U.S. has largest untapped oil reserve in the world

Originally posted by Cherubimsfire
I don't think this has been posted but forgive me if it has. According to this link, which I found browsing Fark.com lmao, the worlds largest oil reserve is under the U.S. Rocky Mtns.

Great info. One day it's peak oil, the next it's abundance. Up down, up down, who pays? So it's the largest untapped until another country claims it.. and then until..

Originally posted by BitRaiser
What a fine contribution the discussion.

Where's the link?

The links are on ATS and while i do not like his style , or always what he has to say, i have no reason to disagree this time.

Edit: I found the report (Here)and at initial skimming found it to be less than convincing that they have found a way to produce oil form oil shale without expending more energy than is returned via the oil produced.

Not sure why he decided to talk about that report but I'm not one to believe the rand guys very often.

It does suggest that cheap electrical energy could be converted into oil for aproximatly $30 a barrel as opposed to $20 a barrel through standard production. It calls this "competitive". I personally don't consider a 150% cost to be "competitive", but whatever.

Actually the Saudi's can get a barrel of oil above ground for anywhere between 50 and 200 US cents depending on how conservative you want to be. The Russians spend as far as i know about 600 Us cents to manage the same and the cost go up to about 25 or 30 dollars in the North Sea as far as i know. With current Oil prices one might get a huge return if your cost is around 20 USD per barrel ( cheap distribution since it's local) but oil prices might very well slump back to 5-10 USD per barrel as they did in the late 90's. The REAL reason why so few companies want to invest ( investment in oil production does not get you immediate returns) is because they very well understand that oil prices might once again quickly fall to those levels.

The point remains, this is in-efficent. The formula remains simple:
Energy used in production > Oil energy returned.

Define the 'energy' used in terms other than money while taking into account that money is a completely artificial thing devoid of proportionality to energy expenditure.

Yes, it could help as a band-aid solution when the big crunch comes down, but it's not a problem solver.

What big crunch?

I'll spend some more time with this report, but I suggest you need to do the same

I suggest you spend time to become informed and dont waste your time on this report. Just find my posts on this forum and you will understand the nature and the extent of the peak oil lie better than most anyone.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Not sure why he decided to talk about that report but I'm not one to believe the rand guys very often.

Actually, the report isn't bad. It's got some good information in it, but nothing to support any claim that oil shale can be extracted at a poitive energy return rate.

Actually the Saudi's can get a barrel of oil above ground for anywhere between 50 and 200 US cents depending on how conservative you want to be. The Russians spend as far as i know about 600 Us cents to manage the same and the cost go up to about 25 or 30 dollars in the North Sea as far as i know. With current Oil prices one might get a huge return if your cost is around 20 USD per barrel ( cheap distribution since it's local) but oil prices might very well slump back to 5-10 USD per barrel as they did in the late 90's. The REAL reason why so few companies want to invest ( investment in oil production does not get you immediate returns) is because they very well understand that oil prices might once again quickly fall to those levels.

Again, however, my point is that oil shale simply can't realisticly be called "competitve". The only time it's comercially viable is when oil prices have risen far above it's actual energy utility levels. At that point, we're much better off looking at alternate energy anyway. If you have to put 10 jules or electricity into extracting 1 jule of oil, the way to get ahead is to use that 10 jules of electricity instead of oil.

The point remains, this is in-efficent. The formula remains simple:
Energy used in production > Oil energy returned.

Define the 'energy' used in terms other than money while taking into account that money is a completely artificial thing devoid of proportionality to energy expenditure.

I'm talking raw energy. Jules. E=MC^2 stuff.
In this case, the actual form of energy to use in the extraction of oil is likely electricity derived from nuclear powerplants.
As I mentioned above, when it takes more energy to extract a resource than the resource can provide, you've got a problem. Why pump all that electicity into getting oil out when you could use it in... say... electric cars or feed it directly into the powergrid (which is currently mostly powered by buring fossil fuels)?

Yes, it could help as a band-aid solution when the big crunch comes down, but it's not a problem solver.

What big crunch?

THE big crunch. Peak Oil. The name of the forum.
:p
More specificly, when oil demand surpasses possible oil production.
I believe that peak oil is as inevitable as suffercation when locked in a sealed and airtight room. It might take awhile and there are things you can do to delay it, but basicly you're just screwed.

