they 100% no legal guff & BS established this as a real hard fact set in stone?
Nowhere close to 100%, and hardly set in stone; but it's a good start.

I should know - I live in Utah.

Well its a wait and see situation then. Pass me the popcorn this could be some time. :yep:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I hear you Steve, but unrenewable fossil fuels form such a central part of modern economies that there is no avenue that won't be fully exploited. The prize for companies is just too great. Large-scale moves towards renewables won't happen by themselves until every last drop has been squeezed. Hence governments.


Not so. Large-scale moves towards renewables won't happen until scarcity of resources forces the prices up to undesireable levels, at which point companies will look for something else. The ones that had the foresight to begin earlier than that will have the advantage. Hence, the complete waste of billions of taxpayer dollars on researching renewable energy.

[baggygreen]

I'd just like to point out tchocky has raised one of my pet hates, that is people saying 'were running out of water".

Doesnt happen.

Water changes form, from solid to liquid to gas, but it is always able to change back again.

It doesnt just vanish. There is just as much water now as there was 5000 years ago...

the only thing that changes is its form:know:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'd just like to point out tchocky has raised one of my pet hates, that is people saying 'were running out of water".

Doesnt happen.

Water changes form, from solid to liquid to gas, but it is always able to change back again.

It doesnt just vanish. There is just as much water now as there was 5000 years ago...

the only thing that changes is its form:know:


Amen.:up:

[Airmail]

I've studied Geology a lot and have various friends in the Oil industry including a Rig manager in Haliburton. I'm sorry to say this guys but shale oil isn't going to make the price of petrol cheaper. My advice would be to start looking at higher MPG cars, it's not going to be an easy ride with easy answers. I'm personally very worried by the economies dependance on oil, very very worried. Unless the seemingly impossible turns out to be true (which I highly doubt) and some of our deep sea reserves are actually topping themselves up we need to make a gradual change to new technology. Invest heavily. Otherwise your going to see fatal economic consequences when it comes to crunch time. The West also needs to start to openly discuss what It should do to make sure that it has Oil Security, governments need to come clean with the public.

[Wolfehunter]

Digging new holes in the ground will not lower gaz prices. Pls these guys are racking the cash and making excuses to raise the prices till they rob you dry.

Why not research on a renewable power supply that could save money and be enviromently clean?


Because it would put these guys out of business.

[Platapus]

People who make their living selling oil are not the people to be involved in alternative power research.

Every time I see one of those propaganda commercials from an oil company proclaiming that they are investing cubic millions in research, I can only think to myself, NO! they are the last people I want involved in alternative fuel research. Do the oil companies really think we are that gullible?

That is like the beef industry researching the health benefits of Vegan diets. :doh:

[Airmail]

People who make their living selling oil are not the people to be involved in alternative power research.

Every time I see one of those propaganda commercials from an oil company proclaiming that they are investing cubic millions in research, I can only think to myself, NO! they are the last people I want involved in alternative fuel research. Do the oil companies really think we are that gullible?

That is like the beef industry researching the health benefits of Vegan diets. :doh:

For the moment it's to get what they see as "Greenies" off their backs and reduce taxation on the company. However some are investing a little more heavily but on a long term timescale because they want to stay top dogs.

Not all that brilliant :damn:

[Sailor Steve]

I'd just like to point out tchocky has raised one of my pet hates, that is people saying 'were running out of water".

Doesnt happen.

Water changes form, from solid to liquid to gas, but it is always able to change back again.

It doesnt just vanish. There is just as much water now as there was 5000 years ago...

the only thing that changes is its form:know:
He didn't say "We're running out of water". He said there was an impending crisis in areas where the oil shale is, and he's right. Utah is a desert, and we are always right on the edge when it comes to having enough water. If it really takes that much, we will need to get it from somewhere else, and that's going to add to the cost.

[Zachstar]

Too bad about that problem with extraction with water supplies.. "Short"

More 100 year claims Subman?

