# Oil



## manu1959

USGS Release: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana&#146;s Bakken Formation25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate (4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM)

interesting link....below is written by a friend...

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


 The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('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.
THAT'S RIGHT. 2,041 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?


----------



## dilloduck

manu1959 said:


> USGS Release: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montanas Bakken Formation25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate (4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM)
> 
> interesting link....below is written by a friend...
> 
> about 6 months ago I was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. This is out of context, but this is the actual question as asked. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer, how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground." Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.
> 
> 
> The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('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.
> THAT'S RIGHT. 2,041 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?



 I wasn't aware of the oil that existed but it doesn't suprise me-----I'm guessing the public is a pawn caught between some energy barons that use politics for wealth.


----------



## xotoxi

That's fuckin' AWESOME!!!

And it's in the MIDDLE of the country so it would be easy to get it from place to place.

But what happens in 2041 years from now?

Do we really want to burden our children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children with a lack of oil?


----------



## dilloduck

yes


----------



## xotoxi

manu1959 said:


> 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.


 
That would be like a small creature living on the surface of an orange, and discovering that just a little ways below the peel, there was enough orange juice to last for 100,000,000,000 years!


----------



## alan1

xotoxi said:


> That's fuckin' AWESOME!!!
> 
> And it's in the MIDDLE of the country so it would be easy to get it from place to place.
> 
> But what happens in 2041 years from now?
> 
> Do we really want to burden our children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children with a lack of oil?



We want global warming to prevent them from experiencing the next ice age.


----------



## Mr. H.

xotoxi said:


> That's fuckin' AWESOME!!!
> 
> And it's in the MIDDLE of the country so it would be easy to get it from place to place.
> 
> But what happens in 2041 years from now?
> 
> Do we really want to burden our children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children with a lack of oil?



Another Moody Blues fan...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

People! People!

Where's the respect for all the velicoraptors who died oh so long ago to become this "fossil fuels"?

Our national energy policy can only be described as Economic suicide. If the next Administration continues this disastrous course we should hit Ctrl Alt Del twice and reboot the government.


----------



## Old Rocks

*You people are so full of shit and misinformation. The Bakken will never be more than a minor producer. Welcome, but not anything to shout about.*

The Oil Drum | The Bakken Formation: How Much Will It Help?

If 500 million barrels turns out to be the ultimate recovery, the recovery factor would range from 0.13% to 0.25% of estimated oil in place. This very low percentage recovery of the estimated oil in place is not unreasonable if one considers that many of the more marginal areas of the field are likely to be deemed sub-economic and will never be drilled and produced. Technology improvements that will inevitably be made during an era of high energy prices will undoubtedly render some of this more marginal oil recoverable, but the total recovery is still likely to be low.

The USGS numbers are notable for their apparent certainty of the size of the undiscovered resources. The p5/p95 ratio is one measure of the spread or uncertainty of a probabilistic estimate. The USGS oil numbers show ratios of 1.2 to 1.9, which is quite surprising. These low ratios imply that the USGS is highly confident in their recoverable resource estimates. One would have thought that a 5X or 10X spread in this ratio would be more plausible considering that 85% to 90% of the resources has not yet been discovered. Perhaps when the detailed report is released, the logic behind this narrow range will be revealed. In the mean time, I remain highly skeptical that such a large resource with an unknown variability of fracture density, porosity, and recovery factor, and other factors, can be quantified with such precision.

If we could actually produce 3.6 billion barrels of undiscovered oil forecast at the P50 level by USGS, how much would this equate to? The US uses about 7.6 billion barrels of oil products a year, according to EIA data. This is equivalent to just under six month's US oil use, spread over a very long period, probably 20 years or more. If total production amounts to only 500 million barrels, as I have suggested, this would equate to about 23 days worth of United States oil usage, spread over many, many years. 

Looking at future production another way, the recent peak in production has been 75,000 barrels of oil per day (discussed in more detail below). Even if operators are able to triple this amount, the resulting production of 225,000 barrels a day (which would be a considerable challenge), will amount to only about 1.1% of US oil consumption, assuming the US uses about 20.7 barrels of oil a day, based on EIA data. 

If we can reach 225,000 barrels of oil per day, the history of Bakken suggest this level would be short-lived - the peak production will probably last for a year or less - because as we shall see below, total Bakken production can be expected to decline to 50% or less of its peak rate within a few years, because of the steep decline rate of individual wells.


----------



## Mr. H.

O.R., a half billion barrels isn't chump change. "Minor producers" add up. Your quoted article does shed new light on the subject but I don't think it exactly trivializes the project.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

There's already 25 times more there than we thought who know what else awaits once we start actually drilling


----------



## JD_2B

Mr. H. said:


> O.R., a half billion barrels isn't chump change. "Minor producers" add up. Your quoted article does shed new light on the subject but I don't think it exactly trivializes the project.



Still- nothing wrong with doing a little forward-thinking, and getting a windmill for the ol' ranch house.. 

500,000,000 is NOTHING. It is not enough to cook on a stove for your family, and keep warm, for a full month. Do you understand that, Mr H? It is NOTHING. 

Even if we do find a few trillion.. It is still barely enough to keep afloat with.


----------



## Thinman

Anything we can do to get off foreign oil is a good move.  If we buy less on the foreign market, oil prices will drop.  Any drop in oil prices would help to boost the economy.  If oil companies want to drill there, I say let them drill.