I'll spend some more time with this report, but I suggest you need to do the same

I suggest you spend time to become informed and dont waste your time on this report. Just find my posts on this forum and you will understand the nature and the extent of the peak oil lie better than most anyone.

Stellar

As promised, I did spend more time with the report, but I found nothing worth commenting on. It's a business doc based on finacial return, NOT energy magement.

I feel I have a fairly firm grasp of the peak oil issue and yes, much of my research did infact start right here on these forums.

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Actually, the report isn't bad. It's got some good information in it, but nothing to support any claim that oil shale can be extracted at a poitive energy return rate.

That's why i consider anything by Rand suspect unless i have checked out the issue. I have checked out this issue and there are at least a few methods by which you can now make a good/very good return on money if the oil prices stay above say 50 USD.

Again, however, my point is that oil shale simply can't realisticly be called "competitve". The only time it's comercially viable is when oil prices have risen far above it's actual energy utility levels.

When exactly does the cost rise of it's utility? Money has absolutely no inherent value so coupling the dollar price to some kind of 'utility' price is rather deceptive and ill advised imo. Until we have a substitute for oil ( we have but neither the oil industry or the motor industry can make a living- profit margins they consider 'essential'- from Electric cars) the cost to get it above ground is rather irrelevant unless your considering solar powered or wind powered cars. I have no love of the oil and energy industry ( check my posts on vacuum energy technologies) but even with the oil industry such as it is there is no reason for the US government ( why leave it for private industry; at least you will know what your tax money is doing other than raping large parts of the third world) or private industry not to exploit local sources.

At that point, we're much better off looking at alternate energy anyway. If you have to put 10 jules or electricity into extracting 1 jule of oil, the way to get ahead is to use that 10 jules of electricity instead of oil.

They say that they can get out twice the energy they put in and whatever the math they use it's rather irrelevant as they can apparently turn a profit. Money is created from thin air but thin air ( without something extracting that vacuum energy anyways. ) will never power your car so the energy exchange ratio is pretty damn irrelevant as you can not currently power your car with energy the coal power plant 'generates" ( which it really does not but that is another topic) and brings to your door.

I'm talking raw energy. Jules. E=MC^2 stuff.
In this case, the actual form of energy to use in the extraction of oil is likely electricity derived from nuclear powerplants.
As I mentioned above, when it takes more energy to extract a resource than the resource can provide, you've got a problem.

Only if you assume that money is directly coupled to a specific energy resource. Remember that the Germans produced gasoline from Coal in the Second world war and that South Africa still does on the order of 150 000 barrels a day. If the South African economy can sustain this and the industry itself prosper why on Earth does anyone need the damn Saudis? When you need gas to drive your someone to the hospital i don't think you would really care about the efficiency of the process of the company doing it still somehow keeps it stock holders happy....

Why pump all that electicity into getting oil out when you could use it in... say... electric cars or feed it directly into the powergrid (which is currently mostly powered by buring fossil fuels)?

I am in complete and total agreement but our agreeing will sadly not change reality. California had electric cars in the mid 90's but GM soon realized that they lasted too long and were too damn cheap to maintain. What they did then was withdraw them from the market and send them all the breakers while hyping the Hummer as they could make money there.

THE big crunch. Peak Oil. The name of the forum.
:p
More specificly, when oil demand surpasses possible oil production.

I would very much like to get the named changed as people tend to assume by looking at it that it's actually connected to some kind of short term reality. Peak oil of any way shape or natural form ( the market can create shortages whatever the reality of the resource availability is) is not likely within either of our expected lifetimes so stop worrying about it.

[quoteI believe that peak oil is as inevitable as suffercation when locked in a sealed and airtight room. It might take awhile and there are things you can do to delay it, but basicly you're just screwed.


And most of those who control the world will do their best to reinforce this view as they desperately want us to willing give up our relatively high ( far too high in their view) living standards so they can control us even better.

I feel I have a fairly firm grasp of the peak oil issue and yes, much of my research did infact start right here on these forums.

Then your reading all the wrong parts as far as i am concerned. Sorry i was a bit rude earlier but i sometimes get people's motives wrong. What 'facts' do you base your peak oil conclusions on as i am pretty sure i have done a decent job of addressing most of lies/ignorance/misinformation of the peak freaks. If you could focus me attention on the remaining issues you have i think i can help you not feel guilty about expecting a decent standard of living.

