Why are we not energy independant ???

[Hotrauder]

Check This Out...

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one
of the Forbes Bros. was the guest.. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to
ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil
does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said,
"more than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only
scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a
revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) 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 practically 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.' 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 2006!

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
mother load 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 yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this:

Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you
should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices - by
doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain

Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you
sent this to every one in your address book.

By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!
GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
IN GOD (THE I AM) WE TRUST!!!

[SC Cheesehead]

All good points, Dennis.

And I would add, why the h*ll has a 7 YEAR BAN on off-shore drilling been put in place that will not only increase our dependence on foreign oil, but which is also substantially contributing to unemployment all along the Gulf Coast.

And for those that argue that the drilling ban is environmentally necessary to prevent a reoccurance of the oil spill disaster, I would say that makes about as much sense as putting a moratorium on all driving because someone got in a car accident last week.

IMHO, it's just more C.Y.C.B.I... :shake:

[RacerX]

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?t=66891&highlight=oil
See my post #13... Very simple my friend! ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpalaSlayer http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?p=973195#post97 3195)
ive herd that too. we could have gas for under a dollar and create millions of jobs but we are to stupid (not us but the ones that matter are). while i like the idea of going "green" and what not i dont see the point in sending our money else where.

:D Think about it. We're keeping a lot of resources untouched and buying everyone else's. What happens when everyone else runs out and we're sitting on our natural stockpile. They die, we survive. It's a very simple and effective plan for survival and complete dominance for the US. Muahahahahahahahhahahaha! :coffee:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBT http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?p=973453#post97 3453)
It will not help us, all it means is sometime in the future, the same crooks that charge outrageous amounts of money for gas will just be doing it here, with our own oil.

Our jets will be flying and protecting, our military vehicles/tanks will be running and protecting, our Navy, will be running and protecting, our crops will be bountiful and feeding us... If I have to pay an arm and a leg for fuel, but, the rest of the planet is dying, trying to get to ours after it's to late for them... Hmmmm... I'm good!
:hijack:

[LANDY]

Simple answer: TOO MANY TREE HUGERS.

[SC Cheesehead]

Simple answer: TOO MANY TREE HUGERS.


BIG +1 to that, bro.

[Dragcity]

I think there is way more to it than that. I think we are at the point to utilize the stuff though, before we get to weak.

[Vortex]

Frankly Id rather we pump out all their oil before we start drilling out all of ours. The dollars we spend for Saudi oil usually gets spent in the US (or at least the west) anyway.

[sailsmen]

Gov't owns 67% of the oil on our land and 100% of the oil off our coast. The profit on a gallon of gasoline is 4%. The oil industry has an overall profit margin of 8%. The oil industry makes higher profits by focusing on non-gasoline petroleum products.

At current consumption there is a 300 year supply of shale oil and 300 year supply of non-shale oil in the USA.

In an area of ANWAR that was set aside for oil drilling the size of DC Airport has enough oil to replace what we purchase from the Middle East.

The Gov't receives large Royalties for every barrel of oil plus lease sales. From API - "For onshore federal leases, the Minerals Lands Leasing Act prescribes the share or royalty rate as 1/8 the value of production; for offshore leases, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act prescribes the royalty rate as 1/6 the value of production."

The question is why is our Gov't refusing to sell us our oil????

Answer Special Interest Groups Control Congress.

Did you know it is illegal for the Fed Gov't, the largest purchaser of energy, to pay for any fuel from or tech for shale oil? Why? Special Interest Group got their Congressmen to insert the ban in a bill.

[sailsmen]

Our oil policy results in funding terrorist groups who are vowed to exterminate us. Imagine the shift in power when we no longer have to buy oil from those who want to exterminate us.
This could easily be done in less than 7 years while adding revenue to the Treasury and jobs in the USA.

[kernie]

Something doesn't add up here, offshore, alaska, tar sands, the enviromental impact of those three are high.

Extends into Canada yet we continue the worst polluter of all, the oil sands, to protect southern saskatchewan? Hmm.

What's the catch?

[88LTDCV351]

I have a sneaking suspician that we won't see any $ savings at the pump even after the cost to setup the drilling here would be recovered. The market will bare a higher price and the oil companies know it. But at least Americans will be put to work on it,....er,....I mean, those H1B visa guys they are going to bring over with the experience to do the work. jk

[duhtroll]

Just from skimming both articles, it appears there is an error in the numbers.

