PDA

View Full Version : For those complaining about the price of gas!


Sassy
10-26-2009, 10:09 PM
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ; western South Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana .... check THIS out:

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

'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could 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.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.

2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO!

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

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

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States .

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

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

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


Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now, while you're thinking about it .... and hopefully P.O'd, do this:

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



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

Lev Vyvanse
10-26-2009, 10:18 PM
That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.



Holy crap!! Almost sounds like its to good to be true. Two millenia worth of oil.

bronco610
10-26-2009, 10:19 PM
Doesn't suprise me in the least. Our political corectness in the enviornmental issues will end up being the end of us all. Do you think the mid-east, china, or india is worried about the enviornment as we ship all our manufacturing and jobs over there?

broncocalijohn
10-26-2009, 10:24 PM
we arent getting to it. You really think the environmentalist lobbying for electric cars and/or hybrids going to let us tap into this fuel? Good luck. Nothing wrong with finding the best alternative methods of fuel but when it is right underneath our own soil in the 48 states, then it should be used accordingly. See above what accordingly is to some though.

scorpio
10-26-2009, 10:25 PM
Thanks grandma.

WyoLaw
10-26-2009, 10:25 PM
Just try getting a motel room for a full week in Williston, ND. Damn near impossible. Half the time I have to drive from Watford City when I work in Williston and the other half I have to drive from Williston when I work in Watford City. It's terribly annoying.

Sassy
10-26-2009, 10:27 PM
Thanks grandma.

???

houghtam
10-26-2009, 10:33 PM
The environmentalists aren't pissed that we're getting oil from different countries, they're pissed that we're using oil at all.

Why tap an unused resource to save money over the short term, when health care costs due to poor environment and pollution on account of burning (unrenewable, btw) fossil fuels rise?

Have fun saving that $1 a gallon on gas. I'd rather not have to spend $50,000 on end-of-life cancer costs due to inhaling toxicants.

SureShot
10-26-2009, 10:39 PM
Great a political thread. Yay!

Lev Vyvanse
10-26-2009, 10:43 PM
???

Back in my day people wouldn't question their elders. We also didnít have to ask some hippy group to get our oil. Whenever anyone found oil we would just gouge out a big hole and everyone would come running with their buckets. Thatís the way it was and we liked it.

broncocalijohn
10-26-2009, 10:46 PM
The environmentalists aren't pissed that we're getting oil from different countries, they're pissed that we're using oil at all.

Why tap an unused resource to save money over the short term, when health care costs due to poor environment and pollution on account of burning (unrenewable, btw) fossil fuels rise?

Have fun saving that $1 a gallon on gas. I'd rather not have to spend $50,000 on end-of-life cancer costs due to inhaling toxicants.

we have been using this type of fuel for well over a century so I dont see the outbreak of cancer happening based on that. I will take that $1 (at least) spread out over my lifetime. What is the difference of using that oil and using the oil we get from other countries? Short term? There is oil there for centuries. If we find a different type of fuel or resource to power vehicles, that oil will still be there. Not sure what your approach is here.

Pony Boy
10-26-2009, 10:49 PM
Is it oil or oil shale, that makes a big difference. Extracting oil from shale is no simple task, which is why the reserves in Colorado remain almost completely undeveloped.

CHANGSTER
10-26-2009, 10:49 PM
This really grinds my gears.

broncocalijohn
10-26-2009, 10:56 PM
This really grinds my gears.

a little oil will fix that problem on your gears.

SureShot
10-26-2009, 10:56 PM
The environmentalists aren't pissed that we're getting oil from different countries, they're pissed that we're using oil at all.

Why tap an unused resource to save money over the short term, when health care costs due to poor environment and pollution on account of burning (unrenewable, btw) fossil fuels rise?

Have fun saving that $1 a gallon on gas. I'd rather not have to spend $50,000 on end-of-life cancer costs due to inhaling toxicants.

https://ssl4.westserver.net/e-cart.biz/stores/vintage_metal_art/images/hippies.gif

Que
10-26-2009, 10:58 PM
Sassy - just a suggestion but you might want to check Snopes or some of the other urban legend sites before cross posting stuff that comes in your inbox. There is some truth here but not much. I could make an even more Golly Gee email with oil shale and even oil sands. Heck, I could make you want to invade Canada for their sands. But with everything, there is reality...

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

bronco610
10-26-2009, 11:00 PM
And while we argue and legislate these issues we remain dependent on other countries. Shame

Pony Boy
10-26-2009, 11:04 PM
Sassy - just a suggestion but you might want to check Snopes or some of the other urban legend sites before cross posting stuff that comes in your inbox. There is some truth here but not much. I could make an even more Golly Gee email with oil shale and even oil sands. Heck, I could make you want to invade Canada for their sands. But with everything, there is reality...

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

Ouch !! We've been oil-party pooped :~ohyah!:

TheDave
10-26-2009, 11:05 PM
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u291/TyDyeArt/Aw-Jeez.jpg?t=1256619888 (javascript:void(0);)

~Crash~
10-26-2009, 11:08 PM
The environmentalists aren't pissed that we're getting oil from different countries, they're pissed that we're using oil at all.

Why tap an unused resource to save money over the short term, when health care costs due to poor environment and pollution on account of burning (unrenewable, btw) fossil fuels rise?