Conclusion: This planet can likely support tens of billions of humans on a basic agrarian level with industry adapted to make use of current scientific knowledge but with very simple tools and local industry to produce it. It could also sustain hundreds of billions with as much technology as they may find useful based on 100 year old scientific knowledge. We really could turn this world into a paradise that will make the garden of Eden type myths seem rather unimaginative and dull.It's all possible but for that to happen we must first wrestle back control of the worlds destiny from those who have hijacked it for their own ends. The world is in the state it's in not because there are no alternatives but because the alternatives do not suit those who benefit by the current energy and societal paradigms.

Stellar

[edit on 21-9-2006 by StellarX]

Stellar, I'm not sure where the miscommunication crept in, but there seems to be a couple going on.

First off, when I'm talking about oil shale in terms of viability, I'm not talking about in commercial terms. I thought I had explained that reasonably clearly.
The simple bottom line is that it takes more Energy to extract oil from oil shale than you get out of burning the recovered oil. There is a net loss of energy. You gain nothing except the convinance of being able to put that oil energy into the existing oil ecconomy. Under the proper circumstances (high oil prices, cheap electricity) this results in a return on money, but as you say, the money artifical and ultimatly meaningless in terms of utility or value.

The fact that anyone would take interest in oil shale supports the notion that we're in trouble in terms of supply. It's more costly, it's in-effcent, it's messy, and generally just undesirable. If there were any other options, would it not make good business sence to turn to them first?

Remember, Peak Oil isn't about running out of oil, it's about the end of cheap oil. It's about no-longer being able to maintain current consumption without impacting your way of life.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who has done any serious looking into the subject can believe that Oil isn't a finite resource. We know oil is rather rare in terms of biomass coversion. We know there's only a limited amount of geological time that biomass has been around that could form oil. We know there's a limited depth that we can drill to without expending more energy to extract than is recovered. Those are all hard and fast limits.

Those limits are being used by the industry in search of new oil supplies. Since we know what depths we are likely to find usable oil, that's where people have been looking. They've been looking hard, but new discoveries have been falling off despite increasing knowlage of where to look and much improved technology. The bottom line is that there are fewer finds being made even though we know how to look for it way better than ever before.

Before you fall back to the stance that big business is doing this on-purpose in order to artificially inflate oil prices, recall that much of the business of oil prospecting is done by wildcats who are fully independent. They start with little money and search as hard as they can before they run out hoping to find a major deposit before they go broke. There is MAJOR incentive for them to find oil... yet they are coming up dry more often than not.

Apply some good 'ol fashioned logic to this information.
What are the facts telling you?

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Stellar, I'm not sure where the miscommunication crept in, but there seems to be a couple going on.

I don't think we have any substantial one's to tell you the truth...

First off, when I'm talking about oil shale in terms of viability, I'm not talking about in commercial terms. I thought I had explained that reasonably clearly.

Well you did and that's why i said exactly what i did. If someone disagrees with your that doesn't mean there is a communication problem!

The simple bottom line is that it takes more Energy to extract oil from oil shale than you get out of burning the recovered oil.

Well as far as i know your still gaining 100% or 200% minimum energy after deductions even if that was somehow relevant.

There is a net loss of energy. You gain nothing except the convinance of being able to put that oil energy into the existing oil ecconomy.

Well since we do not have coal powered cars the energy exchange ratio really does not matter unless your one of those who believe that we are somehow destroying our atmosphere.

Under the proper circumstances (high oil prices, cheap electricity) this results in a return on money, but as you say, the money artifical and ultimatly meaningless in terms of utility or value.

Agreed. I just do not see what the problem in terms of the energy exchange ratio is. Does it really matter if you have 500 USD instead of a gun when someone is shooting at you? Unless the energy is in the form we currently need it ( and i would much rather have electric/solar/vacuum energy powered cars on the road) what use is it to us?

The fact that anyone would take interest in oil shale supports the notion that we're in trouble in terms of supply.