----------



## mdn2000

First let me say Old Crock is a complete moron, I will provide the proof.

Oil, you know why we dont use our oil, its heavy crude, it costs much more to refine. Saudi Oil is the best oil in the world because its the cheapest to refine, light weet crude. We should continue to use all the Middle Eastern oil until there is no more, its our right. Suck on that liberal fools.

We will never develop our oil when the profit in middle eastern oil is so great

Thats right, lets use all the oil in the Middle East, lets also take that marxist chavez's oil, lets leave the tyrants with nothing than they will have no power. I know the pacifiist will cry that we will get killed but not if we kill them first. The only problem with our wars of late is that we have not practised total war, get rid of the lawyers and the psycho doctors and just take the oil, take the oil for fun, the Arab respects strenght, as long as we fight like weaklings the Arabs will not respect us, if we destroy all who oppose the Arabs will gladly be our freinds, its in their nature. 

Here is an Arab proverb; _If you are weak you dont deserve our help, if you are strong you dont need our help_

The stronger we fight, the weaker Allah is, the Arab beleif is Allah commands all, if we win it was Allah's will. Not all Arabs are zealots so many will see our strength as an indication that there is no Allah and that the christian god of Jesus is the true god, many will convert, many convert every day and this is the dirty secret of the world, the more successful we are the less Moslems beleive in Islam and thus convert to christianity.

As for old crock, old crock has no idea what he posts, one example here to show Old Crock does not understand or read his links and sources. Why should we follow an old crock link if old crock has not read the link or even understand what the source states.



mdn2000 said:


> Here is a link to one source  showing that Old Crock posted an old article that is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.osti.gov/geothermal/servlets/purl/895237-Vp8ett/895237.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a pipe dream, either. Already being done successfully.*
> 
> http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull21-2/art1.pdf
> 
> On January 31, 1999, CalEnergy Operating Corp.
> (CalEnergy) unveiled a $400 million expansion of their
> geothermal power complex on the shores of the Salton Sea in
> southern California&#8217;s Imperial Valley. The new construction
> includes nearly 60 megawatts (MW) of new geothermal electrical
> capacity, and a unique project to &#8220;mine&#8221; commercialgrade
> zinc from geothermal brine produced for power
> generation. CalEnergy is a subsidiary of Mid-American
> Energy Holdings Co. (Des Moines, IA).
> CalEnergy currently operates eight geothermal power
> plants with a capacity of 288 net MW at the Salton Sea.
> Construction underway for completion by late-July includes
> Unit 5, a 49-MW facility that will utilize high-temperature
> waste brine from four of the company&#8217;s existing power plants
> to fuel the minerals recovery project and produce electricity.
> In addition, a 10-MW turbine will be on-line by mid-March to
> upgrade power production at CalEnergy&#8217;s Del Ranch and
> Vulcan power plants. Construction companies heading up the
> projects include Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. (Denver,
> CO) and Kvaener U.S., Inc. (San Ramon, CA), which are
> subcontracting work to local firms.
> Funded entirely by CalEnergy, the $200-million
> mineral recovery project will produce 30,000 metric tonnes of
> 99.99-percent pure zinc annually for Cominco Ltd. under a
> contract signed last September.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The zinc recovery project was put online in 2002,
> but was shut down in 2004 due to technical problems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2002, a zinc-extraction plant was completed in the
> Imperial Valley of California. It used electricity from
> geothermal power plants for the recovery of metal from
> geothermal brines (Clutter, 2000). The $400-million zinc
> project by MidAmerican Energy Holding Co. was supposed
> to extract 30,000 tonnes of zinc annually. The wastewater
> from eight power plants, having 600 ppm of zinc was
> utilized. Unfortunately, the plant, which ran until 2004,
> produced less than 50% of capacity and lost $69 million on
> the project (GRC, 2004d). It is now shut down and being
> dismantled due to poor economics and technical problems.
> MidAmerican is now looking at silica extraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are more problems with the unreliable Geothermal energy, imagine a geothermal power plant producing such a tiny amount of power having an uncontollable event. The uncontrollable event was the brine eating through a 48" pipe until it literally explodes spilling toxic brine all over the imperial valley's Asparagus fields.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On July 10, 2003, the Salton Sea IV Project&#8217;s 40 megawatt turbine went out of service due to an uncontrollable force event.
> Such uncontrollable force event ended, and the Salton Sea IV Project&#8217;s turbine returned to service, on September 17, 2003.
> Edison failed to recognize the uncontrollable force event and, as such, has not paid amounts otherwise due and owing under
> the Salton Sea IV power purchase agreement totaling $2.5 million. Salton Sea Power Generation, L.P., with Fish Lake Power
> LLC, owner of the Salton Sea IV Project, served notices of error on Edison for such unpaid amounts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So from a "_win, win_" to a multi-million dollar loss, Old Crock I must say if you prove anything its that Green Energy is too expensive.
> 
> Hey, check out the amount of time this power plant was down, Old Crock you did not calculate this time into your costs either. Looks to me that Geothermal is too expensive and unreliable.
> 
> Now how about how much energy and what types does it take to produce one ton of fiberglass.
Click to expand...


----------



## JD_2B

OMG I just figured out who you really are... 

Osama? Dat you boy?