Have fun saving that $1 a gallon on gas. I'd rather not have to spend $50,000 on end-of-life cancer costs due to inhaling toxicants.

tell that to my dad that has 3 or 4 years left to see .All he wanted to do is travel around the USA and see the sights but to costly for him .

Boobs McGee
10-26-2009, 11:10 PM
Is it oil or oil shale, that makes a big difference. Extracting oil from shale is no simple task, which is why the reserves in Colorado remain almost completely undeveloped.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Pretty sure it's shale...and you're absolutely correct, they haven't come up with an efficient way to extract it yet.

I'll do some research

Que
10-26-2009, 11:14 PM
That's exactly what I was thinking. Pretty sure it's shale...and you're absolutely correct, they haven't come up with an efficient way to extract it yet.

I'll do some research

Sweet. Please let us know when you get that whole oil shale to oil thing figgered out! ;) Sorry, couldn't resist.

Sassy
10-26-2009, 11:19 PM
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868

Sassy
10-26-2009, 11:20 PM
http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-shale1.htm


Oil Shale Extraction
The process of extracting liquid crude oil from the ground is comparatively simple to extracting oil shale. Pressure from gases trapped in the chamber where oil is present force the crude oil to the surface. After this pressure is alleviated, the more difficult secondary and tertiary phases of oil drilling begin. In some cases, water may be pumped in to loosen compressed oil. Sometimes gasses are introduced to repressurize the oil chamber. And in many cases, the remaining oil is simply left for future drilling with more advanced equipment.

Getting crude oil from rock represents perhaps the most difficult process of extraction. Oil shale must be mined using either underground- or surface-mining methods. After excavation, the oil shale must undergo retorting. This is when the mined rock is exposed to the process of pyrolysis -- applying extreme heat without the presence of oxygen to a substance, and producing a chemical change. Between 650 and 700 degrees Fahrenheit, the kerogen -- the fossil fuel trapped within -- begins to liquefy and separate from the rock [source: Argonne National Laboratory]. The oil-like substance that emerges can be further refined into a synthetic crude oil. When oil shale is mined and retorted above ground, the process is called surface retorting.

The problem is that this process adds two extra steps to the conventional extraction process in which liquid oil is simply pumped from the ground. In addition to mining, there's also retorting and refining of the kerogen into synthetic crude. Oil shale presents environmental challenges as well. It takes two barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil shale liquid [source: Argonne National Laboratory]. And without cutting-edge water treatment technology, the water discharge from oil shale refining will increase salinity in surrounding water, poisoning the local area [source: RAND].

There's also the matter of the rocks. Every barrel of oil produced from shale leaves behind about 1.2 to 1.5 tons of rock [source: RAND]. What should be done with this remaining rock? There are certainly projects that require loose rock -- like covering ground beneath highway overpasses to discourage homeless settlements. But the demand may not meet the supply if oil shale production is ever conducted on a massive scale.

Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company has come up with an answer to some of the problems with oil shale refining. The company calls it In Situ Conversion Process (ICP) [source: Fortune]. In ICP, the rock remains where it is; it's never excavated from the site. Instead, holes are drilled into an oil shale reserve, and heaters are lowered into the earth. Over the course of two or more years, the shale is slowly heated and the kerogen seeps out. It's collected on-site and pumped to the surface. This cuts out the mining aspect, and further reduces costs since there's no need to transport or dispose of spent rock.

Shell's design includes a freeze wall -- essentially, a barrier around the oil shale site where cooled liquids are pumped into the ground. This freezes any groundwater that may enter the site and keeps harmful byproducts like hydrocarbons from seeping out [source: Argonne National Laboratory].

Because of current obstacles, oil shale hasn't been commercially produced on a large scale. Simply put, it's currently more expensive and environmentally harmful than conventional drilling. But as the supply of crude oil diminishes and the price of petroleum rises, oil shale -- especially under Shell's plan -- is becoming increasingly attractive. Read about some of the positive and negative global consequences of emerging oil shale production on the next page.

Sassy
10-26-2009, 11:26 PM
The Geopolitical Consequences of Oil Shale
In the face of a major oil crisis in the 1970s, the Jimmy Carter administration federally funded oil shale research. But when the price of oil dropped once more, interest in unconventional supplies waned [source: Fortune]. With oil at prices higher than anytime in history -- the wholesale price of oil per barrel is predicted to rise as high as $150 per barrel in 2008 -- oil shale is attractive once again [source: NPR].


This holds true especially in the United States. The largest oil shale reserve in the world happens to be located in the western part of the country, covering parts of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. This 17,000-square-mile deposit is called the Green River Formation [source: DOE]. And if crude oil can be produced from oil shale on a large scale, the U.S. could become the leader in unconventional oil reserves.

That's because the reserves found in the Green River Formation can produce an estimated 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels of crude oil [source: RAND]. This is three times more than the oil reserves Saudi Arabia currently holds. This amount could meet the United States' current oil demands for about 400 years [source: Argonne National Laboratory]. In actuality, this prolonged supply is due to a lesser pace of depletion than conventional reserves and the slower rate at which the kerogen could be extracted from shale. Some estimates place peak production of oil from the U.S.'s shale reserves at 5 million barrels per day at most. This isn't enough to meet the daily U.S. demand of 21 million barrels, just under 10 million of which are imported [source: Fortune].