[Zachstar]

I've studied Geology a lot and have various friends in the Oil industry including a Rig manager in Haliburton. I'm sorry to say this guys but shale oil isn't going to make the price of petrol cheaper. My advice would be to start looking at higher MPG cars, it's not going to be an easy ride with easy answers. I'm personally very worried by the economies dependance on oil, very very worried. Unless the seemingly impossible turns out to be true (which I highly doubt) and some of our deep sea reserves are actually topping themselves up we need to make a gradual change to new technology. Invest heavily. Otherwise your going to see fatal economic consequences when it comes to crunch time. The West also needs to start to openly discuss what It should do to make sure that it has Oil Security, governments need to come clean with the public.

Things like EEstor and a host of other battery technology will help make this transition. And guess what? We get to power them by burning our OWN coal! (That one is for you SubMan)

The economy will be fine as long as these technologies come out come to market within the next decade. With ones such as EEstor talking about next year or 2010..

We fix the storage problem. We break the back of oil...

[baggygreen]

I'd just like to point out tchocky has raised one of my pet hates, that is people saying 'were running out of water".

Doesnt happen.

Water changes form, from solid to liquid to gas, but it is always able to change back again.

It doesnt just vanish. There is just as much water now as there was 5000 years ago...

the only thing that changes is its form:know: He didn't say "We're running out of water". He said there was an impending crisis in areas where the oil shale is, and he's right. Utah is a desert, and we are always right on the edge when it comes to having enough water. If it really takes that much, we will need to get it from somewhere else, and that's going to add to the cost.true - i was toying with the idea of putting in a disclaimer saying that i know Tchocky didnt say it himself..

Living down under, where about 70% of the bloody place is desert, i know exactly what you mean. its another, hidden cost, one of those that never seems to be recognised but is always sitting there in the shadows.

[mrbeast]

I'd just like to point out tchocky has raised one of my pet hates, that is people saying 'were running out of water".

Doesnt happen.

Water changes form, from solid to liquid to gas, but it is always able to change back again.

It doesnt just vanish. There is just as much water now as there was 5000 years ago...

the only thing that changes is its form:know:

........or location?

[SUBMAN1]

He didn't say "We're running out of water". He said there was an impending crisis in areas where the oil shale is, and he's right. Utah is a desert, and we are always right on the edge when it comes to having enough water. If it really takes that much, we will need to get it from somewhere else, and that's going to add to the cost.true - i was toying with the idea of putting in a disclaimer saying that i know Tchocky didnt say it himself..

Living down under, where about 70% of the bloody place is desert, i know exactly what you mean. its another, hidden cost, one of those that never seems to be recognised but is always sitting there in the shadows.[/quote]

We have more snowpack this year than any year on record thanks to Global Warming (pun intended), so water pumped to Utah is not a problem. We made a city rise from the desert without water - Phoenix. The colorado flows through this area as well. Water is not a problem.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Actually, the Dutch seem to be beyond BP at this point! Good old Dutchies! Woo hoo!

-S

Oil shale enthusiasm resurfaces in the West

By Tom Kenworthy, USA TODAY

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/06/01/shale.jpg
Workers check the size on pipes at the Freeze Wall test site at Shell Oil Company's Mahogany Oil Shale Research Project near Meeker, Colo.

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. — The headline on the newspaper that state Rep. Bernie Buescher keeps in a box at home captures the allure of the vast petroleum riches under the rolling hills and arid mesas north of this western Colorado city.


"Oil Shale Development Imminent," the paper reads. That edition of the defunct Grand Junction News, Buescher notes, was published at the dawn of the 20th century.


More than a hundred years later, instability is roiling world oil markets, and Americans are paying $3 a gallon for gas. And oil shale fever is again rising in the geologic region known as the Piceance Basin, part of the Green River Formation that stretches across the rugged plains of northwestern Colorado and parts of Wyoming and Utah.


There is no dispute that a thousand feet below the isolated ranch country here on Colorado's western slope lie almost unimaginable oil riches. It's locked in sedimentary rock — essentially immature oil that given a few million years under heat and pressure would produce pools of oil easy to extract.


