The Americas, Not the Middle East, Will Be the World Capital of Energy

Originally posted by SLAYER69


I personally would love to see the world get off it's Petroleum addiction and move onto to something more eco friendly. If this article is true then we will continue to fight over it while potentially polluting ourselves to a point worse than we already have.

"Eco friendly" what does that mean?? everyone throws the term around but doesn't have a clue. I don't know what it is either and I have researched and worked on alternate energy technologies for over a decade.So let me tell you what it is not. Not wind power, not photovoltaics, not reflective solar, not storage technology (batteries). To put this in economic terms, wind is 7x more expensive and voltaics are 12x more expensive, than current central station generation using whatever mix strategy you can name coal, oil nuclear,or gas. Any of these fuels individually is much cheaper than the cost of any of the so called green generation. Put in context if you pay $100 a month now for electricity how would $700 or $ 1200 for the same energy usage strike you? And no, economies of scale won't bring the cost to parity since production technologies are still far too expensive.Electric vehicles are not a viable answer either. The battery technology we are using today in electric vehicles is old (lead acid) and none of the new storage technologies pack the energy density to consistently and inexpensively power vehicles. Fuel cells? still not commercially viable after 30 years of development. So net, net, we are not migrating away from current energy supplies in the near future. Finally, there is no peak oil, that's part of the MSM propaganda to convince you we need to pay absurd sums for alternative energy, now. The original article is correct the western hemisphere holds the key to energy demands of the next generation. The greenies need to get over it, and don't get me started on the anthropogenic global warming/climate change hoax.

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Does this have anything to do with 'fracking'?

Did you mean cracking?

reply to post by SLAYER69

I personally would love to see the world get off it's Petroleum addiction and move onto to something more eco friendly. If this article is true then we will continue to fight over it while potentially polluting ourselves to a point worse than we already have.

I notice that most of the time petroleum dependence is usually thought of as the fuel we consume to get from point A to point B. (Gas Guzzling vehicles) However, there are many products that use petroleum.

Items such as

Cassettes Dishwasher parts Tool Boxes Shoe Polish Motorcycle Helmet Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape CD Player Faucet Washers Antiseptics Clothesline Curtains Food Preservatives Basketballs Soap Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Footballs

www.ranken-energy.com...

Of course, most people are aware of this. What I am curious about is how serious are companies about reducing the amount of petroleum they use in the products above?

I always hear about cars and better milage etc.. but what about the rest of the items we use petroleum for.

reply to post by SLAYER69


fracking as in injection wells that shoot a hot liquid into the bedrock and create cracks and liquifies oil that it can be pumped back out.

i beleive or something along the lines of.

read about it when i was reading about the different types of oil "sweet" and shale.

its doesnt live up to the cost benefit analysis at the moment alot of newer tech will change that if given the opportunity

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yeah, great idea, more off-shore oil drilling. That worked out #ing great in the Gulf of Mexico, not to mention all of THESE.. We don't need oil. We need to focus our resources on investing in tried and true sustainable energy sources instead. Even if there is no such thing as man-made climate change (I'm on the fence about that), exhaust from petrol vehicles is carcinogenic and smells horrible amongst many other problems. The only reason why we still use it is because of the greed of the people that already have so much capitol invested in it.

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776


did you really just sit there and use eurpopean mishaps as a defense

oh yeah bp stands for british petroleum in case you didnt know

25 and 30 year old accidents is suppose to make the case for the entire worlds economies that run off oil?

the life blood that every single person uses and benifts from on a daily basis?

great joke.

even when the potus banned offshore drilling he banned us drilling you know those people who didnt screw up.

and then pushed billions in developing foreign sources of oil why? to create and maintain more foreign dependence on them.

i swear.

reply to post by neo96


Neo, I almost always agree with your view points, so I won't jump down your throat with this, but oil is archaic technology man. We need to ween ourselves off of it, not think up quicker ways to obtain it. I agree completely that we need to become independent of foreign oil, but obtaining it here will only be a temporary fix to the grand problem of it being a finite resource to begin with. Not to mention that the price of the damn stuff is going to be an unaffordable "life blood" long before 2020 when they predict we will once again be the dominant oil producers. Also, as far as environmental catastrophes go, that reference that I gave was just a random pick from a quick google search. There are many other examples, such as the giant tanker spills that happen far too often. The biggest one was American too by the way. I'm not a tree hugger or anything man, but the environmental ramifications of our oil addiction are getting to be too much for anybody with a conscience to ignore.

Originally posted by OldCorp
S&F

I believe the US and Canada hold tremendous untapped petroleum and natural gas reserves. If I were in charge, I'd be doing exactly what I believe those who are in charge are doing: Use their oil first, and when it's gone or too expensive, tap into our own reserves.

