PDA

View Full Version : tons of new oil in usa being tapped


cutthemdown
02-10-2011, 12:50 AM
looks like Spider was right time to give him some props. He's been touting this shale oil and it looks like its the real deal from this article.

I knew a little about it because I have some cousins working the fields in SD. But it looks like this could really help us put a dent in the imports while we develop alternative energy over the next 20-25 yrs.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_re_us/us_shale_oil

A new drilling technique is opening up vast fields of previously out-of-reach oil in the western United States, helping reverse a two-decade decline in domestic production of crude.
Companies are investing billions of dollars to get at oil deposits scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California. By 2015, oil executives and analysts say, the new fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day — more than the entire Gulf of Mexico produces now.
This new drilling is expected to raise U.S. production by at least 20 percent over the next five years. And within 10 years, it could help reduce oil imports by more than half, advancing a goal that has long eluded policymakers.

cutthemdown
02-10-2011, 12:51 AM
drill baby, drill.

mkporter
02-10-2011, 01:08 AM
looks like Spider was right time to give him some props. He's been touting this shale oil and it looks like its the real deal from this article.

I knew a little about it because I have some cousins working the fields in SD. But it looks like this could really help us put a dent in the imports while we develop alternative energy over the next 20-25 yrs.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_re_us/us_shale_oil

A new drilling technique is opening up vast fields of previously out-of-reach oil in the western United States, helping reverse a two-decade decline in domestic production of crude.
Companies are investing billions of dollars to get at oil deposits scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California. By 2015, oil executives and analysts say, the new fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day — more than the entire Gulf of Mexico produces now.
This new drilling is expected to raise U.S. production by at least 20 percent over the next five years. And within 10 years, it could help reduce oil imports by more than half, advancing a goal that has long eluded policymakers.

Lean right, or lean left, energy independence is something we should all agree is in our best interest. I hope we aren't poisoning our groundwater with this approach, but I suppose nobody lives in North Dakota anyway.

iforgotmypassword
02-10-2011, 01:14 AM
if you're lookin for 100k plus in a cheap cost of living area and 26 weeks off a year. move to ND/Eastern MT. Not kidding, but you better be willing to work your ass off for 100 hours a week the other 26 weeks. Atleast for 2/3 years, if you have a few brain cells you'll have your own crew in that time. Im about to graduate from Montana, whose to say it wouldnt be smart to join to feild after I graduate.

ol#7
02-10-2011, 01:15 AM
North America has a huge amount of untapped oil resources, its just harder/more expensive than getting it from the sandbox, but with oil prices in the neighborhood of where they have been, much easier to tell the OPEC nations to go F themselves. Europe though is still screwed.

Archer81
02-10-2011, 01:23 AM
North America has oil, possibly more then what exists in the middle east. Drill for oil, build solar and wind and hydroelectric plants and get those nuke plants online. The day the US becomes moderately energy independent, we can tell the trouble spots of the world to suck our dick.

:Broncos:

OBF1
02-10-2011, 02:02 AM
if you're lookin for 100k plus in a cheap cost of living area and 26 weeks off a year. move to ND/Eastern MT. Not kidding, but you better be willing to work your ass off for 100 hours a week the other 26 weeks. Atleast for 2/3 years, if you have a few brain cells you'll have your own crew in that time. Im about to graduate from Montana, whose to say it wouldnt be smart to join to feild after I graduate.

14.2 hours a day x 7 days a week sounds like a recipe for an early death. Add in legal breaks and lunch now you are talking 16.5 hours + drive time and time to get ready for work and you are talking 4-5 hours a night/day sleep. Just will not happen, no union will allow it. At a base pay rate of 25.00 an hour, add up the overtime, double time and you are talking 4150.0 a week x 26 week and you are sitting at 83k

Drek
02-10-2011, 04:38 AM
North America has oil, possibly more then what exists in the middle east. Drill for oil, build solar and wind and hydroelectric plants and get those nuke plants online. The day the US becomes moderately energy independent, we can tell the trouble spots of the world to suck our dick.

:Broncos:

You really think that would happen? We're a military economy at this point, too many companies, hell too many states, live off of tax payer dollars being funneled into the military so we can fight wars overseas and run military bases in other countries that grossly eclipse those country's own military facilities.

This would just help people put blinders on to that fact for a little while longer.

Anyhow, shale oil isn't anything new. We've had ways to recover it for quite some time. Its just wasn't economically viable. We'll see how economically viable hydro fracing is when the EPA finishes their study.

Also, the AP author is completely clueless about this impacts shale oil could have on the U.S. oil industry. He states that it could only produce 1-2% of global oil consumption. Thats only from the free product in the pore space of the shale. Any form of retorting would produce significantly more oil. The Green River formation alone is estimated to have 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable oil resources within its scope. The next three largest shale oil deposits are also in the US and while combined they're still smaller than the Green River formation's total stock oil number its still over 600 billion barrels of oil. Thats enough oil production to power this country for 80 years at the current 20 million barrels per day rate.

Its all about finding a cost effective manner to remove the oil from the shale. Shell has been a real industry pioneer on this, funding a large portion of the research on in situ retorting. When a colleague of mine was in college back in the mid 90's it was estimated that shale oil cost ~$70 per barrel to produce, where the shale actually needed to be mined and retorted at the surface. When I was in college (early 2000's) the estimated cost per barrel was doing to more like $55, but was still surface retorting of mined shale. Shell's early results with in situ retorting has been producing oil in the $35-$40 a barrel range. Not only is that cheaper than what the OPEC cartel extorts for their oil, its also cheaper than drilling off the continental shelf.

The big question is how much environmental contamination is left in the hole when you're done and how much can infiltrate the water table.

TailgateNut
02-10-2011, 04:40 AM
if you're lookin for 100k plus in a cheap cost of living area and 26 weeks off a year. move to ND/Eastern MT. Not kidding, but you better be willing to work your ass off for 100 hours a week the other 26 weeks. Atleast for 2/3 years, if you have a few brain cells you'll have your own crew in that time. Im about to graduate from Montana, whose to say it wouldnt be smart to join to feild after I graduate.

Got ur edumacation, eh?

Karenin
02-10-2011, 05:16 AM
if you're lookin for 100k plus in a cheap cost of living area and 26 weeks off a year. move to ND/Eastern MT. Not kidding, but you better be willing to work your ass off for 100 hours a week the other 26 weeks. Atleast for 2/3 years, if you have a few brain cells you'll have your own crew in that time. Im about to graduate from Montana, whose to say it wouldnt be smart to join to feild after I graduate.

That sounds like a miserable existence.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-10-2011, 05:49 AM
North America has oil, possibly more then what exists in the middle east. Drill for oil, build solar and wind and hydroelectric plants and get those nuke plants online. The day the US becomes moderately energy independent, we can tell the trouble spots of the world to suck our dick.

:Broncos:

Yep.

chadta
02-10-2011, 06:13 AM
14.2 hours a day x 7 days a week sounds like a recipe for an early death. Add in legal breaks and lunch now you are talking 16.5 hours + drive time and time to get ready for work and you are talking 4-5 hours a night/day sleep. Just will not happen, no union will allow it. At a base pay rate of 25.00 an hour, add up the overtime, double time and you are talking 4150.0 a week x 26 week and you are sitting at 83k


In alberta in the oil sands they are having such a hard time getting people, wages have gone up so much that even McDonalds is paying 12 bucks an hour.

http://www.jobbank.gc.ca/detail-eng.aspx?OrderNum=5478593&Source=JobPosting&ProvId=09&OfferpPage=50&Student=No

I know a couple electricians and millwrights who go out, they work 4 weeks then take 4 weeks off, they make 40 bucks an hour as a base wage. Been thinking about finishing up my millwright apprenticeship out there myself.