The article link from the US Geological Survey you posted lists only 3 to 4.3 billion barrels more available. While that is a nice increase, it is not to the proportion listed in the pasted text you gave. The Wiki total of US reserves in this table (below) is 21 billion barrels.

So, a nice increase, but not "8 times as much as Saudi Arabia" which is listed as having 230 billion barrels.

Summary of Reserve Data as of 2010
Country Reserves [16] Production [17] Reserve life 1
109 bbl 109 m3 106 bbl/d 103 m3/d years
Saudi Arabia 230 37 9.7 1,540 66
Iraq 180 29 3.5 560 142
Canada 179 28.5 2.1 330 188
Iran 138 21.9 4.0 640 95
Kuwait 104 16.5 2.6 410 110
Venezuela 99 15.7 2.7 430 100
United Arab Emirates 98 15.6 2.9 460 93
Russia 60 9.5 9.9 1,570 17
Kazakhstan 47 7.5 1.4 220 93
Libya 41 6.5 1.7 270 66
Nigeria 36 5.7 2.4 380 41
United States 21 3.3 7.5 1,190 8
China 16 2.5 3.9 620 11
Qatar 15 2.4 0.9 140 46
Algeria 12 1.9 2.2 350 15
Brazil 12 1.9 2.3 370 14
Mexico 12 1.9 3.5 560 9
Total of top seventeen reserves 1,243 197.6 63.5 10,100 54

And yeah, comments about Wiki and documented sources can be kept to yourselves. Wiki is a lot more accurate nowadays and I will take their numbers over an as-yet unproven study article. Especially one that doesn't even claim numbers being wildly overblown.

The linked USGS article also says there already are wells drilling in the area, so I don't see what all the fuss is about.

I am willing to bet that if the oil is really there, we will be drilling for it before long.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp

(And the "snopes ain't perfect either" comments -- same thing. It still doesn't look like we have TRILLIONS of barrels of oil lying around.)


Check This Out...

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one
of the Forbes Bros. was the guest.. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to
ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil
does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said,
"more than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only
scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a
revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) 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 practically 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.' 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 2006!

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
mother load 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 yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this:

Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you
should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices - by
doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain

Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you
sent this to every one in your address book.

By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!
GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
IN GOD (THE I AM) WE TRUST!!!

[sailsmen]