The Energy Department and private industry estimate that a trillion barrels are here in Colorado — about the same amount as the entire world's known reserves of conventional oil. The entire Green River Formation might hold as much as 2 trillion barrels.


Pushed by the Bush administration and legislation from Congress last year, and spurred by oil prices above $70 a barrel, the energy industry is mobilizing to unlock the secret of oil shale. As it has before, oil shale holds out the hope of a USA no longer dependent on foreign oil.


Testing a new approach

In a remote area of Rio Blanco County, nestled between dusty ridges covered with sagebrush and pinyon and juniper trees, Shell Oil is engaged in a multiyear test of a new technology for extracting the oil. Previous efforts that were uneconomical and environmentally destructive entailed mining the rock, crushing it and heating it above ground to release the oil.


Shell's new process involves sinking heaters deep underground, cooking the rock at 700 degrees and recovering the oil and natural gas with conventional drilling.


For a decade, Shell has been ramping up its research on private property here. It is also one of a handful of companies vying for research and development leases on larger tracts of federal land nearby. That could lead to full-scale development across 1,200 square miles of western Colorado.
Early results are promising, says Terry O'Connor, a vice president in the oil giant's unconventional resource division. But, he admits, "no one has been able to develop oil shale on a commercially sustainable basis." Shell has four more years of research here before it will know if it has the answer.


U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who heads the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was less cautious at a tour of Shell's test site Wednesday: "This is not pie in the sky. It's real this time."


Such talk has swept this region before, most memorably in the wake of the energy crisis of the 1970s. Longtime residents remember how it ended on May 2, 1982 — "Black Sunday" — when Exxon abruptly canceled its $5 billion Colony Shale Oil Project, laid off more than 2,000 workers and left a trail of home foreclosures and economic distress.


Now, said U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who accompanied Domenici on the tour, "we have a tourism-based economy on the western slope, and we will not do anything ... that will endanger that sustainability." Though oil shale has "great potential," Salazar said, "there's also great risk."


A RAND Corp. study last year for the Energy Department said that "the prospects for oil shale development are uncertain," though new technology could make it competitive with conventional oil. Producing 3 million barrels a day — about 15% of U.S. consumption — "is probably more than 30 years into the future," the study said.


Among the possible negative effects cited by RAND were large scale land disruption, air pollution, a large population influx in a rural area, and a huge demand for water in a region where it's scarce and, as Salazar said, "as precious as oil."


Randy Udall, of the Community Office for Resource Efficiency that promotes energy conservation in Carbondale, Colo., pointed out another drawback: the huge demand for electricity to cook the shale. "To do 100,000 barrels a day ... we would need to build the largest power plant in Colorado history."


'We ... need to get it right'

This region's bitter experience with the boom-and-bust of oil shale was on display Thursday as Domenici and Salazar held a hearing before an overflow crowd at the city auditorium here.


Outside, critics hawked T-shirts urging "Go Slow on Oil Shale." Inside, state and county officials said they welcome energy development but worry about the costs of providing roads, housing and other needs if a new boom arrives.


"Most of us agree it's time for the development of oil shale," said Russell George of Colorado's Department of Natural Resources. "But we really do need to get it right."


A letter from 17 county and city officials noted, "When oil shale is mentioned on the Western Slope of Colorado it is discussed as an industry that brought our economy and communities to their knees."


And Buescher, the Democratic state legislator, thought of that ancient newspaper headline. "They may be able to make it work," he said, "but I'm skeptical."

[SUBMAN1]

Anyone else notice that they claim this oil shale may hold more oil than the entire world reserves? Wow!

-S

[STEED]

Anyone else notice that they claim this oil shale may hold more oil than the entire world reserves? Wow!

-S

Yea sure and I am the King of Mars. :shifty: :lol:

[SUBMAN1]

Anyone else notice that they claim this oil shale may hold more oil than the entire world reserves? Wow!