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, I think Mdn did prove that someone was a moron


----------



## Toro

Estimates are that there is as much as 1 trillion barrels of oil trapped in shale within the US.  However, there are no technological means of getting at the barrels in an economic manner at the current time.  I have seen estimates that given the current rate of technological improvements, we will be pulling out 3 million barrels a day by 2040.  We currently import 8 million barrels a day now.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> Well, I think Mdn did prove that someone was a moron



I wont argue with Old Crock when he is right.



mdn2000 said:


> Here is a link to one source  showing that Old Crock posted an old article that is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.osti.gov/geothermal/servlets/purl/895237-Vp8ett/895237.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not a pipe dream, either. Already being done successfully.*
> 
> http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull21-2/art1.pdf
> 
> On January 31, 1999, CalEnergy Operating Corp.
> (CalEnergy) unveiled a $400 million expansion of their
> geothermal power complex on the shores of the Salton Sea in
> southern California&#8217;s Imperial Valley. The new construction
> includes nearly 60 megawatts (MW) of new geothermal electrical
> capacity, and a unique project to &#8220;mine&#8221; commercialgrade
> zinc from geothermal brine produced for power
> generation. CalEnergy is a subsidiary of Mid-American
> Energy Holdings Co. (Des Moines, IA).
> CalEnergy currently operates eight geothermal power
> plants with a capacity of 288 net MW at the Salton Sea.
> Construction underway for completion by late-July includes
> Unit 5, a 49-MW facility that will utilize high-temperature
> waste brine from four of the company&#8217;s existing power plants
> to fuel the minerals recovery project and produce electricity.
> In addition, a 10-MW turbine will be on-line by mid-March to
> upgrade power production at CalEnergy&#8217;s Del Ranch and
> Vulcan power plants. Construction companies heading up the
> projects include Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. (Denver,
> CO) and Kvaener U.S., Inc. (San Ramon, CA), which are
> subcontracting work to local firms.
> Funded entirely by CalEnergy, the $200-million
> mineral recovery project will produce 30,000 metric tonnes of
> 99.99-percent pure zinc annually for Cominco Ltd. under a
> contract signed last September.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The zinc recovery project was put online in 2002,
> but was shut down in 2004 due to technical problems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2002, a zinc-extraction plant was completed in the
> Imperial Valley of California. It used electricity from
> geothermal power plants for the recovery of metal from
> geothermal brines (Clutter, 2000). The $400-million zinc
> project by MidAmerican Energy Holding Co. was supposed
> to extract 30,000 tonnes of zinc annually. The wastewater
> from eight power plants, having 600 ppm of zinc was
> utilized. Unfortunately, the plant, which ran until 2004,
> produced less than 50% of capacity and lost $69 million on
> the project (GRC, 2004d). It is now shut down and being
> dismantled due to poor economics and technical problems.
> MidAmerican is now looking at silica extraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are more problems with the unreliable Geothermal energy, imagine a geothermal power plant producing such a tiny
> 
> amount of power having an uncontollable event. The uncontrollable event was the brine eating through a 48" pipe until it
> 
> literally explodes spilling toxic brine all over the imperial valley's Asparagus fields.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On July 10, 2003, the Salton Sea IV Project&#8217;s 40 megawatt turbine went out of service due to an uncontrollable force
> 
> event.
> Such uncontrollable force event ended, and the Salton Sea IV Project&#8217;s turbine returned to service, on September 17, 2003.
> Edison failed to recognize the uncontrollable force event and, as such, has not paid amounts otherwise due and owing under
> the Salton Sea IV power purchase agreement totaling $2.5 million. Salton Sea Power Generation, L.P., with Fish Lake Power
> LLC, owner of the Salton Sea IV Project, served notices of error on Edison for such unpaid amounts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So from a "_win, win_" to a multi-million dollar loss, Old Crock I must say if you prove anything its that Green
> 
> Energy is too expensive.
> 
> Hey, check out the amount of time this power plant was down, Old Crock you did not calculate this time into your costs
> 
> either. Looks to me that Geothermal is too expensive and unreliable.
> 
> Now how about how much energy and what types does it take to produce one ton of fiberglass.
Click to expand...


----------



## Andrew2382

we have more oil in shale deposits then all of the middle east combined...


----------



## mdn2000

Andrew2382 said:


> we have more oil in shale deposits then all of the middle east combined...



Sure, but the quality of the Oil in the Middle East is far superior, that is why we are not devoloping our oil. 

Republican or Democcrat, both parties have put a show on, both parties are in the pocket of big oil. I think they should be honest about this.

I have no problem taking Middle Eastern oil, those who will use the oil to better mankind have the right to the oil. Historically that has been the USA.

I only have a problem appeasing tryants, we can take the oil and tell the tryants to get lost.


----------



## Andrew2382

I'm with ya.  However, I find it laughable how the left thinks we as a country can be totally off oil in 20 years.  That is such a joke.

Even if we go completely green which is impossible for us as a society at the moment it would take decades up decades to be totally off oil.

I am all for renewable energy, however in the process of PERFECTING renewable energy lets drill our own oil and put more R&D into Shale development and cut our imports drastically instead of giving our money to countries that hate us


----------



## mdn2000

Andrew2382 said:


> I'm with ya.  However, I find it laughable how the left thinks we as a country can be totally off oil in 20 years.  That is such a joke.
> 
> Even if we go completely green which is impossible for us as a society at the moment it would take decades up decades to be totally off oil.
> 
> I am all for renewable energy, however in the process of PERFECTING renewable energy lets drill our own oil and put more R&D into Shale development and cut our imports drastically instead of giving our money to countries that hate us



I can agree with you on developing our oil, but only after we drain every last drop from the Middle East. 