Natural gas seen as important tool in global-warming fight
By The Associated Press
December 20, 2009, 3:24PM
An unlikely source of energy has emerged to meet international demands that the United States do more to fight global warming: It's cleaner than coal, cheaper than oil and a 90-year supply is under our feet.
The Associated PressWorkers for Atmos Energy tend to a natural gas drilling site in Grapevine, Texas. An unlikely domestic source has emerged as a partial solution to the demands of nations around the world that the United States do more to fight global warming: Natural gas.It's natural gas, the same fossil fuel that was in such short supply a decade ago that it was deemed unreliable. It's now being uncovered at such a rapid pace that its price is near a seven-year low. Long used to heat half the nation's homes, it's becoming the fuel of choice when building new power plants. Someday, it may win wider acceptance as a replacement for gasoline in our cars and trucks.
Natural gas' abundance and low price come as governments around the world debate how to curtail carbon dioxide and other pollution that contribute to global warming. The likely outcome is a tax on companies that spew excessive greenhouse gases. Utilities and other companies see natural gas as a way to lower emissions -- and their costs. Yet politicians aren't stumping for it.
In June, President Barack Obama lumped natural gas with oil and coal as energy sources the nation must move away from. He touts alternative sources -- solar, wind and biofuels derived from corn and other plants. In Congress, the energy debate has focused on finding cleaner coal and saving thousands of mining jobs from West Virginia to Wyoming.
Utilities in the U.S. aren't waiting for Washington to jump on the gas bandwagon. Looming climate legislation has altered the calculus that they use to determine the cheapest way to deliver power. Coal may still be cheaper, but natural gas emits half as much carbon when burned to generate the same amount electricity.
Today, about 27 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions come from coal-fired power plants, which generate 44 percent of the electricity used in the U.S. Just under 25 percent of power comes from burning natural gas, more than double its share a decade ago but still with room to grow.
But the fuel has to be plentiful and its price stable -- and that has not always been the case with natural gas. In the 1990s, factories that wanted to burn gas instead of coal had to install equipment that did both because the gas supply was uncertain and wild price swings were common. In some states, because of feared shortages, homebuilders were told new gas hookups were banned.
It's a different story today. Energy experts believe that the huge volume of supply now will ease price swings and supply worries.
Gas now trades on futures markets for about $5.50 per 1,000 cubic feet. While that's up from a recent low of $2.41 in September as the recession reduced demand and storage caverns filled to overflowing, it's less than half what it was in the summer of 2008 when oil prices surged close to $150 a barrel.
Oil and gas prices trends have since diverged, due to the recession and the growing realization of just how much gas has been discovered in the last three years. That's thanks to the introduction of horizontal drilling technology that has unlocked stunning amounts of gas in what were before off-limits shale formations. Estimates of total gas reserves have jumped 58 percent from 2004 to 2008, giving the U.S. a 90-year supply at the current usage rate of about 23 trillion cubic feet of year.
The only question is whether enough gas can be delivered at affordable enough prices for these trends to accelerate.
The world's largest oil company, Exxon Mobil Corp., gave its answer last Monday when it announced a $30 billion deal to acquire XTO Energy Inc. The move will make it the country's No. 1 producer of natural gas.
Exxon expects to be able to dramatically boost natural gas sales to electric utilities. In fact, CEO Rex Tillerson says that's why the deal is such a smart investment.
Tillerson says he sees demand for natural gas growing 50 percent by 2030, much of it for electricity generation and running factories. Decisions being made by executives at power companies lend credence to that forecast.
Consider Progress Energy Inc., which scrapped a $2 billion plan this month to add scrubbers needed to reduce sulfur emmissions at 4 older coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. Instead, it will phase out those plants and redirect a portion of those funds toward cleaner burning gas-fired plants.
Lloyd Yates, CEO of Progess Energy Carolina, says planners were 99 percent certain that retrofitting plants made sense when they began a review late last year. But then gas prices began falling and the recession prompted gas-turbine makers to slash prices just as global warming pressures intesified.
"Everyone saw it pretty quickly," he says. Out went coal, in comes gas. "The environmental component of coal is where we see instability."
Nevada power company NV Energy Inc. canceled plans for a $5 billion coal-fired plant early this year. That came after its homestate senator, Majority Leader Harry Reid, made it clear he would fight to block its approval, and executives' fears mounted about the costs of meeting future environmental rules.
"It was obvious to us that Congress or the EPA or both were going to act to reduce carbon emissions," said CEO Michael Yackira, whose utilty already gets two-thirds of its electricity from gas-fired units. "Without understanding the economic ramifications, it would have been foolish for us to go forward."
Even with an expected jump in demand from utilities, gas prices won't rise much beyond $6.50 per 1,000 cubic feet for years to come, says Ken Medlock, an energy fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston. That tracks an Energy Department estimate made last week.
Such forecasts are based in part on a belief that the recent spurt in gas discoveries may only be the start of a golden age for gas drillers -- one that creates wealth that rivals the so-called Gusher Age of the early 20th century, when strikes in Texas created a new class of oil barons.
XTO, the company that Exxon is buying, was one of the pioneers in developing new drilling technologies that allow a single well to descend 9,000 feet and then bore horizontally through shale formations up to 1½ miles away. Water, sand and chemical additives are pumped through these pipes to unlock trillions of cubic feet of natural gas that until recently had been judged unobtainable.
Even with the big increases in reserves they were logging, expansion plans by XTO and its rivals were limited by the debt they took on to finance these projects that can cost as much as $3 million apiece.
Under Exxon, which earned $45.2 billion last year, that barrier has been obliterated.
The wells still only capture only about a quarter of the gas locked in the shale formations. Future improvements could double that recovery rate. Bottom line: this new source of gas supply in Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, New York and other states holds out the promise of as much as 2,000 trillion cubic feet of supplies. It is estimated that the U.S. sits on 83 percent more recoverable natural gas than was thought in 1990.
"The question now is how does this change the energy discussion in the U.S. and by how much?" says Daniel Yergin, a Pulitzer Prize winning author and chairman of IHS CERA, an energy consultancy. "This is domestic energy ... it's low carbon, it's low cost and it's abundant. When you add it up, it's revolutionary."