-S
Yea sure and I am the King of Mars. :shifty: :lol:You mean you're not? :x

-S

[STEED]

Anyone else notice that they claim this oil shale may hold more oil than the entire world reserves? Wow!

-S
Yea sure and I am the King of Mars. :shifty: :lol:You mean you're not? :x

-S

Who told I was not?

Get your ass to Mars :lol:

[Tchocky]

Nat Geo on Western US water forecasting - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080131-west-droughts.html


Those findings may come as a surprise this year, when the West is getting so much snow that skiers and snowmobilers are dying in avalanches in places that normally don't get that much snow.
But that doesn't mean the future won't see significantly less snowfall.
"We'll still have wet years and dry years," Barnett said. "People have a problem distinguishing weather events and things that happen on a long scale. ... It's important to think of climate on time scales of a decade or more."
Sadly, he said, residents of states like California (http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/states/state_california.html), Utah (http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/states/state_utah.html), and Arizona (http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/states/state_arizona.html) are in line for some rude surprises.

[SUBMAN1]

Nat Geo on Western US water forecasting - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080131-west-droughts.html


Those findings may come as a surprise this year, when the West is getting so much snow that skiers and snowmobilers are dying in avalanches in places that normally don't get that much snow.
But that doesn't mean the future won't see significantly less snowfall.
"We'll still have wet years and dry years," Barnett said. "People have a problem distinguishing weather events and things that happen on a long scale. ... It's important to think of climate on time scales of a decade or more."
Sadly, he said, residents of states like California (http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/states/state_california.html), Utah (http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/states/state_utah.html), and Arizona (http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/states/state_arizona.html) are in line for some rude surprises.
This science is based on global warming again. For the next 20 years, it will actually cool so I doubt this will be a problem.

This is the coldest August on record over here even.

The short answer is, the Earth is going to do what the Earth is going to do and you can't stop it. So either way, it brings challenges.

But if you analyze the Shell way above - it doesn't use much water in the first place. BP's way uses lots of water.

-S

[Zachstar]

Subman I was the one freaking about about Oil Shale 2 years ago... You freak out about news about some "breakthrough" then years later little happens.

I will admit tho that if "chunks" of this stuff could possibly burned in coal plants to help the grid as America plugs in to drive.. I am still slightly interested...

Lets not drag this topic back into "GW is a conspiricy theory!!111" Junk again...

[Zachstar]

Anyone else notice that they claim this oil shale may hold more oil than the entire world reserves? Wow!

-S
And they "claim" oil speculation is causing high oil prices...

[SUBMAN1]

Subman I was the one freaking about about Oil Share 2 years ago... You freak out about news about some "breakthrough" then years later little happens.It takes 3 years to test, but you never read far enough into anything that goes against your religion of 'This is how the world works and alternate viewpoints are never valid and I will crush alternate viewpoints with pseudo beliefs if I must!' :p Try logic for once. It will help you greatly in life.

I will admit tho that if "chunks" of this stuff could possibly burned in coal plants to help the grid as America plugs in to drive.. I am still slightly interested... Coal burns much cleaner. Remember, raw oil is where plastic comes from in the first place and you wouldn't burn plastic in your fireplace. And, there is not enough coal power to support a plug in car economy. Only nukes have that power, yet somehow I assume you don't like nukes either. Now where would I get that idea?

Lets not drag this topic back into "GW is a conspiricy theory!!111" Junk again...Of course not - that would violate my first paragraph above!

How is the Communist party of the USA doing anyway? Always good to hear from one of its members so that we can keep up on current events.

-S

[Zachstar]

Well Subman if you want to be thrown in the brig that much... I never thought libel was worth it myself... Do be aware that due to me NOT being a Communist or involved in any way with the the Communist party... What you say is libel...

As for the nuke question. Only thing I am against are more new nukes because of cost, time, and the fact that the political brewhaha surrounding it rips discussion away from what is important. Such as Tax breaks for people installing full spectrum solar systems that will be most efficient when the AC systems are needed most.. And reinstating funding for fusion projects outside of the military...