Well i don't think that is a argument that logically follows. If certain small companies believe they can turn a profit in the current market what does that tell us other than the blatantly obvious? There are massive reserves all over the world that is not being exploited ( due to a massive shortage of drilling equipment and personal for one ) and while there are many logistical reasons for it one of the biggest is simple the volatile nature of the the oil market where return on investment can take a few years or decades depending on the something as basic as perception of availability. If that small company can guarantee supply to a local area at a fixed rate over a specific term they may be perfectly happy taking their profit and working to reduce their overheads instead.

It's more costly, it's in-effcent, it's messy, and generally just undesirable. If there were any other options, would it not make good business sence to turn to them first?

Not if this specific company had limited access to the investment required for offshore drilling or the likes. Maybe they already own some of the infrastructure required for exploitation of this reserve? You are assuming ANY company would have a interest in exploiting this reserve but since the stocks of it are so massive they might very well do their best to avoid proving that it is in fact possible to exploit it at a reasonable return for investment. I believe the latter is the case as the energy business is all about control of humanity with profit and the like being very much a side issue.

Remember, Peak Oil isn't about running out of oil, it's about the end of cheap oil. It's about no-longer being able to maintain current consumption without impacting your way of life.

Oil is still vastly cheaper per barrel than Peanut butter, Water or any number of other things and it's just plain misinformed to spend time worrying about the peak you outlined above. It wont happen soon if it happens at all.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who has done any serious looking into the subject can believe that Oil isn't a finite resource. We know oil is rather rare in terms of biomass coversion.

In fact no one has established the exact exchange ratio and it's one of those crazy assumptions one has to assume as reality before you can indulge in the fantasy that most of the oil we use today comes from dead biomass. As for how much studying i have done in the abiotic field....

Some resources for the serious investigators

Greasing the Palms of the Oil Barons

New oil being created today?

CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT RECENT PREDICTIONS
OF IMPENDING SHORTAGES OF PETROLEUM EVALUATED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MODERN PETROLEUM SCIENCE.

Fears of dwindling oil supply unfounded.

Oil, Oil, Everywhere . . .

Odd Reservoir Off Louisiana Prods
Oil Experts to Seek a Deeper Meaning

Fuel's Paradise

The Origins of Oil and Petroleum

Thomas Gold

New Ideas in Science

Sustainable oil?

Discovering oil

Oil Reserves Are Increasing

Oil and Gas -"Renewable Resources"?

Petroleum under pressure

------------

in this article, research geochemist Michael Lewan is quoted as one of the most knowledgeable advocates of the opposing theory, that petroleum is a "fossil fuel". Yet even Lewan admits "I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons. The key question is, 'Do they exist in commercial quantities?'"

The AAPG article also mentions a letter published in Nature, April 2002, "Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs" which discusses evidence that methane gas from the Kidd Creek Mine in Ontario is of abiogenic origin.

The AAPG is organizing a conference in Vienna this July 11-14, 2004, Origin of Petroleum -- Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Productions

www.aapg.org...

The call for papers states
"For half a century, scientists from the former Soviet Union (FSU) have recognized that the petroleum produced from fields in the FSU have been generated by abiogenic processes. This is not a new concept, being first reported in 1951. The Russians have used this concept as an exploration strategy and have successfully discovered petroleum fields of which a number of these fields produce either partly and entirely from crystalline basement."

Note that the organizers of the conference include Michel Halbouty, recipient of a "Legendary Geoscientist" award www.agiweb.org... as well as Ernest Mancini of the University of Alabama, and the cornucopian author Peter Odell of Erasmus University. Evidently they are taking the abiogenic theory seriously, at least to the extent of organizing this conference.

www.melbourne.indymedia.org...

--------
Technical resources....

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
www.pnas.org...
www.pnas.org... maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1116989848949_817&stored_sear ch=&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&journalcode=pnas
www.pnas.org... maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1116989848949_817&stored_sear ch=&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&journalcode=pnas
www.pnas.org... maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1116989848949_817&stored_sear ch=&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&journalcode=pnas

The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum

Continue

Some of the American scientist involved.

J.F. Kenney, Gas Resources Corporation, Houston, TX
V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin
Institute of Geological Sciences, Kiev, Ukraine
gasresources.net...

Thomas Gold, Professor emeritus of astronomy at Cornell University
About the man... www.news.cornell.edu..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.news.cornell.edu...
The science... people.cornell.edu... based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey.