[sailsmen]

U.S. set to depend more on shales for gas, study says

By Jack Z. Smith / Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Texas | Thursday, March 11, 2010 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Southwest
HOUSTON -- Shale-gas fields such as the Barnett Shale in North Texas are a "game-changer," a "veritable shale gale" that could account for 50 percent of the U.S. gas supply by 2035, according to a study released Wednesday.
Shale gas now accounts for about 20 percent of the U.S. natural gas supply, up from just 1 percent in 2000, said Daniel Yergin, chairman of international energy consulting firm IHS CERA, which announced its study results at its CERA Week 2010 energy conference.
The shale-gas phenomenon "is long-lasting, it is powerful, it has a major impact on the North American energy picture," Yergin said.
According to the study, environmental risks of shale-gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing on groundwater supplies are minimal because of "considerable geological separation, including impermeable rocks, between the underground fraccing sites and drinking water supplies."
Mary Barcella, director of IHS CERA’s North American gas group, said, "The standout finding is that the shale-gas deposits are at very deep locations several thousand feet below" groundwater aquifers, so "the seal there is pretty good," assuming a well is properly drilled.
Environmental and residents groups have expressed concern about potential pollution, including surface spills, from "produced water" that comes out of the well as a result of drilling and fracturing. Congress is considering stricter regulation of fracturing, including requiring greater disclosure of chemicals used in the process, which opens tiny fissures in rocks and allows natural gas to flow into a wellbore.
"The industry has been disposing of produced water as long as it’s been producing oil and gas" and "knows how to do it," Barcella said.
Even when there is a surface spill of produced water, "that is still far from aquifers," said David Hobbs, head of research for IHS CERA.
100-year-plus gas supply
The IHS CERA study said its analysis points to some 2,000 trillion cubic feet of gas discovered, mushrooming to 3,000 trillion cubic feet when adding gas deposits expected to be found in the future. That volume of gas "could supply current consumption for well over 100 years," the study said.
In the U.S. alone, the new "unconventional" gas plays, augmented greatly by advances in horizontal drilling, have increased the resource base by more than 1,100 trillion cubic feet, the study said. Unconventional plays include gas produced from shale and tight sandstones, as well as coal-bed methane.
Barnett could be eclipsed
In 2008, the Barnett Shale became the largest gas-producing area in the U.S., but its position as the biggest-producing shale play is likely to be eclipsed in coming years by the Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian region of the eastern U.S. and the Haynesville Shale in Louisiana and East Texas, Hobbs said.
That conclusion is based on the understanding that the volume of gas in the latter two shale plays "vastly exceeds the Barnett." But he said there remains "a lot to be done" in the Barnett, in terms of additional drilling and production.
Because natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel and can complement renewable wind and solar power to generate electricity, the bulk of the growth in U.S. gas demand will come from power generation, Yergin said. The IHS CERA study concluded that the amount of gas allocated for power generation could nearly double by 2035, from 19 billion cubic feet a day to 35 billion cubic feet.
Higher gas prices?
The global downturn has depressed gas demand and prices, which recently have been below $5 per 1,000 cubic feet, compared with highs above $13 in mid-2008. But numerous speakers at the conference said prices will strengthen somewhat as the economy rebounds and demand grows, including from new gas-fired plants that could replace old, more-polluting coal plants.
Tom Walters, president of gas and power marketing for Irving-based Exxon Mobil Corp., said the international oil giant expects that world demand for natural gas will be "almost 50 percent higher" by 2030, while overall global energy demand will increase only 30 percent. The big challenge for the petroleum industry, he said, is undertaking all the projects that will be needed to meet the rising gas demand.
To see more of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.dfw.com.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/southwest/view.bg?articleid=1238997


© Copyright by the Boston Herald and Herald Media.

[sailsmen]

From Bureau of Land Management

Oil Shale and Tar Sands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salazar Reforms Oil Shale Program--Department of Interior News Release, October 20, 2009

Federal Register Notice
New Oil Shale RD&D Lease Form
Fact Sheet on Oil Shale Program
Secretary Salazar's Letter to the Interior Inspector General
The United States holds the world’s largest known concentration of oil shale. Nearly five times the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia underlies a surface area of 16,000 square miles. The enormous potential of this domestic resource is a key to the Nation’s energy security and economic strength, and to the quality of life Americans enjoy today and hope to ensure for future generations.

More than 70 percent of American oil shale — including the thickest and richest deposits — lies on federal land, primarily in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. These federal lands contain an estimated 1.23 trillion barrels of oil — more than 50 times the nation's proven conventional oil reserves.

More than 50 tar sands deposits are found in eastern Utah, containing an estimated 12 to 19 billion barrels of oil. As oil prices rise, there is new interest in developing both of these domestic resources.