The current nukes are fine.. The fuel extraction is fine.. I just hope they can give us enough 20 years of life before somthing better comes online..

And there is PLENTY of coal to support a plug in economy for a few decades (Notice how I do not claim centuries) Sure mountaintop blasting aint that great but atleast it is coming from our land instead of some terrorist supporting nation..

[SUBMAN1]

Well Subman if you want to be thrown in the brig that much... I never thought libel was worth it myself... Do be aware that due to me NOT being a Communist or involved in any way with the the Communist party... What you say is libel...I think you're a more likely candidate than myself for that. :D

And it wasn't libel - you stated it yourself in another thread!

-S

[Sailor Steve]

It takes 3 years to test, but you never read far enough into anything that goes against your religion of 'This is how the world works and alternate viewpoints are never valid and I will crush alternate viewpoints with pseudo beliefs if I must!' :p Try logic for once. It will help you greatly in life.
:rotfl:

You do realize that most of your arguments are usually seen as being exactly what you accuse Zachstar of?

And if somebody says anything remotely like what you just did, you start screaming about being personally attacked.

You really need to start having discussions rather than sniping attacks.

[Zachstar]

Subman1, I have never said I was part of the communist party... Or a communist... Nor a liberal... I am a progressive.. Left of Libertarian (Center) Right of Liberal (Left)

If you don't want to get it right don't post libel... You are only digging the hole deeper..

[SUBMAN1]

Subman1, I have never said I was part of the communist party... Or a communist... Nor a liberal... I am a progressive.. Left of Libertarian (Center) Right of Liberal (Left)

If you don't want to get it right don't post libel... You are only digging the hole deeper..

What do you honestly think a progressive is? Try googling it.

Done with this conversation.

-S

[Tchocky]

Anyone else notice that they claim this oil shale may hold more oil than the entire world reserves? Wow!

-S
And they "claim" oil speculation is causing high oil prices...

Hehe, price of a barrel of brent crude fell to $118 today, due to slowing global demand growth. Of course, when the price goes up it's the cause of nasty speculators :D

[Zachstar]

Subman1, I have never said I was part of the communist party... Or a communist... Nor a liberal... I am a progressive.. Left of Libertarian (Center) Right of Liberal (Left)

If you don't want to get it right don't post libel... You are only digging the hole deeper..
What do you honestly think a progressive is? Try googling it.

Done with this conversation.

-S

Progressive is a person who is tired of the insane ideals of the liberals yet is not interested in the ideals of the libertarian party.

It is libertarians who have drifted a bit left or liberals who have drifted right. It is NOT Liberals who have gone extreme left as you are implying in my view..

Get it right.. But atleast stop posting Libel.. If you do not believe there is such a thing as a progressive then call me a libertarian because I am quite close to that.


So will the "Y0ur a c0mmi3" like crap end now?

[Tchocky]

So will the "Y0ur a c0mmi3" like crap end now?

No, Virginia.

[SUBMAN1]

Lets end this debate once and for all:

-S

http://www.plp.org/images/fist3.gif
Progressive Labor Party


WHAT WE FIGHT FOR

Progressive Labor Party (PLP) fights to smash capitalism -- wage slavery. While the bosses and their mouthpieces claim "communism is dead:" capitalism is the real failure for billions all over the world. Capitalism returned to the Soviet Union and China because socialism failed to wipe out many aspects of the profit system, like wages and division of labor.

- Capitalism inevitably leads to wars. PLP organizes workers, students and soldiers to turn these wars into a revolution for communism -- the dictatorship of the proletariat. This fight requires a mass Red Army led by the communist PLP.

- Communism means working collectively to build a society where sharing is based on need. We will abolish work for wages, money and profits. Everyone will share in society's benefits and burdens.

- Communism means abolishing racism and the concept of race.

- Communism means abolishing the special oppression of women workers.

- Communism means abolishing nations and nationalism. One International working class, one world, one Party.