American Association of Petroleum Geologists www.aapg.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.aapg.org...

Gas Research Institute ....
www.gastechnology.org... g03/GasAMessengerfromSubsurfaceResources.pdf" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.gastechnology.org... g03/GasAMessengerfromSubsurfaceResources.pdf

Geotimes
www.geotimes.org...

Michael C. Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research and formerly chief energy economist for DRI-WEFA.
www.energyseer.com...

Jean Whelan, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Massachusetts
www.whoi.edu... and www-ocean.tamu.edu... Professor Mahlon Kennicutt II , Chemical Oceanography, Texas A&M University: Department of Oceanography both had some very choice things to say that im still looking for in my mess of a links directory.....

And maybe if you worked trough all that you will begin to get a glimpse of what i have considered and read so far on just this topic.

We know there's only a limited amount of geological time that biomass has been around that could form oil. We know there's a limited depth that we can drill to without expending more energy to extract than is recovered. Those are all hard and fast limits.

Energy expended hardly matters just like you can not shoot someone with whatever a gun goes for in USD. When you need a specific thing having the money value and not the thing itself is quite useless to you. Russia is drilling to amazing depths to tap oil and if they can manage it over there what is stopping the US government? As i said in other posts oil is not distributed in a way that somehow proves it's biotic origins and whatever the case may be we hardly have adequate means to keep track of what continent was where and when or what really was around back then. It's in fact mostly speculation on a truly epic scale and lending the word 'science' to great areas of geology 'understanding' is a truly bad idea.

Those limits are being used by the industry in search of new oil supplies. Since we know what depths we are likely to find usable oil, that's where people have been looking.

Does that really explain the dismal success rate or the fact that the Russians are now drilling so deep to find massive new reservoir where others do not believe one can find oil?

They've been looking hard, but new discoveries have been falling off despite increasing knowlage of where to look and much improved technology. The bottom line is that there are fewer finds being made even though we know how to look for it way better than ever before.

Oil discoveries are growing far in excess of even our current fast rising consumption and countries like the USA has used more than six times it's known reserves in the 70's. Does this mean known reserves are actually a figure worth quoting even thought it keep rising?

Before you fall back to the stance that big business is doing this on-purpose in order to artificially inflate oil prices, recall that much of the business of oil prospecting is done by wildcats who are fully independent.

Wildcatting plays no substantial part in the oil business even if it makes a few people very rich. The oil business certainly could never manage what they are alone and it really takes the complicity of most world governments ( willing or unwillingly) to keep this energy monopoly in place. This is FAR bigger than the oil companies or a few fat cat CEO's.

They start with little money and search as hard as they can before they run out hoping to find a major deposit before they go broke. There is MAJOR incentive for them to find oil... yet they are coming up dry more often than not.

So how can you start with little money when you essentially involved in a guessing game where even large companies drill so very many dry holes as percentage? How scarce can a resource be when you can 'guess' where you might strike it lucky? Compare the numbers of how 'lucky' they were in the 20's and 30's and notice their not doing very much better these days. Does that mean we really understand where oil forms or that we really have no idea and it's just so plentiful that we keep running into it?

Apply some good 'ol fashioned logic to this information.
What are the facts telling you?

Well i have spent some time on the issue and and what i have told you thus far is my logical conclusion based on what i have seen. We can't seem to avoid running into oil so they are actively trying to retard the supply but whatever means they can so as to reduce our supply of cheap energy.

Stellar

Originally posted by Cherubimsfire
I thought the war on "terror" was mainly about my damned Zionist government getting their hands on middle eastern oil and protecting Israel from being destroyed by everyone over there.

The US having craploads of oil and going to Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations for oil aren't mutualy exclusive. Pulling your conclussion is something your really don't want to do if you want to have any kind of credibility.

They aren't as much going for the oil itself, but for strategic control over the oil.

Control over the oil from the middle east gives you a level of control over China, Russia and Europe.

Read the PNAC documents to understand what the plan is.

Its not about going anywhere to obtain something, its all about going to specific places for their geostrategic importance. The geostratigic importance being locations that give you control over resources other nations need and strategic military positions (the US is slowly surrounding Iran and creating bases all over the ex-USSR nations, which also have masive amounts of untapped oil.)