The cost of living in Alberta is significantly higher than the Dakotas tho, but if you holdout for the right deal, companies will put you up in lodging or fly you back and forth to home during down time. If i didnt have a wife and kids id already be out there. Well maybe not now but in the spring and summer.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 06:35 AM
Lean right, or lean left, energy independence is something we should all agree is in our best interest. I hope we aren't poisoning our groundwater with this approach, but I suppose nobody lives in North Dakota anyway.

US energy independence won't come about through a reliance on oil. Of course big oil wants you to believe that so they can squeeze every dirty penny out of their cash cow, but the US cannot match the resources of the middle east in oil. Not even close.

We should be spending our energy (no pun intended) on ingenuity and intelligent design where we can actually outperform the middle east, but I guess people like to clap about finding oil.

chadta
02-10-2011, 07:14 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-10/crude-declines-in-new-york-brent-futures-pare-earlier-gains-in-london.html

im still trying to figure out when the fundamentals will actually have anything to do with pricing, supplies of oil have gained for like 13 of the last 14 weeks, in that time oil has gone from 78 bucks a barrel to over 90, and is just now slipping below 87. Gas inventories have risen every week for like 12 weeks to the highest level since 1990 and yet the spot price for gas is up again.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/01/26/markets-energy-heatingoil-crackspread-idINN2615302820110126

While not as dramatic as the heating oil crack spread, the gas one is up to like 17 bucks a barrel

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/01/27/markets-nymex-gasoline-idINN2727148320110127

this article was from january 28th


U.S. front-month gasoline futures slumped more than 2 percent on Thursday, taking a toll from a four-week rise in inventories and as a series of snowstorms curtailed road travel that has reduced demand.


Gasoline prices at the pump have been on the rise for eight straight weeks as of last week hitting a national average of $3.11 a gallon

the supplies jumped another 3 million barrrels per week since than, yet spot price has gone from 2.41 up to where it is today 2.52

We have more gas than ever, yet the price is higher than ever, WTF ?

Jetmeck
02-10-2011, 07:27 AM
speculate the price up to.......freakin wall street idiots

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 07:31 AM
We have more gas than ever, yet the price is higher than ever, WTF ?

That's why I don't like trading fundamentals. It just gives you a reason to ride your losses. You never know when the price is actually going to react to the fundamental analysis that you're looking at.

It's like standing on the deck of the Titanic while she's going down and saying "no, no, this is the unsinkable ship".

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-10-2011, 07:43 AM
US energy independence won't come about through a reliance on oil. Of course big oil wants you to believe that so they can squeeze every dirty penny out of their cash cow, but the US cannot match the resources of the middle east in oil. Not even close.

We should be spending our energy (no pun intended) on ingenuity and intelligent design where we can actually outperform the middle east, but I guess people like to clap about finding oil.

That's not fully accurate. There is plenty of oil within our borders. The problem is twofold.

One, it's harder to extract, and more expensive to do so.
Two, we "rely" on foreign oil to deplete their resources.

That said, alternative energy MUST be explored in the US, and many oil companies are at the forefront of this exploration. However, until we develop a way to save and transport energy from clean sources like Solar and Wind, the idea of those being our primary source of energy are farfetched.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 07:50 AM
That's not fully accurate. There is plenty of oil within our borders. "Plenty" for what exactly? To make a few oil tycoons richer. If you're imagining that there's enough oil to actually supply the US, you're off base.

One, it's harder to extract, and more expensive to do so.About 20-30 times more expensive
Two, we "rely" on foreign oil to deplete their resources.Are you saying that we buy Middle Eastern oil in order to weaken them? Really?

That said, alternative energy MUST be explored in the US, and many oil companies are at the forefront of this exploration. However, until we develop a way to save and transport energy from clean sources like Solar and Wind, the idea of those being our primary source of energy are farfetched.It's not at all far fetched unless you delay investment in infrastructure by saying "we have plenty of oil right here in the US".

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-10-2011, 08:10 AM
"Plenty" for what exactly? To make a few oil tycoons richer. If you're imagining that there's enough oil to actually supply the US, you're off base.

About 20-30 times more expensive
Are you saying that we buy Middle Eastern oil in order to weaken them? Really?

It's not at all far fetched unless you delay investment in infrastructure by saying "we have plenty of oil right here in the US".

First, we DO have plenty of oil right here in the US.

Second, that doesn't mean exploration of alternative sources is not taking place, led mostly by those evil "oil tycoons" you mentioned.

The two are not mutually exclusive. We are capable of doing more than one thing at a time, so we're exploring alternative energy as we move forward with drilling plans.

Yes, there is oil in this country, as evidenced by thousands of plays going on right now across the nation, one of which I happen to be on. In fact, it's been said that there's enough oil in this country to keep running everything at capacity for 200 years. That's a bit more than "enough to keep oil tycoons rich."

Smiling Assassin27
02-10-2011, 08:35 AM
This is old news. 'Spider' and 'right' in the same sentence happens once every april, besides. Couple this with the fact that Obama still isn't letting drillers actually drill again, and you really have a wash, not a net gain in oil production...which is the way Obama wants it...well, he gets it....

A net decrease in production of 13% nationally because the Administration still won't approve ANY kind of driling in the Gulf ain't something to write home about.

Rohirrim
02-10-2011, 08:38 AM
if you're lookin for 100k plus in a cheap cost of living area and 26 weeks off a year. move to ND/Eastern MT. Not kidding, but you better be willing to work your ass off for 100 hours a week the other 26 weeks. Atleast for 2/3 years, if you have a few brain cells you'll have your own crew in that time. Im about to graduate from Montana, whose to say it wouldnt be smart to join to feild after I graduate.

Might want to throw in an English comp course before you leave.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-10-2011, 08:49 AM
This is old news. 'Spider' and 'right' in the same sentence happens once every april, besides. Couple this with the fact that Obama still isn't letting drillers actually drill again, and you really have a wash, not a net gain in oil production...which is the way Obama wants it...well, he gets it....

A net decrease in production of 13% nationally because the Administration still won't approve ANY kind of driling in the Gulf ain't something to write home about.

Might want to check your facts on the bolded portion. My company just began drilling operations, and had absolutely nothing restricting us from doing so (other than the usual permitting process, which is extensive and a major pain in the ass).

schaaf
02-10-2011, 08:49 AM
if you're lookin for 100k plus in a cheap cost of living area and 26 weeks off a year. move to ND/Eastern MT. Not kidding, but you better be willing to work your ass off for 100 hours a week the other 26 weeks. Atleast for 2/3 years, if you have a few brain cells you'll have your own crew in that time. Im about to graduate from Montana, whose to say it wouldnt be smart to join to feild after I graduate.

You need to work on your grammar bud, but you have a point. Eastern Montana towns (Glendive and Sidney) and Western North Dakota towns (Williston, Watford City, Minot, and Dickinson) can't get enough workers right now.

About half of the males from my graduating class (2010) chose this approach. Some of them are already making over $35 dollars per hour.

If any of you guys out there are looking for jobs where you want some big bucks, you'll have to work your ass off, but its better than nothing. Check out Nabors and Basic they're hiring pretty much anybody that walks through the front door.

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2011, 09:08 AM
Viable oil from oil shale has been a dream for a long time, in fact, back in the 1970's when the entire US was in a recession, Colorado (and Denver in particular) was booming because energy companies were trying to extract oil from oil shale. In the end, it was too expensive a process and the industry died.