But cutting foreign-imported oil by half would go a long way to making the U.S. less oil-dependent. In January 2008, the U.S. imported an average of about 3.8 million barrels per day from Venezuela, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia combined [source: EIA]. While U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia are friendly, the relationship between Venezuela and the United States is rife with tense political friction. And Nigeria is a politically unstable country; its oil supplies are under constant threat from rebel factions. These rebel groups resent foreign oil companies who, the groups claim, give little in compensation for the resources they take from the nation. Commercial oil shale production could protect the U.S. from threats to its energy supply posed by these countries.


Venezuela also demonstrates another aspect of commercial oil shale production in the United States: money, and lots of it. The oil shale deposits in the U.S. are largely situated under lands controlled by the federal government. Other countries, like Venezuela, have state-owned oil conglomerates; perhaps the U.S. will dabble in socialist energy policy in the future. The price is certainly right -- Venezuela's state oil company posted revenues of $10.7 billion in the first three months of 2007. This represented a 10 percent decline in Venezuela's revenue over the same quarter of 2006 [source: AP]. Similarly, Vietnam's national PetroVietnam oil company reported earnings of $4.8 billion for the first quarter of 2008 [source: Viet Nam News].


These represent a drop in the bucket compared to the $2.5 trillion the U.S. government collected in taxes in 2007 [source: Tax Policy Center]. Still, every little billion helps.

Boobs McGee
10-26-2009, 11:31 PM
Sweet. Please let us know when you get that whole oil shale to oil thing figgered out! ;) Sorry, couldn't resist.

:rofl:

well played sir, well played :thumbsup:

Boobs McGee
10-26-2009, 11:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction


Environmental considerations

Main article: Environmental impact of the oil shale industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_oil_shale_industry)
Objections to the potential environmental impact have stalled governmental support for extraction of shale oil in some countries, e.g. Australia.<sup id="cite_ref-abc_65-0" class="reference">[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-abc-65)</sup> Shale oil extraction may involve a number of different environmental impacts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_oil_shale_industry) depending upon which technologies are used. Depending on the geological conditions and mining techniques, mining impacts may include acid drainage induced by the sudden rapid exposure and subsequent oxidation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidation) of formerly buried materials, the introduction of metals into surface water and groundwater, increased erosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erosion), sulfur gas emissions, and air pollution caused by the production of particulates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates) during processing, transport, and support activities.<sup id="cite_ref-Burnham_45-1" class="reference">[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-Burnham-45)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-openpitimpacts_66-0" class="reference">[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-openpitimpacts-66)</sup> Surface mining for ex situ processing, as with in-situ processing, requires extensive land use and ex situ thermal processing generates waste material, which needs to be disposed of. Mining, processing and waste disposal require land to be withdrawn from traditional uses, and therefore should avoid areas of high population density.<sup id="cite_ref-eu_8-2" class="reference">[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-eu-8)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-nrdc_67-0" class="reference">[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-nrdc-67)</sup> Depending on the processing technology, the waste material may consist of pollutants including sulfates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate), heavy metals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metals), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon), some of which are toxic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity) and carcinogenic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen).<sup id="cite_ref-oilshale2_68-0" class="reference">[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-oilshale2-68)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-tuvikene_69-0" class="reference">[70] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-tuvikene-69)</sup> Experimental in situ conversion processes may reduce some of these impacts, but may instead cause other problems, such as groundwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwater) pollution.
Production and usage of oil shale usually generates more greenhouse gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) emissions, including carbon dioxide, than conventional fossil fuels.<sup id="cite_ref-nrdc_67-1" class="reference">[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-nrdc-67)</sup> Depending on the technology and the oil shale composition, shale oil extraction may create also sulfur dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide), hydrogen sulfide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide), carbonyl sulfide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonyl_sulfide) and nitrogen oxides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_oxide) emissions.<sup id="cite_ref-argonne_70-0" class="reference">[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-argonne-70)</sup> Developing carbon capture and storage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage) technologies may reduce the processes' carbon footprint.<sup id="cite_ref-BartisBoston_71-0" class="reference">[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-BartisBoston-71)</sup>
Concerns have been prominently raised over the oil shale industry's use of water as water consumption is a particularly sensitive issue in arid regions.<sup id="cite_ref-deseret2_72-0" class="reference">[73] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-deseret2-72)</sup> In some cases, oil shale mining requires the lowering of groundwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwater) levels below the level of the oil shale strata, which may affect the surrounding arable land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land) and forest.<sup id="cite_ref-eu_8-3" class="reference">[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-eu-8)</sup> Above-ground retorting usually uses between one and five barrels of water per barrel of produced shale-oil, depending on the technology used.<sup id="cite_ref-rand_36-2" class="reference">[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-rand-36)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-BLM2008_73-0" class="reference">[74] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-BLM2008-73)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-myths_74-0" class="reference">[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-myths-74)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-water_75-0" class="reference">[76] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-water-75)</sup> Water is usually used for spent shale cooling and oil shale ash disposal. In situ processing, according to one estimate, uses about one-tenth as much water.<sup id="cite_ref-76" class="reference">[77] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-76)</sup> At the same time, advocates of shale oil extraction argue that in some cases mining and extraction processes may even produce a surplus of water.<sup id="cite_ref-myths_74-1" class="reference">[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-myths-74)</sup>
A 2007 programmatic environmental impact statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_statement) issued by the United States Bureau of Land Management stated that surface mining and retort operations produce two to ten US gallons (1.5Ė8 imperial gallons or 8Ė38 L) of wastewater per tonne of processed oil shale.<sup id="cite_ref-BLM2008_73-1" class="reference">[74] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#cite_note-BLM2008-73)</sup>

Prodigal19
10-26-2009, 11:35 PM
The Geopolitical Consequences of Oil Shale
In the face of a major oil crisis in the 1970s, the Jimmy Carter administration federally funded oil shale research. But when the price of oil dropped once more, interest in unconventional supplies waned [source: Fortune]. With oil at prices higher than anytime in history -- the wholesale price of oil per barrel is predicted to rise as high as $150 per barrel in 2008 -- oil shale is attractive once again [source: NPR].