I also do not like the term "renewable energy", at least in regards to windmills, solar, and geothermal. the power plants used to capture the sun, wind, and geothermal are not renewable nor are they practicle. 

It is a waste to use a strong power source to make a weak power source. 

In Taft county we are using the waste steam from fossil fuel to loosen the oil keeping our oil fields in california the most productive in the nation. If our lousy RINO governor was not in the pocket of corporations and special interest he would put a couple of nukes on top the oil fields and use the steam created with green renewable nuclear energy.


----------



## Big Fitz

2 years ago, Glenn Beck outed the best way we can get off foreign oil inside of 10 years.  

Coal Gassification.  A nice little piece of Third Reich tech that can be quite useful to us as well.  It is profitable at gas prices equaling $1.60 a gallon.  As long as we protect the industry from OPEC trying to chop the legs out from under it like it did successfully in the 80's, and 70's, we have a real chance of getting off foreign oil, starving out our enemies there, and freeing US politics from foreign influence of hostile nations.

Then there's the added benefit of increasing manufacturing, transportation, engineering and all sorts of other service industries related to these plants.  This will do wonders for our nation's industrial health as a whole to boot.  Decrease unemployment and provide tax revenues for the government.  

A win/win/win/win/win/win scenario, all for the cost of insuring they will be protected for a certain period from anti-competitive tactics from other nations.

Peak oil is a myth created by political pandering, nihilistic philosophies and a desire to destroy western civilization by radical anti-humanists.  We need to just take this head on and do it in spite of their protests.


----------



## Samson

Since I worked in Oil Refineries off and on for the past 15 years, the subject of availability has always gotten my attention, but there has always been common denominators to all Oil Discussions.

It always has amazed me that most people do not realize:

1. Oil is Underground.

2. It must be mined. This takes time, and LOTS of money.

3. Once its mined, it must be transported. This takes time, and LOTS of money

4. Once it is transported it must be Refined. This takes time, and lots of money

5. Once the Gasoline (or whatever product) is seperated from Oil, it must be distributed.

..........you guessed it....time and money.

Finally, people realize that it really doesn't matter how much oil you find if you cannot mine it, transport it, refine it, and distribute the products.

Canada's Oil Sands contain more Oil than Saudi, the Green River Oil Shales contain huge deposites of oil, and the North Dakota Field is a Great Discovery.

The Canadians are producing, but cannot find pipeline/refining capacity to maximize production so that economies of scale can be achieved. If they cannot do this, then economy of scale is even more difficult for anyone wishing to develope the Green River Shale.

The FIRST major problem for North Dakota production is the lack of an oil pipeline capable of transporting the production. The second problem is that there is no nearby refinery or storage facility that has the capacity to use the crude.


----------



## uscitizen

xotoxi said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be like a small creature living on the surface of an orange, and discovering that just a little ways below the peel, there was enough orange juice to last for 100,000,000,000 years!
Click to expand...


Yaah, we are a lot like medflys.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

We'll suck the ME dry of oil until they're back to their two major industries: sand and camels


----------



## Samson

CrusaderFrank said:


> We'll suck the ME dry of oil until their back to their two major industries: sand and camels



No, unlike the USA, the Kingdoms don't need to operate with 4 year election cycles. 

They are able to plan for future generations.

They are already developing other industries that will replace energy production.

The USA, on the other hand, will simply print more money so people can buy more expensive gasoline.


----------



## uscitizen

If we get off foreign oil what will big oil do with their supertankers?  Who will be in bed with Hugo on oil deals?  Why would we NEED to protect the Joos?


----------



## Midnight Marauder

JD_2B said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> O.R., a half billion barrels isn't chump change. "Minor producers" add up. Your quoted article does shed new light on the subject but I don't think it exactly trivializes the project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still- nothing wrong with doing a little forward-thinking, and getting a windmill for the ol' ranch house..
> 
> 500,000,000 is NOTHING. It is not enough to cook on a stove for your family, and keep warm, for a full month. Do you understand that, Mr H? It is NOTHING.
> 
> Even if we do find a few trillion.. It is still barely enough to keep afloat with.
Click to expand...

First off, after you do the cost-benefit analysis on your windmill, you'll see it's not economically viable. Unless you like the idea of a 15-20 year payout. By that time you've also repaired/replaced almost everything related to it.

Secondly, 500 MILLION is not "nothing." Have you any grasp how much oil a barrel of oil is? Have you any grasp at all of what a trillion of something is? A million of something?

Third, the first thing we should do is stop EXPORTING our domestic crude. Yes that's right -- it shocks most folks to find out we are #17 in the world in oil EXPORTS.





mdn2000 said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have more oil in shale deposits then all of the middle east combined...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but the quality of the Oil in the Middle East is far superior, that is why we are not devoloping our oil.
Click to expand...

There is no difference in the "quality." Both are sweet crude. The difference is, cost. The middle east doesn't have an EPA, for starters. It's far, far cheaper to ship in crude oil than it is to take it out of domestic ground.


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> If we get off foreign oil what will big oil do with their supertankers?  Who will be in bed with Hugo on oil deals?  Why would we NEED to protect the Joos?