That being said, I'm sure the technology is much better, but there is still an environmental impact that needs to be studied. Basically, what the new process amounts to is pumping steam down into the oil shale deposits, liquifying it, and then sucking it out like a mosquito sucks blood. The problem is what happens to the water table with this process, and what kind of long term environmental impact will this cause.

At least, that how I understand the process.

robbieopperude
02-10-2011, 09:15 AM
If you want to work a little smarter... service companies like Halliburton, Schlumberger and Baker Hughes are the way to go. You still make really good money but you aren't exposed to the freezing weather elements for 12 hours a day. You still make around 100K a year starting with the potential to make over 200K or more within 5 years. You will work more than 275 days a year starting.

bronclvr
02-10-2011, 09:26 AM
That being said, I'm sure the technology is much better, but there is still an environmental impact that needs to be studied. Basically, what the new process amounts to is pumping steam down into the oil shale deposits, liquifying it, and then sucking it out like a mosquito sucks blood. The problem is what happens to the water table with this process, and what kind of long term environmental impact will this cause.

At least, that how I understand the process.

Actually, they are "fracking", which is a process where they are pumping stuff like Diesel Fuel (they say water thwack) down into the ground, and then they pump sand (like a silica sand) down, to keep the passages open to allow the oil to get to the Well-there is lots of discussion about this here in western Colorado, and now people are coming out with Health issues. There was an Article yesterday in the local Paper where they did a Water test and it came out ok (but I suspect it was performed by a Company with "special" interests)-

It's funny how a lot of people are suffering Health effects from this, yet all of these so called "tests" are coming back negative-

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-10-2011, 09:31 AM
Actually, they are "fracking", which is a process where they are pumping stuff like Diesel Fuel (they say water thwack) down into the ground, and then they pump sand (like a silica sand) down, to keep the passages open to allow the oil to get to the Well-there is lots of discussion about this here in western Colorado, and now people are coming out with Health issues. There was an Article yesterday in the local Paper where they did a Water test and it came out ok (but I suspect it was performed by a Company with "special" interests)-

It's funny how a lot of people are suffering Health effects from this, yet all of these so called "tests" are coming back negative-

Fracking is done with water. Any company that's doing it with Diesel fuel as you claim here should not be allowed to do business anywhere. I've heard the rumors, but every company I have ever worked with has been on the level.

bronclvr
02-10-2011, 09:32 AM
Fracking is done with water. Any company that's doing it with Diesel fuel as you claim here should not be allowed to do business anywhere. I've heard the rumors, but every company I have ever worked with has been on the level.



Shoudn't and isn't are not the same-one of my Salesman's sons deliver it, so it's real-

broncocalijohn
02-10-2011, 09:42 AM
Might want to check your facts on the bolded portion. My company just began drilling operations, and had absolutely nothing restricting us from doing so (other than the usual permitting process, which is extensive and a major pain in the ass).

Are you sure the permits were issued befor or after obama was sworn in or at least since the gulf oil spill?

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2011, 09:45 AM
Fracking is done with water. Any company that's doing it with Diesel fuel as you claim here should not be allowed to do business anywhere. I've heard the rumors, but every company I have ever worked with has been on the level.

The thing about contractors is you never know how they are being managed. We've got issues up here in Wyoming with the extraction of natural gas and how the contractors are completey screwing up the water table and making people sick. Now, these are small contractors, perhaps they are being outsourced by the bigger energy companies.

The issue is, these contractors (and the energy companies) always told peeps that the enviromental impact is negligable and that there is "nothing to worry about." They still say there is no problem. However, the people who own land around the extraction points are saying there are problems with the water and they are getting sick.

I'm not sure I really trust the contractors to always do what is right. They know that the cheaper they get the resource to market, the more money they make on said resource, so they end up cutting corners.

I can see this same type of problem with the oil shale companies. They will cut corners, outsource production, make bad decisions, compromise safety (hello gulf of Mexico and BP) and generally do some stuping things in order to make as much money on the product as possible.

However, I'm all for getting domestic production of energy, but I'm like a lot of people around Wyoming in that I don't know if we can really trust the energy companies to not cut corners.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-10-2011, 10:01 AM
Are you sure the permits were issued befor or after obama was sworn in or at least since the gulf oil spill?

Permits were issued just a few weeks ago, and drilling is set to commence within a couple of months. Just a matter of getting our rigs here and setting up.

Colorado's new Governor is an oil and gas guy... and a Democrat. I'm an oil and gas guy... and a Democrat. The notion that all Dems are anti-oil is pretty out of touch.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-10-2011, 10:04 AM
The thing about contractors is you never know how they are being managed. We've got issues up here in Wyoming with the extraction of natural gas and how the contractors are completey screwing up the water table and making people sick. Now, these are small contractors, perhaps they are being outsourced by the bigger energy companies.

The issue is, these contractors (and the energy companies) always told peeps that the enviromental impact is negligable and that there is "nothing to worry about." They still say there is no problem. However, the people who own land around the extraction points are saying there are problems with the water and they are getting sick.

I'm not sure I really trust the contractors to always do what is right. They know that the cheaper they get the resource to market, the more money they make on said resource, so they end up cutting corners.

I can see this same type of problem with the oil shale companies. They will cut corners, outsource production, make bad decisions, compromise safety (hello gulf of Mexico and BP) and generally do some stuping things in order to make as much money on the product as possible.

However, I'm all for getting domestic production of energy, but I'm like a lot of people around Wyoming in that I don't know if we can really trust the energy companies to not cut corners.

All of this is completely fair, and obviously the concerns are valid. I will say that I've worked for some companies in the past that have cut corners, and I don't work there anymore. I'm now working for a very progressive company. We're aggressive in getting what we need as far as resources go, aggressive when it comes to hiring the best teams for drilling, but also aggressive for our landowners when it comes to making sure their needs and concerns are met. And while some people won't "always do the right thing," we try to at every turn.

I'm very proud of where I'm at now.

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2011, 10:09 AM
Again, I'm all for domestic production, but it's gotta be done right.

chadta
02-10-2011, 10:12 AM
That's why I don't like trading fundamentals. It just gives you a reason to ride your losses. You never know when the price is actually going to react to the fundamental analysis that you're looking at.

Supply is high, demand is low, price should go down, or is my understanding of how supply and demand works wrong ?


Viable oil from oil shale has been a dream for a long time, in fact, back in the 1970's when the entire US was in a recession, Colorado (and Denver in particular) was booming because energy companies were trying to extract oil from oil shale. In the end, it was too expensive a process and the industry died.

That would be true if oil was stilll under 10 bucks a barrel, but at almost 100 its cost effective.

The number i heard for the oil sands in Canada is 55 bucks a barrel. which seems like a pipe dream now.

TonyR
02-10-2011, 10:17 AM
Might want to check your facts...

Why would he let facts get in the way of his Obama bashing?

Pontius Pirate
02-10-2011, 10:54 AM
looks like Spider was right time to give him some props. He's been touting this shale oil and it looks like its the real deal from this article.

I knew a little about it because I have some cousins working the fields in SD. But it looks like this could really help us put a dent in the imports while we develop alternative energy over the next 20-25 yrs.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_re_us/us_shale_oil

A new drilling technique is opening up vast fields of previously out-of-reach oil in the western United States, helping reverse a two-decade decline in domestic production of crude.
Companies are investing billions of dollars to get at oil deposits scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California. By 2015, oil executives and analysts say, the new fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day — more than the entire Gulf of Mexico produces now.
This new drilling is expected to raise U.S. production by at least 20 percent over the next five years. And within 10 years, it could help reduce oil imports by more than half, advancing a goal that has long eluded policymakers.