This holds true especially in the United States. The largest oil shale reserve in the world happens to be located in the western part of the country, covering parts of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. This 17,000-square-mile deposit is called the Green River Formation [source: DOE]. And if crude oil can be produced from oil shale on a large scale, the U.S. could become the leader in unconventional oil reserves.

That's because the reserves found in the Green River Formation can produce an estimated 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels of crude oil [source: RAND]. This is three times more than the oil reserves Saudi Arabia currently holds. This amount could meet the United States' current oil demands for about 400 years [source: Argonne National Laboratory]. In actuality, this prolonged supply is due to a lesser pace of depletion than conventional reserves and the slower rate at which the kerogen could be extracted from shale. Some estimates place peak production of oil from the U.S.'s shale reserves at 5 million barrels per day at most. This isn't enough to meet the daily U.S. demand of 21 million barrels, just under 10 million of which are imported [source: Fortune].


But cutting foreign-imported oil by half would go a long way to making the U.S. less oil-dependent. In January 2008, the U.S. imported an average of about 3.8 million barrels per day from Venezuela, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia combined [source: EIA]. While U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia are friendly, the relationship between Venezuela and the United States is rife with tense political friction. And Nigeria is a politically unstable country; its oil supplies are under constant threat from rebel factions. These rebel groups resent foreign oil companies who, the groups claim, give little in compensation for the resources they take from the nation. Commercial oil shale production could protect the U.S. from threats to its energy supply posed by these countries.


Venezuela also demonstrates another aspect of commercial oil shale production in the United States: money, and lots of it. The oil shale deposits in the U.S. are largely situated under lands controlled by the federal government. Other countries, like Venezuela, have state-owned oil conglomerates; perhaps the U.S. will dabble in socialist energy policy in the future. The price is certainly right -- Venezuela's state oil company posted revenues of $10.7 billion in the first three months of 2007. This represented a 10 percent decline in Venezuela's revenue over the same quarter of 2006 [source: AP]. Similarly, Vietnam's national PetroVietnam oil company reported earnings of $4.8 billion for the first quarter of 2008 [source: Viet Nam News].


These represent a drop in the bucket compared to the $2.5 trillion the U.S. government collected in taxes in 2007 [source: Tax Policy Center]. Still, every little billion helps.
Im not sure what point you are trying to make with this post. Economics is the main reason that oil shale is not being extracted readily, not environmentalists. We have already come to this conclusion and your post just reinforces that idea. Your first post is completely misleading and is full of statements that just aren't true.

Boobs McGee
10-26-2009, 11:39 PM
Kinda scary considering our water situation as it currently stands, here in colorado. I'd like to find out more about the "freeze wall" process, and what kind of impact it will truly have on us.

All in all, it just sounds like they haven't found a way to make it an economic possibility.

Boobs McGee
10-26-2009, 11:41 PM
Im not sure what point you are trying to make with this post. Economics is the main reason that oil shale is not being extracted readily, not environmentalists. We have already come to this conclusion and your post just reinforces that idea. Your first post is completely misleading and is full of statements that just aren't true.

I think she was trying to show both sides of the argument....

BUT, I will say that IF it becomes an economically sound venture, then the focus WILL become enviromentalists

Sassy
10-26-2009, 11:42 PM
Yep...sorry for the first post though...I didn't check it out thoroughly...thought I got it from a reliable source that usually does check them out...some of it according to snopes, is true.

But the rest makes for an interesting bye week thread ;D

Prodigal19
10-26-2009, 11:46 PM
It is doubtful IMO that we will find a much more economical way to extract the oil from oil shale. Because of that there is no way that gas prices will go down due to these reserves. The only way that these reserves will be extracted readily by oil companies is if the price of oil continues to go up. Then it becomes economically advantageous to do so. It wont make prices go down though.

Que
10-26-2009, 11:48 PM
I'm kinda of a quasi environmentalist from a family in the oil bidness - which really just makes my a hypocrite. Here's the thing I don't get... we are sitting on huge reserves of natural gas. And it isn't some situation like oil shale or oil sands but honest to god reachable gas reserves right now right here. Heck, we've reached so many of them that the price of natural gas became unhinged from oil in recent years. Tons right here in Colorado. With all that being said, I don't see why the government isn't going hellbent to convert our automobile industry to natural gas. It is a cleaner burning fuel and we have a ton of it. The environmentalists like me might even support it because it is a cleaner alternative to oil. Getting it out of the ground does mess up the landscape but i'll take that over global warming.

Anyhow, i'll end my rant right there. LOL.