The BLM is working to ensure that development of federal oil shale and tar sands resources will be economically sustainable and environmentally responsible.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oilshale_2.html

[sailsmen]

The Word Game Deceivers. Some Politicians will say "the USA has only 2% of the World's proven reserves". A proven reserve is what is below a well that has been drilled. No drill means no proven reserve.
From the Society of Petrol Eng - "Reserves a calculation of the amount of hydrocarbon reserves that are in the formation. Proven reserves have a very high degree of recovery with wells in place and techniques that are proven."

Per I. F. Ivanhoe
"Resources--geologists' (optimistic) opinions of all undiscovered oil theoretically present in an area"

"Reserves--engineers' (conservative) opinions of how much oil is known to be producible, within a known time, with known techniques, at known costs, and in known fields"

[Mr. Man]

I've heard getting oil out of sand and shale is difficult and expensive. I'm sure once the tech is there it will become more cost effective to produce oil in house.

[sailsmen]

$30 to $90 per barrel depending on the tech used and location of shale oil.

[EMAS]

There are 2 reasons we switched to importing most of our oil.

#1 the cost of doing business in the US, IE meeting all the regulations and the cost of labor made importing oil cheaper.

#2 is strategic as has been mentioned, use up all theirs first and keep ours until then, a simple game of last man standing.

[ChiTownMaraud3r]

Anyone watch Collapse? Guy explains peak-oil and how the production of oil on the plant has reached and passed its peak and is on the decline.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxQLHAoXeAk

[sailsmen]

There are 2 reasons we switched to importing most of our oil.

#1 the cost of doing business in the US, IE meeting all the regulations and the cost of labor made importing oil cheaper.

#2 is strategic as has been mentioned, use up all theirs first and keep ours until then, a simple game of last man standing.

The primary reason is Special Interest Groups banned exploring for oil off 80% of our coast and much of our land.

[EMAS]

The primary reason is Special Interest Groups banned exploring for oil off 80% of our coast and much of our land.

That happened after we switched to importing the majority of our oil.

[kernie]

I've heard getting oil out of sand and shale is difficult and expensive. I'm sure once the tech is there it will become more cost effective to produce oil in house.
Go on google earth and take a peek at the oil sand production in northern Alberta, it's not hard to find with the huge tailing ponds, very interesting to look at with good resolution. It's a messy solution that i doubt would be tolerated in montana. I hope a better cleaner solution will be developed.

Interesting thread.

[burt ragio]

Great opportunity for investment.

[sailsmen]

Per the Washington Post - "Congress created a moratorium on new drilling off the coast in 1981, and every president since then has extended it."
Per the DOE barrels per day imported
1970 1,324,000 BPD
1980 5,263,000 BPD
1990 5,894,000 BPD
2000 9,071,000 BPD.

Does Gov't banning 80% off our coast from selling us our own oil make sense?

[SC Cheesehead]

Per the Washington Post - "Congress created a moratorium on new drilling off the coast in 1981, and every president since then has extended it."
Per the DOE barrels per day imported
1970 1,324,000 BPD
1980 5,263,000 BPD
1990 5,894,000 BPD
2000 9,071,000 BPD.

Does Gov't banning 80% off our coast from selling us our own oil make sense?

Seems like the answer is so logical, yet as you mentioned earlier SIGs continue to control our direction... :shake:

[Dr Caleb]

Something doesn't add up here, offshore, alaska, tar sands, the enviromental impact of those three are high.

Extends into Canada yet we continue the worst polluter of all, the oil sands, to protect southern saskatchewan? Hmm.

What's the catch?


Go on google earth and take a peek at the oil sand production in northern Alberta, it's not hard to find with the huge tailing ponds, very interesting to look at with good resolution. It's a messy solution that i doubt would be tolerated in montana. I hope a better cleaner solution will be developed.

Interesting thread.


You aught to educate yourself a bit better, unless you like being another person disseminating Greenpeace propaganda. You should see the difference; on one side of the river you have a black inky wasteland devoid of all but the heartiest lifeforms, and on the other side with the reclaimed land, there are trees with birds, fields and herds of previously exterminated buffalo.

Oilsands production takes 15% more fossil fuel to produce than conventional oil, and once we get the nuclear reactor built, it won't take that anymore. Plus, there is the added benefit of not supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezeula and Nigeria.