- Communism means the Party leads every aspect of society. For this to work, millions of workers -- eventually everyone -- must become communist organizers. Join Us!

[STEED]

This thread is getting hot. :D

Pass me the popcorn.

[SUBMAN1]

This thread is getting hot. :D

Pass me the popcorn.I'm out of it, so if you didn't have any already, then you missed out.

I can't stand it when people do not accept reality, but to tell you the truth, its not surprising.

-S

[Tchocky]

Note to self - Not every member of the Green Party is actually a green person.

The Royal Society is not composed solely of monarchs.

Some Log Cabin Republicans live in apartments (but we're not supposed to know that)

[STEED]

http://www.4americanrecreation.com/images/popcorn-scoop-boxes.jpg

Darn it I was about to tuck in.

[SUBMAN1]

Subman just uncovered another conspiracy :o
Read his post on progressists carefully, then go there : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
Scroll down to the "advocates" list. Yes, you read it right, there's Barack Obama :eek:
Reds under the bed :rotfl:
Oh come on man! You've known this by simply listening to the guy. Why do you think I think McCain is the lesser of two evils here?

-S

[STEED]

Subman just uncovered another conspiracy :o
Read his post on progressists carefully, then go there : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
Scroll down to the "advocates" list. Yes, you read it right, there's Barack Obama :eek:
Reds under the bed :rotfl:
Oh come on man! You've known this by simply listening to the guy. Why do you think I think McCain is the lesser of two evils here?

-S

Because hes not black? :hmm:

[mrbeast]

Subman, Don't you know conservative=fascist? :doh:

sounds pretty stupid doesn't it.

If I started calling you a fascist every time you voiced your conservative opinions I doubt you would like it very much; so please just give all this 'your a communist' baloney a rest. ;)

[Zachstar]

You just can't stop digging that hole can you Subman1?

#1 I am against unions (OMG, but look at my posts during the ULA strike on NASASpaceflight and you can confirm this)

#2 I said I was a progressive not a damn Labor movement!

Wow Subman you just can't accept that there is no big conspiricy can you? Here is a hint.. You arent making any friends among progressives and you are also possibly posting double libel because you are trying to involve these two movements (That likely have far more money and legal big shots than I do) In your spat with me..

If you can't accept that I am not a commie then maybe you need time in the brig after all. For I am done explaining myself and for now on the issue will be handled by management..

Edit: But then I guess that would mean I will be called a Nazi next? Now I am really confused... :P

[Zachstar]

Subman just uncovered another conspiracy :o
Read his post on progressists carefully, then go there : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
Scroll down to the "advocates" list. Yes, you read it right, there's Barack Obama :eek:
Reds under the bed :rotfl:
Oh come on man! You've known this by simply listening to the guy. Why do you think I think McCain is the lesser of two evils here?

-S
Because hes not black? :hmm:

Best burn!!!! Of the topic!

Normally I would say that race has nothing to do with it.. But then again that was before same person decided Progressive=Communist.. :doh:

Woo Man this forum is crazY sometimes!

[August]

Subman just uncovered another conspiracy :o
Read his post on progressists carefully, then go there : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
Scroll down to the "advocates" list. Yes, you read it right, there's Barack Obama :eek:
Reds under the bed :rotfl:
Oh come on man! You've known this by simply listening to the guy. Why do you think I think McCain is the lesser of two evils here?

-S
Because hes not black? :hmm:

No, it's because he's not English. :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

You just can't stop digging that hole can you Subman1?

#1 I am against unions (OMG, but look at my posts during the ULA strike on NASASpaceflight and you can confirm this)

#2 I said I was a progressive not a damn Labor movement!

Wow Subman you just can't accept that there is no big conspiricy can you? Here is a hint.. You arent making any friends among progressives and you are also possibly posting double libel because you are trying to involve these two movements (That likely have far more money and legal big shots than I do) In your spat with me..

If you can't accept that I am not a commie then maybe you need time in the brig after all. For I am done explaining myself and for now on the issue will be handled by management..