Prodigal19
10-26-2009, 11:56 PM
I'm kinda of a quasi environmentalist from a family in the oil bidness - which really just makes my a hypocrite. Here's the thing I don't get... we are sitting on huge reserves of natural gas. And it isn't some situation like oil shale or oil sands but honest to god reachable gas reserves right now right here. Heck, we've reached so many of them that the price of natural gas became unhinged from oil in recent years. Tons right here in Colorado. With all that being said, I don't see why the government isn't going hellbent to convert our automobile industry to natural gas. It is a cleaner burning fuel and we have a ton of it. The environmentalists like me might even support it because it is a cleaner alternative to oil. Getting it out of the ground does mess up the landscape but i'll take that over global warming.

Anyhow, i'll end my rant right there. LOL.
Because natural gas is a GAS. You would be able to get very far with 20 gallons of a gas in your car. You can liquefy it by pressurizing it, but that is extremely expensive as it stands and it certainly isn't very safe to have such high pressures in your car. Chemical Engineers are trying to figure out an economical way to turn the gas into a liquid without pressurizing it (perhaps turning it into methanol) but so far they haven't found a process that works.

Kaylore
10-26-2009, 11:58 PM
Holy crap!! Almost sounds like its to good to be true. Two millenia worth of oil.

It is. Democrats will fight to stop it from being drilled because it could hurt some prairie dogs.

Boobs McGee
10-26-2009, 11:59 PM
It is doubtful IMO that we will find a much more economical way to extract the oil from oil shale. Because of that there is no way that gas prices will go down due to these reserves. The only way that these reserves will be extracted readily by oil companies is if the price of oil continues to go up. Then it becomes economically advantageous to do so. It wont make prices go down though.

I respectfully disagree. In just reading about the technologies that have been developed in the last ten years (considering the fact that this idea was being explored for over a CENTURY), and seeing their progress, it's completely within the realm of possibility to see a more efficient/enviromentally sound/economically beneficial way of shale extraction. In fact, it's almost DOUBTFUL they won't come up with a conceivable solution.

If those factors fall into place, I don't see how oil prices wouldn't fall, as we'd greatly diminish our reliability on imported product. The only way I could see the current rising trend in prices actually affecting the production of shale oil, is if in fact the technology they use to extract it stays on par, and they're forced to use large quantities of energy in that process.

Opinions either way obviously, but I just don't see how with our technological advances, coupled with some of the greatest (and probably GREEDIEST) minds working on it, somehow not coming to a solution.

We'll see!

and hopefully, greed doesn't take precedence over our enviromental well being, specifically in the water department.

SureShot
10-27-2009, 12:00 AM
Because natural gas is a GAS. You would be able to get very far with 20 gallons of a gas in your car. You can liquefy it by pressurizing it, but that is extremely expensive as it stands and it certainly isn't very safe to have such high pressures in your car. Chemical Engineers are trying to figure out an economical way to turn the gas into a liquid without pressurizing it (perhaps turning it into methanol) but so far they haven't found a process that works.

Who cares about cars? All factories should switch to Nat Gas power like Frito Lay ASAP.

Boobs McGee
10-27-2009, 12:09 AM
I still think this is a great idea...don't know how large of a scale it could work on, but VERY cool none the less.

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/Seville-Solar-Tower/

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/Seville-Solar-Tower/images/6-seville-solar-power.jpg

(no photoshopping, that's actual light reflection)

Paladin
10-27-2009, 12:14 AM
I am hopeful that a solution to the extraction of oil from shale can be found. Anything to reverse the reliance on imported oil can be nothing but good for this country.

But no one in their right mind would want to crap in their own bed. So the extraction process does have to be respectful of the environment. I am not against finding and using oil, but I am for doing those things with common sense......

Prodigal19
10-27-2009, 12:15 AM
Who cares about cars? All factories should switch to Nat Gas power like Frito Lay ASAP.
The only problem with that is still transportation of the gas. Right now natural gas is transported through pipelines. We have quite a few pipelines right now, but in order to supply a large portion of industry with natural gas we would have to build many many many more. As it stand it isn't economical for anyone to do it that way. You can spend money do do this and end up with a source of energy that gives off less greenhouse gases or you can invest in renewable energies that will give off virtually no greenhouse gases. Most are going for option 2. However the fact is that until oil prices really start to rise, neither of these options will REALLY be taken advantageous of.

Prodigal19
10-27-2009, 12:21 AM
I respectfully disagree. In just reading about the technologies that have been developed in the last ten years (considering the fact that this idea was being explored for over a CENTURY), and seeing their progress, it's completely within the realm of possibility to see a more efficient/enviromentally sound/economically beneficial way of shale extraction. In fact, it's almost DOUBTFUL they won't come up with a conceivable solution.

If those factors fall into place, I don't see how oil prices wouldn't fall, as we'd greatly diminish our reliability on imported product. The only way I could see the current rising trend in prices actually affecting the production of shale oil, is if in fact the technology they use to extract it stays on par, and they're forced to use large quantities of energy in that process.

Opinions either way obviously, but I just don't see how with our technological advances, coupled with some of the greatest (and probably GREEDIEST) minds working on it, somehow not coming to a solution.

We'll see!

and hopefully, greed doesn't take precedence over our enviromental well being, specifically in the water department.

I hope your right! But based off of my studies I still find it doubtful that we will find a process that is both efficient and environmentally safe.

maher_tyler
10-27-2009, 12:22 AM
Reguardless...we need to keep searching for other, cleaner energy sources. Short term oil is the answer but we need to figure something else out!