I hate to burst your Conspiratoral Bubble, but if any of your outrageous theories have even a kernal of credability, then Environmentalists are the best friends of "big oil."

But, I recon even this absurdity isn't too ridiculous for you to imagine.


----------



## uscitizen

Samson said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we get off foreign oil what will big oil do with their supertankers?  Who will be in bed with Hugo on oil deals?  Why would we NEED to protect the Joos?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to burst your Conspiratoral Bubble, but if any of your outrageous theories have even a kernal of credability, then Environmentalists are the best friends of "big oil."
> 
> But, I recon even this absurdity isn't too ridiculous for you to imagine.
Click to expand...


As I have said for years.  Environutz are the inadvertant best friends of big oil.

It is a good thing environuts fought offshore drilling off of FL and CA or the right wing would have had to come out of hiding and do it themselves.

Opposing new refineries just made more profit for big oil.

I am a realist.


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we get off foreign oil what will big oil do with their supertankers?  Who will be in bed with Hugo on oil deals?  Why would we NEED to protect the Joos?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to burst your Conspiratoral Bubble, but if any of your outrageous theories have even a kernal of credability, then Environmentalists are the best friends of "big oil."
> 
> But, I recon even this absurdity isn't too ridiculous for you to imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have said for years.  Environutz are the inadvertant best friends of big oil.
> 
> It is a good thing environuts fought offshore drilling off of FL and CA or the right wing would have had to come out of hiding and do it themselves.
> 
> Opposing new refineries just made more profit for big oil.
> 
> I am a realist.
Click to expand...


I suppose that the possibility that "big oil" might simply decide NOT to develop offshore oil regardless of what environmentalists do is Wildly Improbable.

The reason companies want to open FL and CA offshore oil is so they can buy the "mineral rights" TODAY, while they are cheap compared to the future cost. Producing Oil and Murdering Sealife is a distant option.


----------



## uscitizen

Samson said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to burst your Conspiratoral Bubble, but if any of your outrageous theories have even a kernal of credability, then Environmentalists are the best friends of "big oil."
> 
> But, I recon even this absurdity isn't too ridiculous for you to imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said for years.  Environutz are the inadvertant best friends of big oil.
> 
> It is a good thing environuts fought offshore drilling off of FL and CA or the right wing would have had to come out of hiding and do it themselves.
> 
> Opposing new refineries just made more profit for big oil.
> 
> I am a realist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose that the possibility that "big oil" might simply decide NOT to develop offshore oil regardless of what environmentalists do is Wildly Improbable.
> 
> The reason companies want to open FL and CA offshore oil is so they can buy the "mineral rights" TODAY, while they are cheap compared to the future cost. Producing Oil and Murdering Sealife is a distant option.
Click to expand...


imho  Oil leases should expire within a reasonable amount of time if not drilled/utilized.


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said for years.  Environutz are the inadvertant best friends of big oil.
> 
> It is a good thing environuts fought offshore drilling off of FL and CA or the right wing would have had to come out of hiding and do it themselves.
> 
> Opposing new refineries just made more profit for big oil.
> 
> I am a realist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that the possibility that "big oil" might simply decide NOT to develop offshore oil regardless of what environmentalists do is Wildly Improbable.
> 
> The reason companies want to open FL and CA offshore oil is so they can buy the "mineral rights" TODAY, while they are cheap compared to the future cost. Producing Oil and Murdering Sealife is a distant option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> imho  Oil leases should expire within a reasonable amount of time if not drilled/utilized.
Click to expand...


They could: then the speculation would be more risky, a cost that would be reflected in the loan that "big oil" would recieve from "big bank," who borrows from "big Government." who .....

********drumroll please.....******

_sold the lease._


----------



## Big Fitz

Midnight Marauder said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> O.R., a half billion barrels isn't chump change. "Minor producers" add up. Your quoted article does shed new light on the subject but I don't think it exactly trivializes the project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still- nothing wrong with doing a little forward-thinking, and getting a windmill for the ol' ranch house..
> 
> 500,000,000 is NOTHING. It is not enough to cook on a stove for your family, and keep warm, for a full month. Do you understand that, Mr H? It is NOTHING.
> 
> Even if we do find a few trillion.. It is still barely enough to keep afloat with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off, after you do the cost-benefit analysis on your windmill, you'll see it's not economically viable. Unless you like the idea of a 15-20 year payout. By that time you've also repaired/replaced almost everything related to it.
> 
> Secondly, 500 MILLION is not "nothing." Have you any grasp how much oil a barrel of oil is? Have you any grasp at all of what a trillion of something is? A million of something?
> 
> Third, the first thing we should do is stop EXPORTING our domestic crude. Yes that's right -- it shocks most folks to find out we are #17 in the world in oil EXPORTS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have more oil in shale deposits then all of the middle east combined...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, but the quality of the Oil in the Middle East is far superior, that is why we are not devoloping our oil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no difference in the "quality." Both are sweet crude. The difference is, cost. The middle east doesn't have an EPA, for starters. It's far, far cheaper to ship in crude oil than it is to take it out of domestic ground.
Click to expand...

The cost, according to one source I talked with last week of pulling oil out of the desert or Canadian Tar Sands is a difference of 10 to 1 as compared to pulling it out of Texas.  We have a large amount of capped wells that have been made unprofitable due to many factors from basic geology to government interference.  Make it profitable for them to work again, and you will see domestic oil industry flourish. 