Who cares. Oil is as dead as coal. Electric and alternative is the future.

Chevy Volt baby.

loborugger
02-10-2011, 11:02 AM
You really think that would happen? We're a military economy at this point, too many companies, hell too many states, live off of tax payer dollars being funneled into the military so we can fight wars overseas and run military bases in other countries that grossly eclipse those country's own military facilities.



Werd. Welcome to the Welfare/Warfare state, where the 'G' is the driving force of the economy.

I gotta wonder how many of the companies drilling on US land are owned/financed/run by the Chinese?

loborugger
02-10-2011, 11:05 AM
Who cares. Oil is as dead as coal. Electric and alternative is the future.

Chevy Volt baby.

Ahhhhhhh, where does all that electricity come from? You gonna generate the 1.21 jigawatts by collecting a lightning bolt that strikes the clock tower and funnel it into your DeLorean, err Prius?

TonyR
02-10-2011, 11:16 AM
WikiLeaks has released cables revealing that Saudi Arabia's oil reserves have been exaggerated by as much as 40%, or 300 billion barrels. Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil exporter. Peak oil, or the point when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction has been reached and is about to enter terminal decline, is no longer the fringe theory it was just 10 years ago. ...

Only time will tell whether [U.S. consul general and geologist Sadad] Al-Husseini's predictions are correct, but the possibility of imminent peak oil is enough to make Obama's goal of putting one million electric cars on the road by 2020 a little less overly ambitious.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1725372/wikileaks-may-have-just-confirmed-the-existence-of-peak-oil?partner=rss

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/oil-saudiarabia?intcmp=239

TonyR
02-10-2011, 11:17 AM
This won't come as a surprise to anyone who's been following the oil industry over the past few years. ... There's always Iraq, of course, which certainly has more production capacity if it can develop it, but Saudi Arabia increasingly looks like it's peaked already. And if that's true, it probably means that the global peak in production, which was delayed a few years by the 2008 recession, is most likely not too far away. Our future is going to be increasingly oil free whether we like it or not.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/02/wikileaks-saudi-oil-may-have-peaked-already

~Crash~
02-10-2011, 11:20 AM
That sounds like a miserable existence.

Why you say that? if you do not spend that money and save every penny you can in 5 years you could start a business that would set you up for the rest of your life. some times you got to do something not so fun to big things.

~Crash~
02-10-2011, 11:28 AM
WikiLeaks has released cables revealing that Saudi Arabia's oil reserves have been exaggerated by as much as 40%, or 300 billion barrels. Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil exporter. Peak oil, or the point when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction has been reached and is about to enter terminal decline, is no longer the fringe theory it was just 10 years ago. ...

Only time will tell whether [U.S. consul general and geologist Sadad] Al-Husseini's predictions are correct, but the possibility of imminent peak oil is enough to make Obama's goal of putting one million electric cars on the road by 2020 a little less overly ambitious.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1725372/wikileaks-may-have-just-confirmed-the-existence-of-peak-oil?partner=rss

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/oil-saudiarabia?intcmp=239

you are right they been scraping the bottom of the barrel for years they been using oil past what the old USA wells did for 30 years now . good news is we have 30 years of the same production under our own feet. they drill were old wells were then they follow were the oil channel is instead of going straight down they drill side ways and just fallow the oil .

~Crash~
02-10-2011, 11:34 AM
Methane at the bottom of the ocean is the real ticket. and putting money into hydgen and getting it to work would be best.

2KBack
02-10-2011, 11:42 AM
Who cares. Oil is as dead as coal. Electric and alternative is the future.

Chevy Volt baby.

That's right lets go full electric...wait...how is electricity generated again?

Pontius Pirate
02-10-2011, 11:49 AM
Ahhhhhhh, where does all that electricity come from? You gonna generate the 1.21 jigawatts by collecting a lightning bolt that strikes the clock tower and funnel it into your DeLorean, err Prius?

You must be smart.

Sources of electricity generation (this varies by country, with the U.S. using a lot more coal than this - but still using only about 1% petroleum to generate electricity):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Sources_of_Electricity_in_France_in_2006.PNG

Archer81
02-10-2011, 11:49 AM
That's right lets go full electric...wait...how is electricity generated again?


*coughcoughCOALcoughcough...


:Broncos:

loborugger
02-10-2011, 11:52 AM
You must be smart.

Sources of electricity generation (this varies by country, with the U.S. using a lot more coal than this - but still using only about 1% petroleum to generate electricity):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Sources_of_Electricity_in_France_in_2006.PNG

Yes, and thanks to 3 Mile Island, we dont build much nuclear in the country.

That chart would look vastly different if you changed it to the US.

BroncoLifer
02-10-2011, 11:57 AM
Yes, and thanks to the hysterical reaction to 3 Mile Island, we dont build much nuclear in the country.


Fixed it for you.

jhns
02-10-2011, 12:02 PM
LOL @ people not knowing about nuclear energy.

randomtask
02-10-2011, 12:05 PM
You must be smart.

Sources of electricity generation (this varies by country, with the U.S. using a lot more coal than this - but still using only about 1% petroleum to generate electricity):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Sources_of_Electricity_in_France_in_2006.PNG

That's france, which leads the world in nuclear energy production. The US is this one...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/83/2008_US_electricity_generation_by_source_v2.png/753px-2008_US_electricity_generation_by_source_v2.png

As you can see, fossil fuels still make up around 70% of electricity generation in the US.

Besides, oil's main use is fuel for vehicles, something that it still does far better than electricity at this point.

loborugger
02-10-2011, 12:06 PM
Fixed it for you.

Absolutely agree 100%

If you go back to the original greenies, they were funded by the big oil companies to attack anything against their (big oil) interests. Imagine if this nation generated most of its power nuclearly? That would strike big oil's profits dramatically.

I read somewhere that Germany generates almost %100 percent of its power from nuke and tidal.

So, if France and Germany can generate their power that way, why cant we? Afterall, Germany and France are even 'greenier' than we are, with solidly entrenched Green partys. And yet, we are the ones that lag behind.

Is it because of the science and facts, or is it hysteria and propaganda? Hum...

cutthemdown
02-10-2011, 12:07 PM
US energy independence won't come about through a reliance on oil. Of course big oil wants you to believe that so they can squeeze every dirty penny out of their cash cow, but the US cannot match the resources of the middle east in oil. Not even close.

We should be spending our energy (no pun intended) on ingenuity and intelligent design where we can actually outperform the middle east, but I guess people like to clap about finding oil.

So you are saying leave the shale oil? that would be stupid. Pump every drop use it to not buy as much from the middle east and south america.

TonyR
02-10-2011, 12:17 PM
Further to my previous posts:


ONE of the week's interesting stories is a Guardian piece describing a Wikileaked diplomatic cable concerning Saudi oil reserves:

"The U.S. fears that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil exporter, may not have enough reserves to prevent oil prices escalating, confidential cables from its embassy in Riyadh show.
The cables, released by WikiLeaks, urge Washington to take seriously a warning from a senior Saudi government oil executive that the kingdom's crude oil reserves may have been overstated by as much as 300bn barrels-- nearly 40%."