Actually me family has land in kansas with oil. My uncle can only pump 1 barrel a day from each well pump. He is capable of pumpin 100 barrel a day for 75 years. I called him anyway to see whats up and he said that these are government restrictions. How ever my step sisters are involved in the oil from balli island off texas. they too are restricted on how much domestic oil is pumped. just thought id help contribute to the threads topic.

Originally posted by preBowAsG
Actually me family has land in kansas with oil. My uncle can only pump 1 barrel a day from each well pump. He is capable of pumpin 100 barrel a day for 75 years. I called him anyway to see whats up and he said that these are government restrictions.

So residential/small holding owners are restricted in how much they can pump?

How ever my step sisters are involved in the oil from balli island off texas. they too are restricted on how much domestic oil is pumped. just thought id help contribute to the threads topic.

So in this case even commercial operations are restricted in what they may pump? I would appreciate if a great deal if you could ask them what regulations are normally cited in defense in these restrictions. I did not consider the possibility that they would be quite as open about it but now that you mention this i will certainly go study this on my own.

Thanks for the contribution!

Stellar

This is what Samuel Bodman had to say about oil shale on whitehouse.gov.

Robert, from Hillsboro, Oregon writes:

Is it true that an untapped oil reserve has been discovered that exceeds 2 trillion barrels in the Green River Formation under the Rocky Mountains?

Samuel Bodman

You're right. And as yesterday's closure of the BP pipeline in Alaska reminds us, the oil market is very tight right now; so we must pursue every option for increasing our domestic supply of petroleum.

The reserve under the Rocky Mountains is what is known as oil shale, and there is a huge quantity of it there. Unfortunately, oil shale can't just be pulled out of the ground by means of regular drilling, like liquid petroleum. It must be heated to a very high temperature before it can be pumped.

But thanks to various provisions of the Energy Policy Act, we are able to put a good deal of effort toward developing the technology to make these "unconventional fossil fuels" more appealing, especially in terms of price and turnaround time. Altogether, domestic oil shale represents a resource, which, if economical, could play a significant role in meeting the nation's needs for more liquid fuels over the next several decades.

www.whitehouse.gov...

No matter how you cut it, that doesn't sound very optimistic in terms of utilizing that resource or of the long term advantage it might offer.

actually not to sound harsh but its kinda common knowledge in domestic oil. The whole midwest is full of fossil fuels ans so is the gulf and alaska as well as texas and new mexico. but its economics you see. Our economy can afford to buy oil from others while the demand is meduim and supply is high. when we have the limited supply with increased or stable demand then we can actually sell back oil at a higher cost, inflation included.

"If the South African economy can sustain this and the industry itself prosper why on Earth does anyone need the damn Saudis?"

South africa: 0.15 million barrels per day from coal.

World consumptions: 85 million barrels per day.

US consumption: 20-25 million barrels per day.



1) Coal to liquids (south africa) is a very dirty process which is significnatly worse for the atmosphere and global warming than using fossil petroleum.

2) "oil" shale is not oil, not even remotely. It is a continuous source of baloney and pumper propaganda, but imagining that it is feasably extracted oil is a dangerous delusion. Remember, oil sands, in Canada, is feasible as a fuel source, but it is very expensive and difficult to extract, and causes more greenhouse emissions.

Oil shale is much much worse than oil sands.

Give up the delusion, now.

We need wind, solar and nuclear, and electrification of transportation, via trains and electric plug-in hybrids.

hey all this talk about oil prices texas is known for oil if bush has mineral rights to his ranch in crawford tx and has oil wells this war could cut all ties to middle eastren oil supply and make bush a major oil provider hence making him into a instanst millionare

Originally posted by mbkennel
South africa: 0.15 million barrels per day from coal.

World consumptions: 85 million barrels per day.

US consumption: 20-25 million barrels per day.

What is the point of this comparison? Are you trying to suggest that scale has much anything to do with how likely or unlikely something will be when a nation decides to do it?

1) Coal to liquids (south africa) is a very dirty process which is significnatly worse for the atmosphere and global warming than using fossil petroleum.

The atmosphere could not care more or less as humans are having a remarkably small affect ( at worse) on global atmospheric temperatures. With sufficient investment and state backing pollution need not be a serious impediment as you can clean it as much as you decide to.