Other nations also know this and will drop their prices to prevent us from making it easier and therefore keep the junkie on the hook.  With Canada, this isn't quite so bad a thing.  With far east sources (which aren't as much as you may think) it's much worse.

So, although we won't get around the physical obstacles (Thick bedrock, and 1000 foot deep sea floors are harder to deal with than a thin layer of sand over oceans of oil) we can drop government regulation and business hindrance issues.  

This is also one area where I'd like to go a step farther and add a tariff to foreign oil producing nations equal to their government subsidies and tax breaks (except for maybe Canada, Great Britain, Norway and Mexico).  This would not be just dropped into government coffers, but used to cut the federal gas tax so it remains revenue neutral, or dropped into the highway fund for use on roads and bridges.

Remember, before the income tax, the feds made most of its money off of tariffs on foreign goods.  I just feel they should be judiciously used to protect American industry against unfair advantage (foreign govt subsidies and tax breaks).


----------



## Samson

JD_2B said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> O.R., a half billion barrels isn't chump change. "Minor producers" add up. Your quoted article does shed new light on the subject but I don't think it exactly trivializes the project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still- nothing wrong with doing a little forward-thinking, and getting a windmill for the ol' ranch house..
> 
> 500,000,000 is NOTHING. It is not enough to cook on a stove for your family, and keep warm, for a full month. Do you understand that, Mr H? It is NOTHING.
> 
> Even if we do find a few trillion.. It is still barely enough to keep afloat with.
Click to expand...


500,000,000 bbl of oil isn't much. Certainly, it wouldn't last long enough to justify building any new refining capacity.

A large Oil Refinery (ExxonMobil, Baton Rouge, LA) refines about 500,000 bbl/day

500,000,000 bbl would last this ONE refinery 1,000 days = less than 3 years


----------



## uscitizen

We import a lot of our fuel in refined form.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

uscitizen said:


> We import a lot of our fuel in refined form.


Link? Source? What's "alot?"


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> We import a lot of our fuel in refined form.



Yes, I'd agree this is probably true since EPA and OSHA makes refining fuel in the USA more costly.

My guess is Mexico refines most of the USA's finished imported fuels.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Samson said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> We import a lot of our fuel in refined form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'd agree this is probably true since EPA and OSHA makes refining fuel in the USA more costly.
> 
> My guess is Mexico refines most of the USA's finished fuels.
Click to expand...

And that really helps the planet doesn't it?

Everything the EPA and government in general does to "help" actually hurts the planet, for some odd reason.


----------



## Samson

Midnight Marauder said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> We import a lot of our fuel in refined form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'd agree this is probably true since EPA and OSHA makes refining fuel in the USA more costly.
> 
> My guess is Mexico refines most of the USA's finished fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that really helps the planet doesn't it?
> 
> Everything the EPA and government in general does to "help" actually hurts the planet, for some odd reason.
Click to expand...


Yes.

The current USA infatuation with ethanol is driving up corn prices in Mexico.

Mexicans can only afford to eat tacos if they work in oil refineries that export finished products to the USA.


----------



## Big Fitz

Samson said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> O.R., a half billion barrels isn't chump change. "Minor producers" add up. Your quoted article does shed new light on the subject but I don't think it exactly trivializes the project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still- nothing wrong with doing a little forward-thinking, and getting a windmill for the ol' ranch house..
> 
> 500,000,000 is NOTHING. It is not enough to cook on a stove for your family, and keep warm, for a full month. Do you understand that, Mr H? It is NOTHING.
> 
> Even if we do find a few trillion.. It is still barely enough to keep afloat with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 500,000,000 bbl of oil isn't much. Certainly, it wouldn't last long enough to justify building any new refining capacity.
> 
> A large Oil Refinery (ExxonMobil, Baton Rouge, LA) refines about 500,000 bbl/day
> 
> 500,000,000 bbl would last this ONE refinery 1,000 days = less than 3 years
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it is or isn't worth adding refining capacity.  As it is, we still have a little ways to go to get back to pre-Katrina status, although we are close.  It may have just all come back if my news is off.  It'd be nice if it'd happen.  After all, profit begets reason to increase volume and thereby increase profit more.

Your example does assume running at peak capacity every day for the entire 3 year period, which we all know won't happen.  So let's call it 3-5 years to then find the NEXT source of that size or greater.  Sounds like the method most industry operates on.  Here's a contract for the next 3-5 years.  After that, find the next contract.  What's the potential profit on that amount of refining work?  Better than doing nothing of course.

Of course you also have to consider the fact that the Federal Fuckuperment is so in cahoots with the far left anti-human greenies they are looking for every way possible to shut down the oil industry in this nation and get us hooked on near worthless ethanol.  So, I wouldn't increase refining capacity in this nation either till these idiots are finally purged from the public sector and sane energy policy returns to this nation... aka pre-Carter thinking.  Be nice to see the DoE shut down too.

but that's my assessment.