And tailings ponds can be reclaimed inside of a few weeks now, and all tailings ponds will be eliminated as of 2015. I'd estimate that this picture on Google Maps is about 15 years old at least.

http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=57.008963,-111.541443&spn=0.277422,0.602188&t=h&z=11

I know for a fact that the highway (63) running down the middle of this picture hasn't existed in that location since the mid 90's, and the tailings ponds here are gone, and are now a deep freshwater lake. It also doesn't show all the reclaimed land, nor the buffalo paddocks at Ruth Lake.

http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=57.01345,-111.543503&spn=0.069347,0.150547&t=h&z=13

[kernie]

You aught to educate yourself a bit better, unless you like being another person disseminating Greenpeace propaganda. You should see the difference; on one side of the river you have a black inky wasteland devoid of all but the heartiest lifeforms, and on the other side with the reclaimed land, there are trees with birds, fields and herds of previously exterminated buffalo.

Oilsands production takes 15% more fossil fuel to produce than conventional oil, and once we get the nuclear reactor built, it won't take that anymore. Plus, there is the added benefit of not supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezeula and Nigeria.

And tailings ponds can be reclaimed inside of a few weeks now, and all tailings ponds will be eliminated as of 2015. I'd estimate that this picture on Google Maps is about 15 years old at least.

http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=57.008963,-111.541443&spn=0.277422,0.602188&t=h&z=11

I know for a fact that the highway (63) running down the middle of this picture hasn't existed in that location since the mid 90's, and the tailings ponds here are gone, and are now a deep freshwater lake. It also doesn't show all the reclaimed land, nor the buffalo paddocks at Ruth Lake.

http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=57.01345,-111.543503&spn=0.069347,0.150547&t=h&z=13

OK..., well i guess the truth lies somewhere between your version and others, like this piece titled "Alberta tar sands: the worlds most destructive project"

http://one-blue-marble.com/alberta-tar-sands2.html

No doubt improvements have been made and will continue to be made.

[Dr Caleb]

OK..., well i guess the truth lies somewhere between your version and others, like this piece titled "Alberta tar sands: the worlds most destructive project"

http://one-blue-marble.com/alberta-tar-sands2.html

No doubt improvements have been made and will continue to be made.

Truth? If that article had any, then I might agree with you. I didn't make it much past: "For years, Alberta has polluted with nary a care for other provinces - mostly because we didn't know any better." Really? They why is Toronto the one always smoged in? We've been working to perfect oilsands extraction for almost 40 years, and we've got it down pretty well.

"The three oil sands projects combined cover an area larger than England, " Well, there is some truth. But the area disturbed is less than the west side of London, and 30% of that has been reclaimed as forest and habitable land. They make us sound like Mordor.

Try the perspective of the people who work here. Not the ones who make their money based on the number of people they enrage.

http://www.capp.ca/oilsands/ads/Pages/default.aspx

[kernie]

Truth? If that article had any, then I might agree with you. I didn't make it much past: "For years, Alberta has polluted with nary a care for other provinces - mostly because we didn't know any better." Really? They why is Toronto the one always smoged in? We've been working to perfect oilsands extraction for almost 40 years, and we've got it down pretty well.

"The three oil sands projects combined cover an area larger than England, " Well, there is some truth. But the area disturbed is less than the west side of London, and 30% of that has been reclaimed as forest and habitable land. They make us sound like Mordor.

Try the perspective of the people who work here. Not the ones who make their money based on the number of people they enrage.

http://www.capp.ca/oilsands/ads/Pages/default.aspx

I never said this piece was true, i just put up the other extreme and said the truth was somewhere in the middle, i stand by that. I'm also not anti-oilsands at all.

But where the deer and the antelope play, freshwater lakes, buffalo trucked in, trees planted...look! it's paradise version...don't think so.

[tbone]

I am so sick of the hand wringing over oil. We need it and there are massive reserves of it on this planet......WAY, WAY more than we will ever burn before technology makes it obsolete or we kill ourselves off through war or some other catastrophe. The environment can recover once we're gone. It will take less than 1000 years to erase all traces of our civilization.

We are shooting ourselves in the foot by sending our money to the middle east and other countries just to please a few liberal bastards.......

WE should be the ones to tap our reserves, sell it, bring down the deficit and improve our standard of living. This country is in deep trouble because of our idiotic government policies.

[SC Cheesehead]

I am so sick of the hand wringing over oil. We need it and there are massive reserves of it on this planet......WAY, WAY more than we will ever burn before technology makes it obsolete or we kill ourselves off through war or some other catastrophe. The environment can recover once we're gone. It will take less than 1000 years to erase all traces of our civilization.

We are shooting ourselves in the foot by sending our money to the middle east and other countries just to please a few liberal bastards.......