2) "oil" shale is not oil, not even remotely. It is a continuous source of baloney and pumper propaganda, but imagining that it is feasably extracted oil is a dangerous delusion.

So you keep saying with not so much evidence and even less reason why it being relatively hard to do makes it somehow impossible.

Remember, oil sands, in Canada, is feasible as a fuel source, but it is very expensive and difficult to extract, and causes more greenhouse emissions.

I think having wars over oil is more dangerous to our civilization than pollution from industry or 'greenhouse' emissions.

Oil shale is much much worse than oil sands.

It's just relatively more expensive but since money is not backed by anything and printed for free there is no reason why we can not mine as much as we want with sufficient encouragement.

Give up the delusion, now.

Your probably one of those that would have us de-industrialize pretense that that would somehow 'save the world'.

We need wind, solar and nuclear, and electrification of transportation, via trains and electric plug-in hybrids.

What we need to do is to exploit cold fusion and zero point technologies that can both extract energy for nearly free ( beside the small initial cost to create the disequilibrium with the active vacuum) forever.

I don't want a oil based economy any more than you do but i wont make up or believe lies to try alter things.

Stellar

It is time we broke free from dependence on Arab Oil sources...thanks for an informative article...we should start drilling our own resources today and not become blinded by being so "green"...thanks again.

reply to post by Cherubimsfire


I feel the U.S. has a very simple, well thought out plan as relates to it's BLACK GOLD.

Our geo-techs know who has the "Blood Oil" and how much is out there.

Is this is why the U.S. shut down oil production to the point we and the emerging industrial countries (China, India) exhaust the worlds supply??

This planned action created a frenzied atmosphere in our own country and justifies the under-current situation... "Consume other nations stockpiles first... and in 30 years we and our allies have the ultimate leverage to control the world."

It's even prophecised the bible - "The tribe that carries the biggest olive branch shalt covet it's river of oil from all gods people... and by doing so... hordeth for the guzzle of slavery."

Question... Why would an oil man named T. Boone Pickens be running commercials about new energy sources at this time?? If you understand the historical cycle and process of "trojan horse" imperialism you get a clear picture of their game plan.

Answer... The oil companies have been chosen to be the front runners in the global N.W.O. movement.

OIL is the new COTTON... the new OPIUM... the new GOLD...

Cortez, forget about those Aztec's... you your band of thieves ain't seen nothin yet!

America actually want's a back seat position with China and India, so the energy drain will take hold quickly & permanently! Our goal is to force them to grow as fast as possible. Remember this ecuacion -- More growth = more controlled dependancy! How could all the non oil producing countries possibly turn cheap tundra oil down - huh?? It's just a money making scheme to fund the takeover.

America understands we have tons of oil off shore and in shale... but bringing it out to market too fast will undermine the ultimate goal. And that is to use our oil reserves as the ultimate pass into the structure of the N.W.O. The feds did it with the removal of the gold standard... Thousands of tons of gold locked up never to be seen again...

Now it's time to create an earth destroying OIL STANDARD.... billions of barrels to be boiled out of frozen perma frost.



[edit on 17-7-2008 by Level X]

reply to post by Cherubimsfire


The US has an oil supply, but why not bargain with others to save your own? Hell, I'd do it.

stimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia

about oil shale

From my very limited knowledge, I see the US has these very large deposits of oil shale. These would be much more expensive to recover and employ a very different method from liquid oil. However, the point remains.....the US has massive oil reserves.

Like it or not, if push came to shove, the oil companies and the US would find a feasable way of extracting these reserves, and if the estimates are correct, then there is a hell of a lot of oil to be had. Three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi??

The US presence in the middle east, in my view, is nothing more than an attempt to control the supply of oil. Thus they control the world markets, demand, and therefore become the bully boys of the world. They have control of something the rest of the world needs, so they can dictate who gets what and at what price.

This 'Shale Oil' thing has been going around for a very long time. I learned about 'Shale Oil' in my 4th grade science class back in the 1950's. So, does that tell you anything about how soon to expect anyone getting oil from other than the current, universal extraction methods?? Until you get ALL people to 'go for it' (not just the politicians), it just AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!.
The ONLY thing that man can agree on is that man will NOT agree on everything.