----------



## Samson

Big Fitz said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still- nothing wrong with doing a little forward-thinking, and getting a windmill for the ol' ranch house..
> 
> 500,000,000 is NOTHING. It is not enough to cook on a stove for your family, and keep warm, for a full month. Do you understand that, Mr H? It is NOTHING.
> 
> Even if we do find a few trillion.. It is still barely enough to keep afloat with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 500,000,000 bbl of oil isn't much. Certainly, it wouldn't last long enough to justify building any new refining capacity.
> 
> A large Oil Refinery (ExxonMobil, Baton Rouge, LA) refines about 500,000 bbl/day
> 
> 500,000,000 bbl would last this ONE refinery 1,000 days = less than 3 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure if it is or isn't worth adding refining capacity.  As it is, we still have a little ways to go to get back to pre-Katrina status, although we are close.  It may have just all come back if my news is off.  It'd be nice if it'd happen.  After all, profit begets reason to increase volume and thereby increase profit more.
> 
> Your example does assume running at peak capacity every day for the entire 3 year period, which we all know won't happen.  So let's call it 3-5 years to then find the NEXT source of that size or greater.  Sounds like the method most industry operates on.  Here's a contract for the next 3-5 years.  After that, find the next contract.  What's the potential profit on that amount of refining work?  Better than doing nothing of course.
> 
> Of course you also have to consider the fact that the Federal Fuckuperment is so in cahoots with the far left anti-human greenies they are looking for every way possible to shut down the oil industry in this nation and get us hooked on near worthless ethanol.  So, I wouldn't increase refining capacity in this nation either till these idiots are finally purged from the public sector and sane energy policy returns to this nation... aka pre-Carter thinking.  Be nice to see the DoE shut down too.
> 
> but that's my assessment.
Click to expand...



Ok lets say 500,000,000 bbl would last the ExxonMobil Refinery in Baton Rouge 5 years.

Lets also imagine that in 5 years, the US will need 500,000,000 bbl of gasoline produced from that refinery.

Now, obviously we cannot produce the gasoline we need in 5 years from this refinery: because 1 bbl crude doesn't yield 1 bbl gasoline despite all the technology "big oil" has invented to make this happen, and all the additional costs the US government has added to the process to prevent it.

So, what do we do? Build ANOTHER refinery?

The payout period (how much time it takes to begin to make a profit from an investment), for a new refinery is a very long time assuming that gasoline profitability remains what it is. 

Of course, the higher the profitability of making gasoline, the shorter the payout period.

But, whenever oil companies have made profits that might justify the long term investment in a refinery whose Environmental Impact Statement alone would take a decade to prepare, the media begins to complain about "Big Oil" reaping "Windfall Profits."

The Government responds  with Congressional Hearings, and passes statutes to tax these "Windfall Profits."

So, who wants to build a new refinery in the USA?


----------



## Big Fitz

Samson said:


> Ok lets say 500,000,000 bbl would last the ExxonMobil Refinery in Baton Rouge 5 years.
> 
> Lets also imagine that in 5 years, the US will need 500,000,000 bbl of gasoline produced from that refinery.
> 
> Now, obviously we cannot produce the gasoline we need in 5 years from this refinery: because 1 bbl crude doesn't yield 1 bbl gasoline despite all the technology "big oil" has invented to make this happen, and all the additional costs the US government has added to the process to prevent it.
> 
> So, what do we do? Build ANOTHER refinery?
> 
> The payout period (how much time it takes to begin to make a profit from an investment), for a new refinery is a very long time assuming that gasoline profitability remains what it is.
> 
> Of course, the higher the profitability of making gasoline, the shorter the payout period.
> 
> But, whenever oil companies have made profits that might justify the long term investment in a refinery whose Environmental Impact Statement alone would take a decade to prepare, the media begins to complain about "Big Oil" reaping "Windfall Profits."
> 
> The Government responds  with Congressional Hearings, and passes statutes to tax these "Windfall Profits."
> 
> So, who wants to build a new refinery in the USA?



And that's a lot of the problem in this nation.  NIMBY and kleptocracy.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> Peak oil is a myth



Then the IEA, the USGS, ASPO, the U.N. and countless other international entities are all lying? U.S. domestic oil production decline, North Sea decline, Mexico's decline, Indonesia's decline, Russia's decline were all "myths?" And now Middle Eastern decline is a "myth", and all are fabricated in some great global conspiracy? 

That's odd.



Midnight Marauder said:


> Secondly, 500 MILLION is not "nothing." Have you any grasp how much oil a barrel of oil is? Have you any grasp at all of what a trillion of something is? A million of something?



The world uses 85 million barrels per day, and growing. Do YOU have a grasp?



Midnight Marauder said:


> Third, the first thing we should do is stop EXPORTING our domestic crude. Yes that's right -- it shocks most folks to find out we are #17 in the world in oil EXPORTS.



That's because domestic U.S. oil production peaked and began terminal decline 38 years ago. It's irreversible. This is fairly well-documented. 

Pretending the realities of resource scarcity is a big global conspiracy comes off as fairly hollow.

You should really get a "grasp" of how global oil trade works. You can't just horde your own while scheming to trade for others'. 

....

As for the original poster of this thread... I hate to break it to him, but Bakken contains oil shale, and oil shale is not oil.  It yields a synthetic from kerogen -- again, not oil. It doesn't refine to unleaded gasoline. It can be refined to create diesel and jet fuel, but at great financial and environmental cost... 

From the fist line of the Wiki page on oil shale, among countless other sources (I am not allowed to post links yet): 

_The name oil shale is a misnomer as geologists would not necessarily classify the rock as a shale, and its kerogen differs from crude oil_.​
Additionally, the extraction process for these heavy oils is strip mining of the most destructive kind, and pollutes the ground water table for miles around. Some people might be willing to destroy the Rocky Mountains and divert the Colorado River for this economically UNviable energy "source," but not anyone thinking rationally.