While it is more expensive to extract the oil from Canadian oil sands, their reserves are HUGE, and account for 20% of the oil currently imported into the US:

Most of the oil sands of Canada are located in three major deposits in northern Alberta. These are the Athabasca-Wabiskaw oil sands of north northeastern Alberta, the Cold Lake deposits of east northeastern Alberta, and the Peace River deposits of northwestern Alberta. Between them they cover over 140,000 square kilometres (54,000 sq mi)—an area larger than England—and hold proven reserves of 1.75 trillion barrels (280×109 m3) of bitumen in place. Wiki

That's an insane amount of oil; enough to power the northern hemisphere for at least a hundred years. The US also has oil sands in Utah, but they account for a paltry 32 Billion barrels. In addition to oil sands, the US has monstrous, untapped, oil fields offshore, in Alaska, and even in the Midwest.

My mother owns a share of an oil well that sits in the middle of some farmer's cornfield in Illinois. It doesn't produce a lot of oil, but it does produce. Small, privately owned oil wells dot the landscape across the entire Midwest.



BTW, the oil well shown above is for sale if anyone is interested. It pumps out between 10-20 barrels a day of light sweet crude oil. Apparently, there are tens of thousands of these privately owned wells, and many of them are for sale. You can buy the well outright (actually, you're buying the farmer's mineral rights) or join an investor's group and own just a part of it. natural-gas-oil.com...

In 50 years, when the oil fields in the M.E. are dry, it's completely conceivable that they will become importers of OUR oil; we can finally stick it back to OPEC nations the way they've been doing to us for the last hundred years. And when I say "we" I mean somebody in the US. I can't include myself in that category because I'll be long dead by the time M.E. oil wells are dry; but my grandchildren may benefit.

Canada, U.S and Australia have heap loads of natural resources. Oil, coal gas, uranium etc. We also have the money to buy it from the middle east. I believe the whole idea is to use theirs now and ours later. Really what will the middle east do when theirs runs out? We'll have the money and the resources.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by OldCorp

 

These are interesting times we live in...
I'd love nothing more than to leave the Saudis hanging in the wind.

I am not sure but estimates fluctuate a lot for Saudi. Some say its about 50 years worth of oil at the rate it is pumping right now. However below are few links about world oil reserves. Ofcourse this is not a true source of information but it is interesting to see how the US and few other countries are not shown with significant reserves and/or the numbers are significantly different with variable estimates (true or cooked up).

OIL_RESERVES1
OIL_RESERVES2
OIL_RESERVES3
OIL_RESERVES4

CIA_FACTBOOK

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776


I appreciate the feedback but....Did you actually read my post or just the headline article?

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by OldCorp

 

These are interesting times we live in...
I'd love nothing more than to leave the Saudis hanging in the wind.

I am not sure but estimates fluctuate a lot for Saudi. Some say its about 50 years worth of oil at the rate it is pumping right now. However below are few links about world oil reserves. Ofcourse this is not a true source of information but it is interesting to see how the US and few other countries are not shown with significant reserves and/or the numbers are significantly different with variable estimates (true or cooked up).

OIL_RESERVES1
OIL_RESERVES2
OIL_RESERVES3
OIL_RESERVES4

CIA_FACTBOOK

edit on 16-8-2011 by hp1229 because: edit content

edit on 16-8-2011 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)

No government in the world is going to release a true figure of it's oil reserve. it's a matter of national security. And though OPEC might have an idea they're not going to state a true figure either because if at anytime in human history an orginisation has been signed to magnitude of acts it's OPEC

reply to post by hp1229


One thing I noticed about those numbers is exactly what you pointed out. The numbers fluctuate widely.
I wonder how this newer data changes those numbers...?

reply to post by SLAYER69


I would love to be a fly on the wall when one of the crowned Princes comes into the Kings villa and says " um sire? they just pumped out the last of the last bit of crude" can you imagine, a rags to riches to rags story of true epic proportions

reply to post by SLAYER69


In terms of energy, North America has enough tar sand and oil shale to supply the planet with energy for centuries. Thats not a typo, yes I typed centuries.

The Green River Formation in Utah, alone is estimated to have over 200 billion tons of oil shale, which is almost 1.5 trillion barrels of oil recoverable using current technology.
pubs.usgs.gov...

Currently the entire planet consumes about 90 million barrels a day, or 33 billion barrels a year.

Based on those numbers, the Green River Formation alone could fuel the entire earth for 45 years at current consumption rates. Realistically, consumption rates are going to fall further as other forms of energy supplement petroleum in the form of bio-fuels and thorium. In addition, extraction and recovery rates are going to increase, providing more oil.