OABB
10-27-2009, 12:24 AM
Reguardless...we need to keep searching for other, cleaner energy sources. Short term oil is the answer but we need to figure something else out!

Damn Hippie!

Why do you hate America?

Archer81
10-27-2009, 12:31 AM
US has oil resources greater than the middle east, thats not something that is up for debate, we just dont extract it. Its more important to save the inner empire sewer rat then use all the resources available to us. It would also allow us to switch to a more eco friendly economy over the long term rather than cost jobs and economic stability to switch everything right away...

:Broncos:

OBF1
10-27-2009, 12:31 AM
Effffffffff the freeking enviro's in California. Been living with their shiat for the past 10 years on a personal level. I do not know what it is going to take to get the rest of the general population to rally together to over run the few, the whacked out, the Enviro lobbiest.

Prodigal19
10-27-2009, 12:33 AM
Effffffffff the freeking enviro's in California. Been living with their shiat for the past 10 years on a personal level. I do not know what it is going to take to get the rest of the general population to rally together to over run the few, the whacked out, the Enviro lobbiest.

have you read anything here but the first post by any chance?

maher_tyler
10-27-2009, 12:51 AM
Damn Hippie!

Why do you hate America?

:kiddingme

Oil isn't going to last forever...incase you didn't know!

barryr
10-27-2009, 07:39 AM
There are many in our government that want us to keep being tied to the ME for oil since they are getting huge kickbacks, especially from Saudi Arabia. There's a reason most of our Congressmen are multi-millionaires and it wasn't by accident.

WyoLaw
10-27-2009, 08:49 AM
,

Meck77
10-27-2009, 08:52 AM
I'd be fine if we went back to horses and mules. Just add grass.

Rohirrim
10-27-2009, 08:55 AM
I'm kinda of a quasi environmentalist from a family in the oil bidness - which really just makes my a hypocrite. Here's the thing I don't get... we are sitting on huge reserves of natural gas. And it isn't some situation like oil shale or oil sands but honest to god reachable gas reserves right now right here. Heck, we've reached so many of them that the price of natural gas became unhinged from oil in recent years. Tons right here in Colorado. With all that being said, I don't see why the government isn't going hellbent to convert our automobile industry to natural gas. It is a cleaner burning fuel and we have a ton of it. The environmentalists like me might even support it because it is a cleaner alternative to oil. Getting it out of the ground does mess up the landscape but i'll take that over global warming.

Anyhow, i'll end my rant right there. LOL.

Is that you, T. Boone?

chadta
10-27-2009, 10:01 AM
you sill americans keep fighting about it, while up here in canada we keep building these.

http://springfieldfiles.com/albums/signs/0906.JPG

well be happy to sell your oil back to you at a "fair" price tho

Pony Boy
10-27-2009, 11:19 AM
I remember the environmental wackos telling us to say goodbye to the Caribou if the pipeline was approved.....

hambone13
10-27-2009, 11:34 AM
I tracked down the Wikipedia article on the Bakken formation an it pointed to a few credible references. The good news is that, according to the USGS and several reputable exploration geologists, the Bakken formation contains an estimated 413 billion barrels of oil. The bad news is that they all agree that there's no cheap way to recover more than about 5 billion barrels of it (we use around 7 billion in a year).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation

The other reserve they were talking about is the Green River formation. I did some research on this one a few years ago because Shell was trying to make extracting oil from shale deposits cheaper. The estimates for that area are 1.5 trillion barrels of petroleum equivalent. The bad news is that extracting it from the shale is cost prohibitive. You end up using a technique similar to how you'd get oil out of tar sand (lots of high pressure steam). The only reasons the Canadians can pull it off is there's more oil in the tar sands than there is in oil shale and they're alright with strip mining that part of Alberta.

Until the middle east is pumped dry, recovering what we have in those deposits doesn't make good business sense. Drilling off shore would be a good move but the wheels fall off that cart if OPEC doesn't keep the price of oil high.

Peoples Champ
10-27-2009, 11:50 AM
Holy crap!! Almost sounds like its to good to be true. Two millenia worth of oil.


It does sound too good to be true. But if it is, im gonna buy a truck.

Garcia Bronco
10-27-2009, 11:50 AM
We aren't dependent on other countries for oil. We buy it now to not have to buy it later.

watermock
10-27-2009, 12:13 PM
Deep offshore Brazil (3 miles) there is enormous amount of aboitic oil.

enjolras
10-27-2009, 12:21 PM
As for the original article, as always a visit to snopes is in order:

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

Basically, the original post is completely full of it.

chadta
10-27-2009, 12:34 PM
We aren't dependent on other countries for oil. We buy it now to not have to buy it later.

thats the best spin ive heard on it yet

underrated29
10-27-2009, 12:35 PM
call me naive for this.


But how in the hell do they know how much oil is down there?

1,000ft below the rockies? What did they do, drill a 1 cm whole 1k ft down to find out.

And if they use radar, who do they know its not water, tar, clay or anything else. Also if its radar that can penetrate rock, dirt etc. How come they couldnt find the ping from that airplane that went down in the ocean a few months ago. That was water and it was sending a signal up to us, not just sitting idle like oil.

How do they know this for sure?