Edit: But then I guess that would mean I will be called a Nazi next? Now I am really confused... :PYou gave me a good laugh! Thanks! :up: :lol:

Man, do you even know what you are? Let's see, every progressive party is Communist, including the main one that I posted above, but you're not a Communist? Not sure how that is possible, but maybe you can explain that for the rest of us.

Let's see, labor is what your party calls itself the only progressive party I might add. You can even get on Wiki, and they have no word 'labor' in yet, they still call it Communist. Maybe this is something new that you created that the rest of us have no idea exists? If so, share! Actually don't bother - I could care less.

So how can you sit there and deny what you are? How can you say that Progressive is not Communist, yet every peice of literature on the web shows you that it is?

So basically what you've done is confirmed the prior post on your pseudo belief system.

Let me explain something to you then - You are either a Communist under a nice banner called progressive, or you have NO IDEA what you are. No other option.

And yes, the only real conspiracy around here is your threats and attempts to get me banned as you mention it in each and every thread at least once. You've done everything in your power to make this happen, but with that, I have a confession to make that might upset you. What I want you to know:

Unlike you, I do not rush to Subsim daily to find out what Zachstar has said about me. I could care less! :up:

You are in my thread however here.

My interest sits with posting cool posts with interesting topics. However, I see you like to come over to my interesting topics and troll at times. Thats your porogative. It comes down to this - if you don't like what I have to say, do not visit my threads with your I'm better than everyone else mentality. Simple as that. If you don't get anything else in this world, at least you might be able to get this idea.

Thanks,

-S

PS. Let me remind you what the Progressive Party is:

Progressive Labor Party


WHAT WE FIGHT FOR

Progressive Labor Party (PLP) fights to smash capitalism -- wage slavery. While the bosses and their mouthpieces claim "communism is dead:" capitalism is the real failure for billions all over the world. Capitalism returned to the Soviet Union and China because socialism failed to wipe out many aspects of the profit system, like wages and division of labor.

- Capitalism inevitably leads to wars. PLP organizes workers, students and soldiers to turn these wars into a revolution for communism -- the dictatorship of the proletariat. This fight requires a mass Red Army led by the communist PLP.

- Communism means working collectively to build a society where sharing is based on need. We will abolish work for wages, money and profits. Everyone will share in society's benefits and burdens.

- Communism means abolishing racism and the concept of race.

- Communism means abolishing the special oppression of women workers.

- Communism means abolishing nations and nationalism. One International working class, one world, one Party.

- Communism means the Party leads every aspect of society. For this to work, millions of workers -- eventually everyone -- must become communist organizers. Join Us!

[Platapus]

Could we please get this thread back to something above the elementary school playground level????

It could have been such a good thread like the last one we had on Oil Shale but.....:nope:

[SUBMAN1]

Could we please get this thread back to something above the elementary school playground level????

It could have been such a good thread like the last one we had on Oil Shale but.....:nope:

I apologize. I shouldn't have replied.

-S

[Sailor Steve]

No, you should have replied. Debate and argument are a good thing. What you shouldn't have done is to try to 'win' by belittleing your opponent. Zachstar never said he was a member of any party, yet you insisted on throwing out a 'Progressive Party' line, and telling him he didn't know what he was. You challenged him to "Google it", and yet a simple look at a dictionary would have told you what he was talking about.

pro·gres·sive /prəˈgrɛshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪv/[pruh-gres-iv]
–adjective
1.favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.

2.making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.

3.characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.

4.(initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.

5.going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.

6.noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.

7.of or pertaining to progressive education: progressive schools.

8.Grammar. noting a verb aspect or other verb category that indicates action or state going on at a temporal point of reference.

9.Medicine/Medical. continuously increasing in extent or severity, as a disease.

–noun
10.a person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform, esp. in political matters.

11.(initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) a member of a Progressive party.

12.Grammar. a.the progressive aspect. b.a verb form or construction in the progressive, as are thinking in They are thinking about it.