The story has gotten a lot of attention, but prices haven't risen, which suggests that experts already knew this (and indeed, people have been speculating about such an overstatement for at least four years). It's actually kind of interesting to note that early takes on a potential reserve overstatement date to 2007, which is when oil prices began rising at a faster pace. Saudia Arabia has about a fifth of known oil reserves, so a revision in its holdings of this magnitude is significant.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/oil_prices

loborugger
02-10-2011, 12:25 PM
Further to my previous posts:


ONE of the week's interesting stories is a Guardian piece describing a Wikileaked diplomatic cable concerning Saudi oil reserves:

"The U.S. fears that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil exporter, may not have enough reserves to prevent oil prices escalating, confidential cables from its embassy in Riyadh show.
The cables, released by WikiLeaks, urge Washington to take seriously a warning from a senior Saudi government oil executive that the kingdom's crude oil reserves may have been overstated by as much as 300bn barrels-- nearly 40%."

The story has gotten a lot of attention, but prices haven't risen, which suggests that experts already knew this (and indeed, people have been speculating about such an overstatement for at least four years). It's actually kind of interesting to note that early takes on a potential reserve overstatement date to 2007, which is when oil prices began rising at a faster pace. Saudia Arabia has about a fifth of known oil reserves, so a revision in its holdings of this magnitude is significant.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/oil_prices

There is a good chance that the data came from the oil companies to begin with. I dont know of too many diplomats that have a back ground in oil exploration.

Meck77
02-10-2011, 12:27 PM
Personally I've noticed a bunch of new oil interest in some land I own. I was approached by 3 different companies almost at once for an oil lease. Signed a 3 year exploratory lease. Like Cutt said earlier. Drill baby! Drill!

jhns
02-10-2011, 12:28 PM
Absolutely agree 10%

If you go back to the original greenies, they were funded by the big oil companies to attack anything against their (big oil) interests. Imagine if this nation generated most of its power nuclearly? That would strike big oil's profits dramatically.

I read somewhere that Germany generates almost %100 percent of its power from nuke and tidal.

So, if France and Germany can generate their power that way, why cant we? Afterall, Germany and France are even 'greenier' than we are, with solidly entrenched Green partys. And yet, we are the ones that lag behind.

Is it because of the science and facts, or is it hysteria and propaganda? Hum...

The US is working on it now. Nebraska is discussing their third nuclear plant now. We are also turning to more and more renewable energy, which is even better. The percentage of our power that comes from coal is decreasing a lot. Those charts won't look close to that in 10 years.

ColoradoDarin
02-10-2011, 12:35 PM
There have been doomsday warnings about "Peak Oil" since at least the 1930s, and yet we keep producing more and finding more sources....

loborugger
02-10-2011, 12:35 PM
The US is working on it now. Nebraska is discussing their third nuclear plant now. We are also turning to more and more renewable energy, which is even better. The percentage of our power that comes from coal is decreasing a lot. Those charts won't look close to that in 10 years.

With Obama handing out waivers to his buddies at GE to build coal plants - while spouting rhetoric about taxing coal plants outta business, I am less optimistic than you...

loborugger
02-10-2011, 12:38 PM
There have been doomsday warnings about "Peak Oil" since at least the 1930s, and yet we keep producing more and finding more sources....

I read this last year...

http://www.amazon.com/Prize-Epic-Quest-Money-Power/dp/1439110123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297366572&sr=8-1#_

The Prize - the history of oil. Oil has always been an industry of boom and bust. From Peak Oil to flooded markets... its cyclical and repeats the same pattterns over and over again.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-10-2011, 12:40 PM
With Obama handing out waivers to his buddies at GE to build coal plants - while spouting rhetoric about taxing coal plants outta business, I am less optimistic than you...

link?

ColoradoDarin
02-10-2011, 12:41 PM
I read this last year...

http://www.amazon.com/Prize-Epic-Quest-Money-Power/dp/1439110123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297366572&sr=8-1#_

The Prize - the history of oil. Oil has always been an industry of boom and bust. From Peak Oil to flooded markets... its cyclical and repeats the same pattterns over and over again.

I might have to get that at the library, it's funny before we moved here to St Augustine, I had never heard of the name Henry Flagler (he basically built St Aug), but he was a co-founder of Standard Oil and made just as much money.

loborugger
02-10-2011, 12:43 PM
link?

http://www.gc.energy.gov/documents/WA_05_043_GENERAL_ELECTRIC_COMPANY__Waiver_of_Dome stic_and_F.pdf

Next time, do your own research

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-10-2011, 12:44 PM
http://www.gc.energy.gov/documents/WA_05_043_GENERAL_ELECTRIC_COMPANY__Waiver_of_Dome stic_and_F.pdf

Next time, do your own research

Hurdahurdahurdahurdahur.

Next time, provide it in the first place and you won't have people questioning your assertions on an internet message board. It's called building a case. Try it sometime.

ALso: link you provided shows that the trial period from which that study came (and the DOE gave 80% of the cost) was from 2005-2007. Try accurately figuring out exactly who's friends with whom, and which president is hookin' his friends up with taxpayer money.

Next time, try being accurate.

loborugger
02-10-2011, 12:45 PM
I might have to get that at the library, it's funny before we moved here to St Augustine, I had never heard of the name Henry Flagler (he basically built St Aug), but he was a co-founder of Standard Oil and made just as much money.

It is a LONNNNNNNGGGGGG read. Towards the end, it becomes like an endurance race - you just wanna finish. However, its full of all kinds of interesting things. And ya, Flagler is in there.

jhns
02-10-2011, 12:47 PM
With Obama handing out waivers to his buddies at GE to build coal plants - while spouting rhetoric about taxing coal plants outta business, I am less optimistic than you...

Yeah I just remember hearing we were going back to building nuclear plants. I Google it and there are a lot of states starting work on them. Here is one article I found, http://m.npr.org/story/89169837?storyId=89169837&from=mobile . We have also been making a ton of deals on renewable energy. It does seem that we are final getting over our fear of nuclear plants. This should at least give some hope.

Requiem
02-10-2011, 01:05 PM
The oil boom out in North Dakota has helped our state out a bunch and they are in desperate need of workers. I have friends who are graduating this Spring and instead of looking for degree related work, might go rough it for a while in the oilfields and earn some serious cash. The estimates some board members (as far as earning money go) parallel stories from friends I have in the area or who have family invested into the efforts out in Western North Dakota.

2,000,000 barrels a day doesn't cut it though, especially with how much we use. This is the kind of article that continues to allow the oil industries to have a huge impact over our country and lessens any idea of energy independence. Even the legislators and people involved with the business in North Dakota realize this, and have implemented an intricate system regarding the oil and how the profits end up being allocated into the state.

People shouldn't be too excited about this. Getting 2,000,000 dollars a day isn't going to do anything for us. Just like drilling in ANWR won't. It isn't sustainable.

Nuclear power? LOL.

Where are they going to put it? What people would want radioactive material in their area? From a domestic standpoint and a national security standpoint, nuclear material isn't an alternative.

Solar/Wind are the only renewable, green energies that actually have any possibility for growth and independence in the future. Right now the technology has to be perfected, and it is far from it.

Requiem
02-10-2011, 01:08 PM
Good Movie Regarding The Discussion Here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1503769/)

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 01:10 PM
Who cares. Oil is as dead as coal. Electric and alternative is the future.

Chevy Volt baby.

Quoted for truth, although I prefer a diesel Land Rover series III that runs on bio diesel in the winter and veggie oil in the summer.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 01:17 PM
So you are saying leave the shale oil? that would be stupid. Pump every drop use it to not buy as much from the middle east and south america.

I'm saying that anyone who believes that destroying the environment to get oil is intelligent is clearly not so themselves.