GoHAM
10-27-2009, 01:21 PM
http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-shale1.htm


Oil Shale Extraction
The process of extracting liquid crude oil from the ground is comparatively simple to extracting oil shale. Pressure from gases trapped in the chamber where oil is present force the crude oil to the surface. After this pressure is alleviated, the more difficult secondary and tertiary phases of oil drilling begin. In some cases, water may be pumped in to loosen compressed oil. Sometimes gasses are introduced to repressurize the oil chamber. And in many cases, the remaining oil is simply left for future drilling with more advanced equipment.

Getting crude oil from rock represents perhaps the most difficult process of extraction. Oil shale must be mined using either underground- or surface-mining methods. After excavation, the oil shale must undergo retorting. This is when the mined rock is exposed to the process of pyrolysis -- applying extreme heat without the presence of oxygen to a substance, and producing a chemical change. Between 650 and 700 degrees Fahrenheit, the kerogen -- the fossil fuel trapped within -- begins to liquefy and separate from the rock [source: Argonne National Laboratory]. The oil-like substance that emerges can be further refined into a synthetic crude oil. When oil shale is mined and retorted above ground, the process is called surface retorting.

The problem is that this process adds two extra steps to the conventional extraction process in which liquid oil is simply pumped from the ground. In addition to mining, there's also retorting and refining of the kerogen into synthetic crude. Oil shale presents environmental challenges as well. It takes two barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil shale liquid [source: Argonne National Laboratory]. And without cutting-edge water treatment technology, the water discharge from oil shale refining will increase salinity in surrounding water, poisoning the local area [source: RAND].

There's also the matter of the rocks. Every barrel of oil produced from shale leaves behind about 1.2 to 1.5 tons of rock [source: RAND]. What should be done with this remaining rock? There are certainly projects that require loose rock -- like covering ground beneath highway overpasses to discourage homeless settlements. But the demand may not meet the supply if oil shale production is ever conducted on a massive scale.

Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company has come up with an answer to some of the problems with oil shale refining. The company calls it In Situ Conversion Process (ICP) [source: Fortune]. In ICP, the rock remains where it is; it's never excavated from the site. Instead, holes are drilled into an oil shale reserve, and heaters are lowered into the earth. Over the course of two or more years, the shale is slowly heated and the kerogen seeps out. It's collected on-site and pumped to the surface. This cuts out the mining aspect, and further reduces costs since there's no need to transport or dispose of spent rock.

Shell's design includes a freeze wall -- essentially, a barrier around the oil shale site where cooled liquids are pumped into the ground. This freezes any groundwater that may enter the site and keeps harmful byproducts like hydrocarbons from seeping out [source: Argonne National Laboratory].

Because of current obstacles, oil shale hasn't been commercially produced on a large scale. Simply put, it's currently more expensive and environmentally harmful than conventional drilling. But as the supply of crude oil diminishes and the price of petroleum rises, oil shale -- especially under Shell's plan -- is becoming increasingly attractive. Read about some of the positive and negative global consequences of emerging oil shale production on the next page.


WTF?? That's the best possible use for excess rocks?Hilarious!

jhns
10-27-2009, 02:50 PM
call me naive for this.


But how in the hell do they know how much oil is down there?

1,000ft below the rockies? What did they do, drill a 1 cm whole 1k ft down to find out.

And if they use radar, who do they know its not water, tar, clay or anything else. Also if its radar that can penetrate rock, dirt etc. How come they couldnt find the ping from that airplane that went down in the ocean a few months ago. That was water and it was sending a signal up to us, not just sitting idle like oil.

How do they know this for sure?

I don't know their exact method but I do know how they find out what the earth is made of and how deep each layer is. To do that, they setup equipment to detect vibrations in the rock. They put the seismographs all over the world. Any time there is an earthquake somewhere, they measured how long it took the vibrations to get to each sensor. That told them what the vibrations traveled through. Eventually, they were able to map out the inside of the Earth.

It is probably something close to that.

SureShot
10-27-2009, 02:52 PM
Everyone needs to switch to Natural gas so I can make more money. Thanks.

oubronco
10-27-2009, 02:55 PM
It does sound too good to be true. But if it is, im gonna buy a truck.

well hell I might get to drive mine !Booya!

Peoples Champ
10-27-2009, 03:11 PM
well hell I might get to drive mine !Booya!


Ya, I had a 4wd SUV my whole life, then finally got a car just cuz I live in MO, and dont need the 4wd, just need the milage. But if gas goes down, I am definatley getting a truck.

gyldenlove
10-27-2009, 03:18 PM
Currently Canada is only mining about 10-12% of the oil contend of the tar sand since that is all they can get current technology. That number would probably be even lower with oil shale, even if getting at it was easy current technology would not allow more than about 35 billion barrels to be extracted.

Mr. Elway
10-27-2009, 03:24 PM
I keep laughing at the thought that we are sitting on AS MUCH OIL AS SAUDI ARABIA BUT OMG THE HIPPIES ARE STOPPING US.

There is a reason the oil pumps in Colorado only run once the price gets to $4 a gallon. It's called capitalism. It's cheaper to import it than extract and refine shale, so we import the crude.

People give the environmentalists way too much credit. Does anyone honestly believe they would be able to stand in the way of an industry worth that much money? Yes, the Sierra Club et al have a voice, and they have lobbyists, and lawyers, but so do the oil and gas companies and believe me, the latter group has gotten the much better end of the deal so far.