[Origin: 1600–10; [progress + ive]

[SUBMAN1]

No, you should have replied. Debate and argument are a good thing. What you shouldn't have done is to try to 'win' by belittleing your opponent. Zachstar never said he was a member of any party, yet you insisted on throwing out a 'Progressive Party' line, and telling him he didn't know what he was. You challenged him to "Google it", and yet a simple look at a dictionary would have told you what he was talking about.

pro·gres·sive /prəˈgrɛshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪv/[pruh-gres-iv]
–adjective
1.favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.

2.making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.

3.characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.

4.(initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.

5.going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.

6.noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.

7.of or pertaining to progressive education: progressive schools.

8.Grammar. noting a verb aspect or other verb category that indicates action or state going on at a temporal point of reference.

9.Medicine/Medical. continuously increasing in extent or severity, as a disease.

–noun
10.a person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform, esp. in political matters.

11.(initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) a member of a Progressive party.

12.Grammar. a.the progressive aspect. b.a verb form or construction in the progressive, as are thinking in They are thinking about it.

[Origin: 1600–10; [progress + ive]
This stems form another thread. That is the problem.

Anyway, the word definition is nice but in no way captures the party involved.

2.making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.

That is about as watered down as you can get. Its like the word Communism has some sort of PC bias attached. It (progressive) is a political idea with only one meaning as shown through history. Check the wiki link above even.

Maybe this is a case of Zachstar not really knowing who he is associating with.

-S

[Sailor Steve]

So the word means what you say it means, and if he defines himself that way he's automatically a communist?

That's interesting 'logic'.

But it also doesn't matter. If you insist on debating by equating your opponent with something you define as 'evil', then you are still doing the exact thing you accuse others of - attacking him personally rather than discussing the issue at hand.

[SUBMAN1]

So the word means what you say it means, and if he defines himself that way he's automatically a communist?

That's interesting 'logic'.No - the word is not fully described from a political perspective from this simple dictionary definition. An encyclopedia is the only thing that works here. You know this too.

Progressive = Marxist. Always has.

-S

[Onkel Neal]

Well Subman if you want to be thrown in the brig that much... I never thought libel was worth it myself... Do be aware that due to me NOT being a Communist or involved in any way with the the Communist party... What you say is libel...I think you're a more likely candidate than myself for that. :D

And it wasn't libel - you stated it yourself in another thread!

-S

Where? Thanks.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Progressive = Marxist. Always has.

-S

TR was a communist?

PD

[VipertheSniper]

So the word means what you say it means, and if he defines himself that way he's automatically a communist?

That's interesting 'logic'.No - the word is not fully described from a political perspective from this simple dictionary definition. An encyclopedia is the only thing that works here. You know this too.

Progressive = Marxist. Always has.

-S

You ought to read the article on Progressivism on wikipedia again, especially the section on "Relation to other political ideologies" might open your eyes that being a progressive doesn't mean someone is a communist.

[Zachstar]

I posted the wikipedia link to poke fun at Subman, and I'm sure he understood despite pretending to take it seriously. The rest is pure trolling.
And that's the thread where Zachstar supposedly came out of the closet and said "yes I'm a communist" :
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=140182
:roll:

Let's let SubMan1 post his direct evidence..

[nikimcbee]

Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock containing organic matter from which oil may be produced. The regulations would provide for a thoughtful, phased approach to oil shale development on public lands in the West. Commercial development of oil shale will not begin until it is technologically viable, which is not expected for several years.
So, when will it be at the pump and at what price?:|\\

BP has got it down to about $30 a barrel, so that is not true. Leave it to the Brits to find a solution for weird problems.

-S

Come on SUBMAN1 I'm not a bloody miracle worker you know. :rotfl:

Or maybe I am. :roll: :rolleyes:

Wow Steed, that would sound great on a resume: Steed-Miracle worker.:lol:


I thought the original reason they didn't go after this type of oil was because of the high cost. but with the cost so high of regular oil, the shale oil is cheap.