Requiem
02-10-2011, 01:19 PM
Dedhed is mad because shale oil exploration is killing the Montana Medical Marjiuana Ops!

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-10-2011, 01:22 PM
I'm saying that anyone who believes that destroying the environment to get oil is intelligent is clearly not so themselves.

And again, it's extreme after extreme with you.

There are ways to extract oil and gas without "destroying the environment." It's called doing things the right way, and for the most part, I'd say companies do so.

chadta
02-10-2011, 01:27 PM
Good Movie Regarding The Discussion Here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1503769/)



http://www.filesonic.com/file/r000216945/75707150/collapse.2009.dvdscr.mkv


I linked the other movies we were talking about in the thread in WRP forum

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=96852

misturanderson
02-10-2011, 01:38 PM
Nuclear power? LOL.

Where are they going to put it? What people would want radioactive material in their area? From a domestic standpoint and a national security standpoint, nuclear material isn't an alternative.


If a good job is done with PR, people will (or at least should) become receptive of the idea of nuclear power near them (or at least as close as coal plants currently are). There have been great strides made in the safety of nuclear plants and the success of nuclear power in Europe should be enough to sway people towards a cleaner, less finite form of energy.

I'm not sure why we would be worried about a national security aspect of building new plants. If that were such a major threat, Europe would be devastated by now.

Such a large portion of the general population is so closed-minded and science illiterate though, it could be a major issue.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 01:40 PM
And again, it's extreme after extreme with you.

There are ways to extract oil and gas without "destroying the environment." It's called doing things the right way, and for the most part, I'd say companies do so.

Yeah, okay. I understand that because you make your livelihood on the back of oil you're wont to defend it, but be realistic.

Even putting aside the Billions of gallons of oil that have been directly poured into the environment, and getting oil is still a rather disruptive process to ecosystems.

The affects of the gulf spill have not even begun to be felt, and people think it's over be BP has put out a couple of feel good commercials and the visible evidence has been removed.

2KBack
02-10-2011, 01:41 PM
If a good job is done with PR, people will (or at least should) become receptive of the idea of nuclear power near them. There have been great strides made in the safety of nuclear plants and the success of nuclear power in Europe should be enough to sway people towards a cleaner, less finite form of energy.

I'm not sure why we would be worried about a national security aspect of building new plants. If that were such a major threat, Europe would be devastated by now.

Such a large portion of the general population is so closed-minded and science illiterate though, it could be a major issue.

Good post. There's a great deal of misinformation and unwarranted stigma on Nuclear power.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 01:41 PM
Dedhed is mad because shale oil exploration is killing the Montana Medical Marjiuana Ops!

Medical marijuana is for pansies.

iforgotmypassword
02-10-2011, 01:43 PM
So my grammer sucks on a discussion board. sorry.

As for the hours.... you get payed 12 1/2 hours a day almost universally, you're gennerally there about 13 hours a day, and your drive varies on location. You make anywhere from 25-40 dollars an hour, it all ends up being about the same because of bonuses. It is roughly 100 k a year. I've worked there the summer after my senior year and the following summer. as for insulting my grammer for a few words on a quick midnight post on a internet discussion. suck my penis.

Requiem
02-10-2011, 01:48 PM
If a good job is done with PR, people will (or at least should) become receptive of the idea of nuclear power near them (or at least as close as coal plants currently are). There have been great strides made in the safety of nuclear plants and the success of nuclear power in Europe should be enough to sway people towards a cleaner, less finite form of energy.

IIRC, America has almost as many nuclear power reactors as Europe does. The problem is they are really old and probably less advanced.

I'm not sure why we would be worried about a national security aspect of building new plants. If that were such a major threat, Europe would be devastated by now.

During the 70s and thereafter when all the major nuclear power reactors were going up or in business, we've had over a dozen incidents in our country where safety was an issue and billions of dollars have been allocated to deal with the problems.

Disposing of the nuclear waste in the right manner is what has a lot of people worried. One of the ideas is Nevada, but who wants all the nuclear waste from the country put in that location? Certainly not the citizens of Nevada, and albeit low, the threat of nuclear terrorism (transferring of these materials would likely be done by train) does exist, although you discussing Europe and their safety and success probably drains that idea -- but I'm not sure if there are any structural or functional differences in how they operate.

Such a large portion of the general population is so closed-minded and science illiterate though, it could be a major issue.

It is a major issue. There is little advocacy for nuclear power in America, for some of the reasons I listed above and much more. If America ever dreams for energy independence, there are better ways to go than what some people are listing here.

Requiem
02-10-2011, 01:53 PM
Good post. There's a great deal of misinformation and unwarranted stigma on Nuclear power.

Such as?

jhns
02-10-2011, 01:54 PM
Nuclear power? LOL.

Where are they going to put it? What people would want radioactive material in their area? From a domestic standpoint and a national security standpoint, nuclear material isn't an alternative.

Ummm, they are building new plants as we sit here. What are you talking about? Granted, they will need more than they are currently building to make a big difference but we just got back into building them. You act like we are still in the 90s and afraid to touch the stuff.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-10-2011, 02:00 PM
Ummm, they are building new plants as we sit here. What are you talking about? Granted, they will need more than they are currently building to make a big difference but we just got back into building them. You act like we are still in the 90s and afraid to touch the stuff.

I hate to say this, but jhns is actually right. I'm as surprised as you.

Nuclear power is making a serious comeback in the United States.

Requiem
02-10-2011, 02:01 PM
I'm talking about the concerns people have with nuclear waste removal, not where nuclear sites are located at.

Pontius Pirate
02-10-2011, 02:03 PM
That's france, which leads the world in nuclear energy production. The US is this one...

As you can see, fossil fuels still make up around 70% of electricity generation in the US.

Besides, oil's main use is fuel for vehicles, something that it still does far better than electricity at this point.

Coal produced electricity has been steadily declining in the U.S. from it's peak in 2005 - same as petroleum produced electricity.

Alternative, on the other hand (eg. wind, solar, biomas) has been steadily increasing.

Gee, imagine that. As I said, coal and gas are the past.

Nuclear energy is safe. If the French can figure out, I'm confident that we can figure it out as well.

Pontius Pirate
02-10-2011, 02:05 PM
I'm talking about the concerns people have with nuclear waste removal, not where nuclear sites are located at.

I would happily give up polluting our atmosphere with storing nuclear waste underground.

Requiem
02-10-2011, 02:06 PM
Nuclear power is making a serious comeback in the United States.

Really?

I've seen 18 proposals were sent this summer to the NRC about future prospects of building nuclear reactors, though I haven't seen that any have been approved for being built.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 02:06 PM
Nuclear isn't the answer. The PR stigma is too steep, and when it comes to deregulated energy, no one is going to opt for nuclear if given the choice.

2KBack
02-10-2011, 02:09 PM
Such as?

I am for sure no expert on the subject, but there is comedic stigma in our society about Nuclear energy, waste, etc. Shows like the Simpsons and their shoddy power plant creating mutant animals are more than just satirical jests, and promote a negative perspective of nuclear energy. Instead being educated on the realities of Nuclear energy, people live off the myths and fears. you can find quite a few sites on that support Nuclear Energy and those that oppose it, it doesn't take mush research to see that the supporters tend to use facts and studies, while the opponents use fear tactics.

Here is one article from the Heritage foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/12/dispelling-myths-about-nuclear-energy

for example here's is what they say about the risk of terror attacks and Nuclear power plants:



MYTH: Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

FACT: Nuclear reactors are designed to withstand the impact of airborne objects like passenger airplanes, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has increased security at U.S. nuclear power plants and has instituted other safeguards.

