Up-Date on CRUDE OIL (not a joke)

INTERESTING OPINION FROM A FRIEND:
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oil
men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ; western South Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana .....

CHECK THIS OUT:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels.. Even if just 10% of the oil is
recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practicall y see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.' says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.
'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56
years.' reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston
Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches from Northern
Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells
decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight!!
And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next
one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO!

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World! Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush
mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other
proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:
8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

18-times as much oil as Iraq

21-times as much oil as Kuwait

22-times as much oil as Iran

500-times as much oil as Yemen

and it's all right here in the Western United States

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy......WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact
area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the
competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so!

Reference:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1

Views: 14

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by P.G. on July 13, 2009 at 12:56
Wasn't there reports about this several years ago?
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on July 13, 2009 at 18:03
The Bakken formation is low porosity and permeability. It requires horizontal drilling and fracing like the Haynesville Shale. It's unclear whether it can be economically

Isn't the 2 Trillion barrel reserve "oil shale?" This is even more difficult than the Bakken formation.

By the way, "oil shale" is not oil and it isn't shale.

Currently, oil shale is only used via mining the shale and cooking it above ground. There are some test facilities to extract hydrocarbons from oil shale formations underground (in situ), but they are only experimental at this time. You can't drill and frac and get oil like you can from gas shale.

There do appear to be considerable "real" environmental concerns with oil shale production. There are also technical, economic, and political questions. Considerable extra CO2 is produced, apart from other environmental questions.

The hydrocarbons you get are considerably different from crude oil, and will require considerable processing to get what we currently get from crude oil. I don't know if it's inherently more difficult to use or just requires different processing.

I'm not saying oil shale is not something we should use. I'm saying it's not really the equivalent of other oil reserves, and that it's not necessarily just a question of deciding to use it.

If you want to talk about energy reserves, the answer is coal. The US has a LOT more coal than oil, oil shale, or natgas. The process to convert coal into diesel fuel and some other products is well known. (The Germans used coal to liquid conversion in WWII.) The hurdles are economic, environmental and political. Coal to liquid produces a lot of CO2.

It's been said that the US is the "Saudi Arabia of coal." That's wrong. We've got a LOT more coal than Saudi Arabia has oil, and a bigger share of the world's coal.

The anti-coal liquefaction opponents have taken to calling coal liquefaction "Nazi Fuel." Typical tree-hugger BS. Just like calling jets "Nazi Airplanes" or rockets "Nazi candles." Would they call any useful drugs produced in Germany from 1933 to 1945 "Nazi medicine?"

Let me be clear, I'm pro-Bakken, pro-oil shale, and pro-coal liquefaction. I simply realize that there are legitimate hurdles along with the political ones.
Permalink Reply by P.G. on July 14, 2009 at 2:12
It's a wonder they (treehuggers) aren't complaining about soda pop and beer! What happens to all that CO2 when all those billions of soda and beer containers get consumed?
How about Bread or anything made with yeast??
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on July 14, 2009 at 4:05
Beer is carbon neutral since the carbon released was taken up by the plants. Sounds silly, but its how the tree huggers think.

Soda gets its CO2 from companies that extract it from the air or industrial processes.
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on July 14, 2009 at 8:53
Pretty soon, they'll be trying to ration food intake because the more food we eat, the more CO2 we emit, and the more damage we do to the environment producing the food in the first place. They'll also want to ration milk and meat because that does more environmental damage than producing an equivalent amount of calories from vegetables.

Of course, the ultimate solution is Soylent Green.
Permalink Reply by P.G. on July 14, 2009 at 9:15
Where did coal and oil get it's CO2 from?
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on July 14, 2009 at 12:23
The standard answer is that plants sucked the CO2 from the atmosphere a long time ago.

However, the Earth was much different at that time. It was probably a lot hotter than it is now. The continents and ocean currents were much different from now. Some areas that are wet now were deserts then, and vice versa.

If Earth 2109 is just as habitable as Earth 2009, that still leaves a lot of people unhappy if 90% of the places people live now are under water. You could have most of the current food growing areas are barren, but some of the current deserts are now lush productive land.

If you're sitting in your ocean front property in Caddo parish, you may think it's nice. The 3,000,000 other people in LA who lost their homes may not be so happy. The Iowa farmer who now owns a patch of sand will be less happy than the guy in the Sahara or Siberia who can now grow rice.

Greenhouse climate change isn't necessarily a simple "everything gets hotter and dryer" phenomenon. Weather patterns change, most places get hotter, but more importantly, the weather patterns move. Wet areas become dry. Dry areas become wet. Some heavily populated areas starve or drown. Some places that never saw hurricanes start getting them, some places that get them now, don't get hurricanes any more. It's considered likely that much of Europe would freeze because the Gulf Stream could shut down.

I'm not saying global warming is real. I don't consider it proven, but the idea is not crazy. The people who believe that it's gospel are crazy. Those who want to implement feel-good politically corrupt pseudo solutions like ethanol are crazy. Cap and trade without China and India participating is crazy. However, those who believe climate change is impossible are crazy, too.

There's a significant chance that global warming is real. We shouldn't ignore the possibility just because it's not "proven." We do need to consider solutions, but we need to consider REAL solutions, not political BS.
Permalink Reply by Rosalie Cobb on July 14, 2009 at 12:53
The climate changes everyday. No big deal.
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on July 14, 2009 at 17:10
Not until the sea rises to cover your property, your formerly fertile farm land becomes too dry to farm, your land that never flooded before gets flooded every few years, your water supply goes dry, etc.
Permalink Reply by essay on July 14, 2009 at 20:27
It all comes down to the fact that people aren't willing to do what we would actually have to do. I mean, everyone talks about CO2, but the real killer accounts for something like 95% of our atmosphere's heat retention. Yes, I'm talking about that evil greenhouse gas water vapor. It must be stopped, and we must start the movement here and now! Viva la resistance!

But seriously, Mac talks sense, nothing has been proven. I'm a cynical skeptic, so I have grave doubts personally. But, even if Al Gore is right, I don't think we're really in much of a position to do anything about it on our own right now. Maybe ever, but especially not during one of the worst economic downturns in a century.

Anyway, I could go on and on, and did, but deleted it when I realized I was rambling again. I'm just really suspicious of most of the "doomsday scenarios" such as massive increases in the rate of sea level rise and the ocean currents going haywire, etc.
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on July 14, 2009 at 22:16
I agree nothing has been proven. That doesn't mean we ignore the issue. It hasn't been disproven, either.

What we really want to avoid is things that screw the consumer, screw the economy, and don't do anything to reduce CO2 production. Examples would be corn ethanol, cap and trade without China and India, tree planting programs, Al Gore style carbon credits so he can run air conditioning in his mansion, etc.

We also need to consider other greenhouse gasses, such as DHMO, discussed here:

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/group/offtopic/forum/topics/the-h...
Permalink Reply by sesport on July 15, 2009 at 16:58
Aw, Mac - gonna ruin your street cred. :0(

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Top Content 

1 A Memorial Day Salute To Those Who Serve

A Memorial Day Salute To Those Who Serve
2 Mammoth Minerals

Mammoth Minerals
3 Natural Gas Giant Chesapeake Begins Layoffs

Natural Gas Giant Chesapeake Begins Layoffs
4 Permian Gas Processing Plans Hint at Impending Rebound in Production

Permian Gas Processing Plans Hint at Impending Rebound in Production

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service