Those oil and gas companies that are so victimized by the hippies seem to be doing pretty well so far in having their way with the Western Slope. Those damn hippies and their liberal agenda are the ones worrying about protecting our water resources - yes, that stuff we drink to stay alive, the stuff we count on not making our kids sick. It's not just obscure bird species they are protecting. Those same Crazy Liberals also think it's wrong for hard working people like you and I to donate part of our paychecks to oil companies, all for the privilege of them making billions of dollars. They also have it in their heads that it might be a good idea for Colorado to receive at least SOME compensation for its oil and gas. That way when those companies accidentally pollute a site, and instead of cleaning it up they declare bankruptcy and leave us with the bill, at least then we have some money to pay for it.

Rant over. I am a capitalist too, but the ignorance in this thread is pretty rampant. Learn both sides of the argument before you let an oil and gas millionaire like Dick Cheney tell you what's good for America.

Spider
10-27-2009, 06:02 PM
Is it oil or oil shale, that makes a big difference. Extracting oil from shale is no simple task, which is why the reserves in Colorado remain almost completely undeveloped.

12.00 a barrel to extract out of Pieance creek aka white water .... I moved shale oil drillin rigs

hambone13
10-27-2009, 06:36 PM
I keep laughing at the thought that we are sitting on AS MUCH OIL AS SAUDI ARABIA BUT OMG THE HIPPIES ARE STOPPING US.

There is a reason the oil pumps in Colorado only run once the price gets to $4 a gallon. It's called capitalism. It's cheaper to import it than extract and refine shale, so we import the crude.

People give the environmentalists way too much credit. Does anyone honestly believe they would be able to stand in the way of an industry worth that much money? Yes, the Sierra Club et al have a voice, and they have lobbyists, and lawyers, but so do the oil and gas companies and believe me, the latter group has gotten the much better end of the deal so far.

Those oil and gas companies that are so victimized by the hippies seem to be doing pretty well so far in having their way with the Western Slope. Those damn hippies and their liberal agenda are the ones worrying about protecting our water resources - yes, that stuff we drink to stay alive, the stuff we count on not making our kids sick. It's not just obscure bird species they are protecting. Those same Crazy Liberals also think it's wrong for hard working people like you and I to donate part of our paychecks to oil companies, all for the privilege of them making billions of dollars. They also have it in their heads that it might be a good idea for Colorado to receive at least SOME compensation for its oil and gas. That way when those companies accidentally pollute a site, and instead of cleaning it up they declare bankruptcy and leave us with the bill, at least then we have some money to pay for it.

Rant over. I am a capitalist too, but the ignorance in this thread is pretty rampant. Learn both sides of the argument before you let an oil and gas millionaire like Dick Cheney tell you what's good for America.

There's multiple people on this thread who are aware of the realities you're suggesting. Apparently in your butt hurt state you failed to read anything that didn't apply to your point. Brilliant.

Bronx33
10-27-2009, 06:45 PM
The goal is to sit on this huge find until everybody uses all the other oil THEN THE WORLD SHALL BE OURS!!!!! BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAHAHAHA!!!

Durango
10-27-2009, 07:37 PM
I asked a geologist friend of mine about this and had him read the story.

He says the supply of oil won't really matter as long as there are too few refineries to make the gasoline, and that often has to do with profit motive for oil companies and enviromental freaks that organize long, drawn out legal fights every time a new refinery is proposed in some location.

Oil companies are more than willing to relent to enviromental protests. It makes their pockets fatter and can actually improve their image.

Meanwhile, enjoy the soon-to-be $4 return at the pumps.

rastaman
10-27-2009, 07:49 PM
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ; western South Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana .... check THIS out:

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

'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could 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.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.

2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO!

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

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

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States .

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

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

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


Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now, while you're thinking about it .... and hopefully P.O'd, do this:

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



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

Question I have is how much of the Bakken oil would be sold in the U.S. VS the Oil Conglomerates selling the oil on the open market around the globe b/c other countries are willing to pay more. Case in point, the Alaska Oil, very little of that oil is actually sold to the lower 48 states. The Alaskan Oil is sold for the most part around the globe to the highest bidders, mainly to countries like Korea and Japan.

Also, not sure, but has the sudden rise in gas prices have anyting to with the return of the investment speculators who artificially raising the cost of gas b/c the commodities markets are hedging their bets thru commodities oil speculation?

The reality is, the price of crude oil and the rising cost of gas at the pump today is not made according to any traditional relation of supply to demand. Itís controlled by an elaborate financial market system as well as by the four major Anglo-American oil companies. As much as 60% of todayís crude oil price is pure speculation driven by large trader banks and hedge funds. It has nothing to do with the convenient myths of Peak Oil. It has to do with control of oil and its price. How? Read more:

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Financial_Tsunami/Oil_Speculation/oil_speculation.HTM

Mr. Elway
10-28-2009, 09:18 AM
There's multiple people on this thread who are aware of the realities you're suggesting. Apparently in your butt hurt state you failed to read anything that didn't apply to your point. Brilliant.

...yes, and a dozen others who think that the left wing position on energy is to basically stop all domestic production at all costs, which just isn't true. That is the ignorance I was speaking to, and if it doesn't apply to you, then I applaud you for being educated on the matter.

I may have ranted a little here but you shouldn't confuse taking a side on a critical issue with having hurt feelings. Plus if you didn't care too I doubt you would have posted in the thread either.