A successful terrorist attack against a nuclear power plant could have severe consequences, as would attacks on schools, chemical plants, or ports. However, fear of a terrorist attack is not a sufficient reason to deny society access to any of these critical assets.

The United States has 104 commercial nuclear power plants, and there are 446 worldwide. Not one has fallen victim to a successful terrorist attack. Certainly, history should not beget com­placency, especially when the stakes are so high. However, the NRC has heightened security and increased safeguards on site to deal with the threat of terrorism.

A deliberate or accidental airplane crash into a reactor is often cited as a threat, but nuclear reac­tors are structurally designed to withstand high-impact airborne threats, such as the impact of a large passenger airplane. Furthermore, the Federal Aviation Administration has instructed pilots to avoid circling or loitering over nuclear or electrical power plants, warning them that such actions will make them subject to interrogation by law enforce­ment personnel.[8]

Requiem
02-10-2011, 02:12 PM
That is an interesting article, 2KBACK. Thanks for that. I'm not saying that the concerns/fears that some have are legitimate, but that they do exist. Either way, I don't see nuclear being huge for us in the move forward.

Tombstone RJ
02-10-2011, 02:13 PM
Nuclear isn't the answer. The PR stigma is too steep, and when it comes to deregulated energy, no one is going to opt for nuclear if given the choice.

Really? Tell that to the rest of the industrialized world. Nuclear is a viable form of energy.

I read an article somewhere about micro nuclear power plants, it was hella cool. These micro plants are like little nuclear batteries or cells that generate a great deal of power, so in essence, every town can have it's own nuclear cell.

It was cool.

Pontius Pirate
02-10-2011, 02:16 PM
There are 55 nuclear power plants under construction around the world, including 1 in the United States.

http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/Nuclear%20Energy%20Futures%20Overview.pdf

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 02:16 PM
Really? Tell that to the rest of the industrialized world. Nuclear is a viable form of energy.

I read an article somewhere about micro nuclear power plants, it was hella cool. These micro plants are like little nuclear batteries or cells that generate a great deal of power, so in essence, every town can have it's own nuclear cell.

It was cool.

I'm not arguing it's viability. I'm arguing that as US consumers gain the ability to choose their energy providers, nuclear will not be on the list.

Pontius Pirate
02-10-2011, 02:17 PM
Either way, I don't see nuclear being huge for us in the move forward.

Tell that to our Navy

schaaf
02-10-2011, 02:18 PM
suck my penis.

no.

cutthemdown
02-10-2011, 02:19 PM
I'm saying that anyone who believes that destroying the environment to get oil is intelligent is clearly not so themselves.

Oh you're a tree hugger I get it. If we listened to people like you then the whole country could be like Calif. Going broke.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 02:22 PM
Oh you're a tree hugger I get it. If we listened to people like you then the whole country could be like Calif. Going broke.

LOL. You buy energy from me. :kiss:

2KBack
02-10-2011, 02:25 PM
That is an interesting article, 2KBACK. Thanks for that. I'm not saying that the concerns/fears that some have are legitimate, but that they do exist. Either way, I don't see nuclear being huge for us in the move forward.

I can't argue with that unfortunately. Both you and Dedhed are correct, despite the viability of the option , one that I personally support, it is next to impossible to re-educate society on the virtues.

cutthemdown
02-10-2011, 02:37 PM
LOL. You buy energy from me. :kiss:

So your cool with your job in energy just don't want these new deposits drilled? Cool you have your job screw everyone else.

dsmoot
02-10-2011, 02:53 PM
Yeah, okay. I understand that because you make your livelihood on the back of oil you're wont to defend it, but be realistic.

Even putting aside the Billions of gallons of oil that have been directly poured into the environment, and getting oil is still a rather disruptive process to ecosystems.

The affects of the gulf spill have not even begun to be felt, and people think it's over be BP has put out a couple of feel good commercials and the visible evidence has been removed.


Can you cite the long term affects that we have not felt, what is your source. I don't really believe you are wrong, but when you make a general alarmist statement please state some source that substantiates what you are saying. Some things will always stick to the wall. As for the BP incident, there is a great deal of negligence to go around. Even so, there are reputable companies that use the best possible techniques with rigorous oversight that will not put themselves in a position that BP did. Not every catastrophic refinery blowup is a result of doing business, there is always negligence to safety codes, procedures and good maintenance practices. Again, it is not representative of an industry.

Having said all that, there are viable alternatives for storage of nuclear waste. I believe there are communities or regions that will accept it in there back yard. Having personally toured the facility that is located in New Mexico while in construction, I see no problem for this facility to be upgraded to store the nuclear waste from power plants. The present facility there has been positively accepted by the community. There are always the few opponents that get the press coverage but the average citizen is fine with it. It has been a source of a number of well paying jobs in a region that has seen contractions of their longer term industries of oil and gas and mining.

~Crash~
02-10-2011, 05:43 PM
The deal is every way we can not put a dollar in a eastern country pocket we need to do it . today is a great day to start. that means every way we can . Not just one way . Yes I want drilling but I would like all the ways out there to get there chance. We should start a real energy policy that make since a huge part of it we spend not enough in this area

TailgateNut
02-10-2011, 06:16 PM
The deal is every way we can not put a dollar in a eastern country pocket we need to do it . today is a great day to start. that means every way we can . Not just one way . Yes I want drilling but I would like all the ways out there to get there chance. We should start a real energy policy that make since a huge part of it we spend not enough in this area


Zing!

Arkie
02-10-2011, 06:50 PM
There have been doomsday warnings about "Peak Oil" since at least the 1930s, and yet we keep producing more and finding more sources....

Oil discoveries peaked in 1962. We now find one barrel for every six we consume. Most of the oil we produce today was found before the 1980s.

mhgaffney
02-10-2011, 07:03 PM
Viable oil from oil shale has been a dream for a long time, in fact, back in the 1970's when the entire US was in a recession, Colorado (and Denver in particular) was booming because energy companies were trying to extract oil from oil shale. In the end, it was too expensive a process and the industry died.

That being said, I'm sure the technology is much better, but there is still an environmental impact that needs to be studied. Basically, what the new process amounts to is pumping steam down into the oil shale deposits, liquifying it, and then sucking it out like a mosquito sucks blood. The problem is what happens to the water table with this process, and what kind of long term environmental impact will this cause.

At least, that how I understand the process.

Yeah -- except what is being discussed here is not shale oil. Cut did not do his homework.

Sorry to disappoint you.

fdf
02-10-2011, 07:11 PM
Ahhhhhhh, where does all that electricity come from? You gonna generate the 1.21 jigawatts by collecting a lightning bolt that strikes the clock tower and funnel it into your DeLorean, err Prius?

Don't bother. The electric car people are unable to understand this. A large number of them think electric cars generate the electricity and are immune to any ideas to the contrary.

Endzo
02-10-2011, 07:22 PM
Yeesh - lotsa misinformation here.

Peak oil is real. It's a fact. It's happening all around us. The article is about Shale and Fracking oil. Even if it was crude oil it's not enough to off-set decline. Peak oil will be the death of modern industrialized civilization.

This from Micheal Ruppert:

This is all Fracking and Shale Oil which will never, ever be viable; will always be a net-energy loser and destroy more fresh water than there is on the continent. This is the kind of outright lie, brazen and baldfacedly offered that makes me... almost homicidal. Goebbels and Hitler were right about the big lie. -- MCR

"Environmentalists fear that fluids or wastewater from the process, called hydraulic fracturing, could pollute drinking water supplies. The Environmental Protection Agency is now studying its safety in shale drilling."