WE should be the ones to tap our reserves, sell it, bring down the deficit and improve our standard of living. This country is in deep trouble because of our idiotic government policies.

c.y.c.b.i...:rolleyes:

[Dr Caleb]

I never said this piece was true, i just put up the other extreme and said the truth was somewhere in the middle, i stand by that. I'm also not anti-oilsands at all.

But where the deer and the antelope play, freshwater lakes, buffalo trucked in, trees planted...look! it's paradise version...don't think so.

I guess, like me, you have to work there for a decade or so to believe it.

[kernie]

I guess, like me, you have to work there for a decade or so to believe it.
Oil has been very, very good to you. Do you think perhaps that fact clouds reality?

[SC Cheesehead]

...Hofmeister says the administration has punted on domestic production. Instead of expanding it, the oil industry says the administration has roped off some 85 percent of the outer continental shelf, leaving the industry few places to go.

The president of the American Petroleum Institute, Jack Gerard, argues that "if we open areas that are currently off limits to development, we could create more than 500,000 jobs throughout the economy, and generate an additional $150 billion in government revenue by 2025."

There is one inescapable fact. The U.S. now uses about 20 million barrels of oil a day but produces only 7 million. Hofmeister argues that bolstering that sum to 10 million barrels per day of domestic production would help hold down the price of oil.

"We'd be talking about trillions of dollars of investment if we were moving to 3 million more barrels a day of production,” Hofmeister said.

That could mean millions of jobs created and saved in the oil industry, as well as those that rely on oil, such as trucking, plastics and manufactured products of all kinds.

"Every sector of the economy depends on affordable energy -- every business owner, every worker, every household and family member, and every consumer depends on affordable, reliable supplies of oil and natural gas," Gerard said.

Global energy consumption is predicted to grow by 50 percent in the next 25 years, which will keep prices rising unless supply increases.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/04/energy-costs-cloud-obamas-hopes-political-turnaround/?test=latestnews#

So what are we doing to offset this? Building friggin' windmills... :mad2:

[sailsmen]

Yes,I live in one of the lightest wind speed areas in N.A. and yet due to our Gov't policy, subsidy, the Utility Company is erecting Windmills on top of an area rich in oil/gas that is under a drilling ban.
That's right there are oil/gas production platforms in sight of the Windmills and they cannot drill additional wells but the Gov't will take my money and give it to someone to erect Windmills that will not produce electricity.:mad2:

[Mark815]

^^^ I def agree with that, unfortunately though with our government and nation full of tree huggers, discussing domestic drilling to this administration is like talking to a toddler with their hands over their ears yelling LA LA LA , they just won't listen, no matter how much sense it may make, or how much it could help our citizens.

[SC Cheesehead]

Yes,I live in one of the lightest wind speed areas in N.A. and yet due to our Gov't policy, subsidy, the Utility Company is erecting Windmills on top of an area rich in oil/gas that is under a drilling ban.
That's right there are oil/gas production platforms in sight of the Windmills and they cannot drill additional wells but the Gov't will take my money and give it to someone to erect Windmills that will not produce electricity.:mad2:

Sounds like something out of "Atlas Shrugged."

[CBT]

Yes,I live in one of the lightest wind speed areas in N.A. and yet due to our Gov't policy, subsidy, the Utility Company is erecting Windmills on top of an area rich in oil/gas that is under a drilling ban.
That's right there are oil/gas production platforms in sight of the Windmills and they cannot drill additional wells but the Gov't will take my money and give it to someone to erect Windmills that will not produce electricity.:mad2:


The Midwest Wind Surtax

You'd think poor Michigan has enough economic troubles without the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) placing a $300 million to $500 million annual surtax on the state's electric utility bills. But on December 16, FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff announced new rules that would essentially socialize the cost of transmission lines across 13 states in the Midwest, reports the Wall Street Journal.
The region-wide pricing scheme will force Michigan to pay about 20 percent of as much as $20 billion in new high-voltage transmission lines -- though Michigan businesses and homeowners will get little benefit. Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin will also absorb new costs.
This is the first step in a FERC scheme to socialize transmission costs nationwide. In June FERC drafted a rule to create a new national transmission pricing policy that would link wind and solar energy projects to the national electricity grid. The new pricing rule would establish a new category of transmission lines, "Multi-Value-Project," which would take into account broad "public policy goals," most notably the increased use of renewable energy.
About half the states already have renewable portfolio standards, which require from 10 percent to one-third of electricity to come from wind, solar and other renewable resources. But states have discovered that ratepayers aren't thrilled about paying higher costs. For example:

A 2009 report by the California Public Utilities Commission found that to meet the state's 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020, seven transmission lines at a cost of $12 billion would need to be built.
In Massachusetts, electricity from the Cape Wind project will cost two to three times more per kilowatt hour than electricity from coal or natural gas.
The wind industry has essentially conceded that without the ability to socialize costs, its projects can't compete with coal, natural gas or nuclear power.
The FERC pricing scheme is politically insidious and arguably unconstitutional, because it enables states with renewable energy standards to export the costs of those policies to states without these laws, says the Journal.
Source: "The Midwest Wind Surtax," Wall Street Journal, December 30, 2010.
For text:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020452780457604 3893513811886.html (wlmailhtml:{6CED46CD-4737-4728-8A19-2B16FC19AF0B}mid://00000004/!x-usc:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020452780457604 3893513811886.html)

[FordNut]

It's economics. Plain and simple. It is cheaper to import it than to produce it domestically. Regulatory hurdles, labor costs, environmentalists, government intrusion all cost a lot of money (and time) to overcome, so it's cheaper, easier, and quicker to just buy it from somewhere else. Even if gas is $10/gallon it will be cheaper to buy it elsewhere, it will become a priority to produce it domestically when there are shortages and rationing.

[Dr Caleb]

Oil has been very, very good to you. Do you think perhaps that fact clouds reality?

No. I don't work in that industry anymore. But having experience in that industry makes me more of an expert than many PR firms from the US. Most of what they spew should cause their mommas to wash their mouth out with soap.

And if you were subtly talking 'tax revenues' for the province of Alberta - Natural Gas is the #1 generator there, with the Forestry and Mining sectors showing the largest growth recently. Oilsands is big, but not the biggest. Agriculture tops Oilsands' revenues.

[sailsmen]

^^^ I def agree with that, unfortunately though with our government and nation full of tree huggers, discussing domestic drilling to this administration is like talking to a toddler with their hands over their ears yelling LA LA LA , they just won't listen, no matter how much sense it may make, or how much it could help our citizens.

President Obama had stated on several occasions he was going to open up additional areas to offshore drilling, the individual states would have final say as they do now.
A friend was working on a report that is one of the final steps to opening a banned offshore area. Right after BP he was told to stop working on the report.

BP and the November elections pressured Pres Obama to change his postion to maintaining the status quo on the offshore ban.

[PonyUP]

I think there is a lot more to this than we just need to drill here more. However, I agree environmentalists have lobbied so hard to get legislation passed that it becomes nearly impossible to drill in new areas. Then safety regulations get changed to make it more affordable for oil companies to drill here, and we end up with a BP disaster, which only applies more pressure.
The Environmental Lobby has made it so expensive for oil companies to drill here, that I am not sure even if we opened up every drilling spot, they would be rushing to start the drilling. Which brings us back again to lobbyists and campaign finance reform. I don't think there is any such thing as a liberal or conservative, their view point comes from the lobby that gives them the most money during their campaign.

and I just wanted to say, without starting another political thread, I hate Pelosi, I'm glad that she is gone as speaker, but are we really gonna have to watch this guy cry everytime he gets on camera?

[sailsmen]

I think there is a lot more to this than we just need to drill here more. However, I agree environmentalists have lobbied so hard to get legislation passed that it becomes nearly impossible to drill in new areas. Then safety regulations get changed to make it more affordable for oil companies to drill here, and we end up with a BP disaster, which only applies more pressure.
The Environmental Lobby has made it so expensive for oil companies to drill here, that I am not sure even if we opened up every drilling spot, they would be rushing to start the drilling. Which brings us back again to lobbyists and campaign finance reform. I don't think there is any such thing as a liberal or conservative, their view point comes from the lobby that gives them the most money during their campaign.

and I just wanted to say, without starting another political thread, I hate Pelosi, I'm glad that she is gone as speaker, but are we really gonna have to watch this guy cry everytime he gets on camera?

Above Very true.

We have gone from "Wide Eyes" to "Wet Eyes".

Definition of an electible politician is one who loves himself more than the opposition hates him.

I stopped being involved in campaigns when I realized politicians are first narcisst and it is all about love of thy self.

The pros, campaign managers and lobbyist have no convictions. It is all about the game and not what is best for the country.

As a citizen who contacts his representative you can make a difference on individual specific issues. I have on a number of occasions, it is surprising when it happens but also troubling because it is proof just how much influence the professional lobbyist have.