The entire US oil shale reserves are estimated to hold up to 2.6 trillion barrels of recoverable oil.

In Canada, the Athabasca Oil Sands are estimated to hold 1.7 trillion barrels of bitumen. Currently only 10% of the oil is recoverable, but that will change.
www.environment.alberta.ca...

Between North American oil sands and oil shale, the continent is in a position to be a major energy cartel that will overtake OPEC at some point this century. Throw Venezuela into that cartel and you have the dominant global energy cartel.

This is good and bad news.

The good is energy independence and global influence.

The bad is the big bullseye that will appear on the Americas.

When the rest of the world, specifically Asia and Europe, begins to struggle with a very real energy catastrophe a few decades from now, they will turn their sights on the Americas.

If we have the firepower to keep them away and paying what ever prices we are extorting from them, we will be fine. If we don't have the firepower, there will be problems and North America could end up as the front of the final world war.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Of course man, the article was talking about different sources of oil in North America. While it's true that other sources were listed, I believe the first one listed was "hard to reach off-shore reserves" or something along those lines. While people might argue that the shale oil in Canada is going to be a much bigger source of petrol, it is still incredibly dangerous for the people who dig it up to be exposed to, and certainly wouldn't discourage other people to stake their claim in the much harder to reach, and more dangerous off-shore deposits.
What about my post didn't seem to fit with the article? The fact that I picked one part out of a seemingly positive article and brought to light the possible negatives? I thought that was ATS was supposed to be about.
Keep up the good work, your posts inform me more than pretty much any other source.

Edit to add a facepalm...
I misunderstood your reply and also missed your post, as I did only read the headline article. I thought you were asking me if I only read the headline. Apparently 3 hours of sleep per night isn't cutting it for my overtaxed brain.

reply to post by SLAYER69


The Next Industrial Revolution on this Planet will come from those who have at their disposal The Entire Planet's Energy Resources . Will the U.S. be the Nation to eventually have Total Control over them ? Is that Secret Goal amoung the Powerful Elite there ? I think so .

reply to post by SLAYER69


One thing I think is worth mentioning is something I heard a while back on coast to coast am ( I download the podcasts).

The show was about oil. There was a reverend who worked at a major oil field, and was basically the therapist/relgious dude who talked to all the peope working at the oil field and over time he built up a lot of trust with many of these people. Now he claimed that he had close contact with many of the 'oil elite' and because of his position he was told many things about the oil industry, a lot of inside information regarding oil and lots of other things. Now before anyone asks, the people who were revealing these things to him are are all dead now, so it is okay for him to reveal the information.

Well anyway he claims that in the 70's Henry Kissinger went over to the middle east and made some deals, where by the US would purchase oil exclusively from the middle east, as long as the US did not fully develop their own oil fields. There may be historical errors although I am only reporting what this man said. He claims that the US actually have the largest oil reserves in the world, and that they have purposefully left them undeveloped. The reasoning behaind this is that they would rather suck the worlds oil before they start to use theirs and also the price of oil shoud be far higher before they develop these oil fields. Not sure how much substance there is to this, although it seems to make sense to me. What do you think Slayer?

No, China will be the energy capital of the world. Look at what investments they are making for the future.

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

One thing I think is worth mentioning is something I heard a while back on coast to coast am ( I download the podcasts).

The show was about oil. There was a reverend who worked at a major oil field, and was basically the therapist/relgious dude who talked to all the peope working at the oil field and over time he built up a lot of trust with many of these people. Now he claimed that he had close contact with many of the 'oil elite' and because of his position he was told many things about the oil industry, a lot of inside information regarding oil and lots of other things. Now before anyone asks, the people who were revealing these things to him are are all dead now, so it is okay for him to reveal the information.
Well anyway he claims that in the 70's Henry Kissinger went over to the middle east and made some deals,where by the US would purchase oil exclusively from the middle east, as long as the US did not fullydevelop their own oil fields. There may be historical errors although I am only reporting what this man said.He claims that the US actually have the largest oil reserves in the world, and that they purposefullyleftthem undeveloped. The reasoning this, although it seems to make sense to me. What do you think Slayer?

Williams popped into my head immediately when I read this.

His evangelical style is rather off putting, but sometimes his substance is undeniable. This is one of those times.

Knowing the way these tyrants think, how could they not want a monopoly? They could charge us nine dollars per gallon if things go according to the purported plan.

Yet another reason to bust up the New World Order scum behind it all.

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


Well I suppose anything is possible eh?
I thought some would be interested in the subject.