"Oil engineers are applying what critics say is an environmentally questionable method developed in recent years to tap natural gas trapped in underground shale. They drill down and horizontally into the rock, then pump water, sand and chemicals into the hole to crack the shale and allow gas to flow up."

More lies to keep people dreaming the American dream.

loborugger
02-10-2011, 07:29 PM
Oil discoveries peaked in 1962. We now find one barrel for every six we consume. Most of the oil we produce today was found before the 1980s.

That may be true with western oil companies. Russian oil companies are finding oil and extracting it where their western counterparts say there should be none.

wandlc
02-10-2011, 07:43 PM
Deep oil. The Russians have been drilling it for years and are not producing anywhere near their capabilities. Russia has the largest proven reserves in the world. They will be running on oil for years. The US has deep oil too, that's what BP was drilling in the gulf and why the flow never slowed down. Peak oil has not arrived yet and probably won't. There is technology you guys have never heard of that is far superior to solar, wind or any of the other alternatives being looked at. Also, I can't believe how misinformed the general population is about what goes on in the oils industry and how drilling operations go and what well bore integrity is and why casing in cemented in place. If there was zone communication between the oil and water zones the oil wouldn't be in the oil zones.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 07:53 PM
So your cool with your job in energy just don't want these new deposits drilled? Cool you have your job screw everyone else.

I don't have a job in energy.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 07:55 PM
Cut did not do his homework.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Shocking that he would spout an uninformed opinion.

Endzo
02-10-2011, 08:13 PM
Deep oil. The Russians have been drilling it for years and are not producing anywhere near their capabilities. Russia has the largest proven reserves in the world.

Most, if not every, "deep oil" wells are net-energy losers. In other words it is not worth drilling because you lose more energy than you produce. You want to see the effects of trying to drill deeper and deeper? Look at the Gulf of Mexico.

And Russia does not have the largest crude reserves. It has the 8th largest crude reserves. You're probably thinking about natural gas reserves.

There is technology you guys have never heard of that is far superior to solar, wind or any of the other alternatives being looked at.

Not sure where you're getting this. If there is then why hasn't the USDOE heard about it? The government program that we waste billions of dollars on to try and make the United States energy dependent again.

Nothing in this world will replace hydrocarbon energy. Our population, our cities, our food, our transportation is built on it.

Peak oil has not arrived yet and probably won't.

We hit peak oil production in 1970. That is a fact.

Even if we did have an alternative to oil, it takes at least 30 years to change an energy infrastructure. Assuming we had something to change to. And assuming we started Right Now.

Dedhed
02-10-2011, 08:33 PM
Even if we did have an alternative to oil, it takes at least 30 years to change an energy infrastructure. Assuming we had something to change to. And assuming we started Right Now.

The answer is privatization. The infrastructure on a public level will take a long time to catch up, but it's well worth it to invest in private sources of alternative power.

Cito Pelon
02-11-2011, 10:11 AM
Viable oil from oil shale has been a dream for a long time, in fact, back in the 1970's when the entire US was in a recession, Colorado (and Denver in particular) was booming because energy companies were trying to extract oil from oil shale. In the end, it was too expensive a process and the industry died.

That being said, I'm sure the technology is much better, but there is still an environmental impact that needs to be studied. Basically, what the new process amounts to is pumping steam down into the oil shale deposits, liquifying it, and then sucking it out like a mosquito sucks blood. The problem is what happens to the water table with this process, and what kind of long term environmental impact will this cause.
At least, that how I understand the process.

Yup.

And this is not exactly a new process, it's been in the works since the 1970's.

Seems to me a desperate attempt to notch up domestic oil production. Also, the oil companies have been getting bigtime tax breaks all this time to develop said oil shale deposits.

It's kind of a pipe dream, actually. Nothing substantial has come from these oil shale developments, but it definitely is providing J-O-B-S. But mostly at the taxpayers expense, since the exploration costs are covered by tax breaks.

Rock Chalk
02-11-2011, 02:58 PM
"Plenty" for what exactly? To make a few oil tycoons richer. If you're imagining that there's enough oil to actually supply the US, you're off base.

About 20-30 times more expensive
Are you saying that we buy Middle Eastern oil in order to weaken them? Really?

It's not at all far fetched unless you delay investment in infrastructure by saying "we have plenty of oil right here in the US".

What? We all go electric? The effing power grid cant handle a cold spell or heat wave in most parts of the country and you want all cars to suddenly plug into this degrading electric grid that is already over taxed?

Oil tycoons, whether you want to believe it or not, are pioneering many of the alternative energies the world is looking into. They are not stupid, they know that oil is someday going to run out and they need a backup plan. But to suddenly say "we wont survive on oil so lets use alternatives and focus on that" is retarded. The US needs a MAJOR overhaul of its power grid FIRST before you start plugging in 100 million cars to outlets.

Dedhed
02-11-2011, 09:33 PM
What? We all go electric? The effing power grid cant handle a cold spell or heat wave in most parts of the country and you want all cars to suddenly plug into this degrading electric grid that is already over taxed?Read the thread a little. I haven't said anything of the sort.

Oil tycoons, whether you want to believe it or not, are pioneering many of the alternative energies the world is looking into. They are not stupid, they know that oil is someday going to run out and they need a backup plan.Exactly.My point is that the intelligent consumer will beat them to the punch.

But to suddenly say "we wont survive on oil so lets use alternatives and focus on that" is retarded. The US needs a MAJOR overhaul of its power grid FIRST before you start plugging in 100 million cars to outlets.It's retarded to ride the oil train into the ground. Ever given a thought to how much you'll pay for the last trillion barrels of oil.

Oil peaked over 40 years ago. That's more than my lifetime, and you call it "suddenly". The push for electric cars began then, and was run asunder by the oil companies.

jutang
02-12-2011, 12:01 AM
Yeesh - lotsa misinformation here.

Peak oil is real. It's a fact. It's happening all around us.
More lies to keep people dreaming the American dream.


My dad who has worked in oil exploration for 20yrs sent me this video awhile back. Really sums up what will happen if the US doesn't move away from oil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=player_detailpage

Sassy
02-12-2011, 12:26 AM
We need pipelines.

mhgaffney
02-12-2011, 12:32 AM
God give us pipelines!

Then everything will be A-OK.

Arkie
02-12-2011, 12:47 AM
I don't know how many years are left until oil runs out. It's a fact that there is a limited amount of oil in the world. It's a FACT that we have millions of barrels less today than yesterday.

Requiem
02-12-2011, 01:00 AM
Probably by the end of my life time.

errand
02-12-2011, 07:22 AM
The US is the Saudi arabia of shale oil....it helped us get thru the oil crisis in the mid '70's. So it's not like Spider came up with some new cutting edge technology. But if it makes him feel good about his existence, then fine...good call spider....

mhgaffney
02-12-2011, 09:06 AM
Someone needs to distinguish between shale oil and oil shale.

Oil shale is a sedimentary rock permeated with oil. Western Colorado has lots of the stuff. Many years ago -- I toured the Piceance (Piss- ants) basin where once upon a time -- as the story goes -- a homesteader installed a chimney on his house built out of the local rock.

Unfortunately, the chimney burned his house down the first time he started a fire in his fire place.

There were pilot projects to recover oil from shale -- but the process produces mountains of tailings and requires enormous amounts of water. So there was good reason to leave the stuff in the ground. That's where it belongs.

But shale oil -- I take it this refers to a regular oil deposit found beneath shale.

Is there an expert in the house?