In short, there is indeed an abundance of heavy, dirty oils all over the world, but those heavy oils will not save us... not before our energy crisis, which is on our doorstop now. 

We are where we are (empire) due to a healthy EROI (energy return on invested) of between 25:1 and 100:1 that sweet LIGHT crude has provided us... Period, end of story. ... We are no where near that ratio any longer, and that is the case all over our planet. Worse, that ratio is getting smaller and smaller every year, while population continues to explode. Those two realities pull in opposite directions and can not continue, for obvious reasons.

Perhaps if we listened to the only president of the last 50 years who was honest with us about energy, we'd be ahead of the curve by now and on our way to renewables and sustainability. ... Unfortunately, his initiatives were immediately scrapped by the corporate president who followed him, and our age of gluttonous consumption ramped up to a whole new level. 

And now the game of musical chairs (petroleum age) is ending.


----------



## Big Fitz

> Then the IEA, the USGS, ASPO, the U.N. and countless other international entities are all lying?



Yep.  Or they're ignorant.  Or they stand to gain (most likely) by creating the false theory of a shortage.  Fields decline, and new ones are found.  Simple fact of life borne out by all the recent discovers of MASSIVE finds off Brazil, the Gulf Coast and ANWR, plus the known reserves in the Bakken reserve and other formerly hard to reach places that suddenly, thanks to technology are quite viable.



> The world uses 85 million barrels per day, and growing. Do YOU have a grasp?



I have a firm grasp.  I also know that by the 'math' they spouted on the first Earth Day, we ran out of oil 19 years ago.  Huh.  Strange how that never came true.



> That's because domestic U.S. oil production peaked and began terminal decline 38 years ago.


  Hmmmm... 38 years ago... 38 years ago... what possible connection could be with that year..... Oh yeahhh... the EPA, founded on Dec 2nd, 1970.  Suddenly, domestic oil exploration became less profitable and harder to do, thanks to the dawn of the eco-nut.



> We are where we are (empire) due to a healthy EROI (energy return on invested) of between 25:1 and 100:1 that sweet LIGHT crude has provided us...



And yet all 'green energy' systems provide less than a 1 to 1 ratio.  Even Hydrogen is heavily reliant on petrochemicals in which to produce the hydrogen.  HENCE the name HYDROcarbons.  You will NEVER get away from oil till you find some other form of energy that produces as well as fossil fuels.

Still, too bad for you the fantasy of peak oil is just that.  A fantasy designed to scare the simple minded with straight line predictions and massive socialist intrusions as our 'only hope'.


----------



## Mr. H.

There is a monumental glut of crude oil in storage worldwide. Still, new discoveries are being made on a monthly basis. The petroleum industry has historically supplied oil that the world has demanded and will continue to do so for decades to come. 

U.S. oil production may be in decline but it's not terminal. Nor is it irreversable. The constraints to increasing domestic production involve access to capital, an effective tax environment, opening public lands and waters to exploration, and a reversal in public opinion based on education of facts. 

If oil is so important, why do people expect it to be cheaper than dirt? Cheap oil makes voters happy. Keep the voters ignorant of facts and they stay stupid. In general, we want ourselves to fail in the hydrocarbon arena because it's easier than facing reality.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> Yep.  Or they're ignorant.



I see now. All those non-partisan entities are either "lying" or they're dumb. That's excellent. 

You just compromised your entire argument within one paragraph.



Big Fitz said:


> Fields decline, and new ones are found.  Simple fact of life borne out by all the recent discovers of MASSIVE finds off Brazil, the Gulf Coast and ANWR, plus the known reserves in the Bakken reserve and other formerly hard to reach places that suddenly, thanks to technology are quite viable.



None of the finds of proven reserves off Brazil, Gulf Coast nor ANWR can be considered "massive" by any measurement. Where are you getting your information? ... Ghawar was massive. Cantarell was massive. Those aren't. ...  A "massive" field hasn't been found anywhere on God's green Earth in over 30 years.

Please link to your source of proven reserves at those sites, and then divide those totals by 85 million barrels per day. As a CEO of an oil company, are you willing to spend billions of dollars on infrastructure in order to suck out 3-5 months of fuel?



Big Fitz said:


> Hmmmm... 38 years ago... 38 years ago... what possible connection could be with that year..... Oh yeahhh... the EPA, founded on Dec 2nd, 1970.  Suddenly, domestic oil exploration became less profitable and harder to do, thanks to the dawn of the eco-nut.



Wait, did you just punt to the EPA as the culprit behind well-documented U.S. oil production decline? So, the EPA is in cohoots with Big Oil now to give the impression of energy scarcity?

You realize how your argument on this topic consistently contradicts itself, do you not?



Big Fitz said:


> And yet all 'green energy' systems provide less than a 1 to 1 ratio.  Even Hydrogen is heavily reliant on petrochemicals in which to produce the hydrogen.  HENCE the name HYDROcarbons.  You will NEVER get away from oil till you find some other form of energy that produces as well as fossil fuels.



You're one of those straw man arguers, aren't you? Adorable. ... when did i mention a word praising hydrogen's potential, pro or con?

You're right that we will never get away from our oil addiction willfully. It will be taken care of FOR us by geology. 

I look forward to you showing the forum what new "find" that is "massive" for a global economy that consumes 85 million barrels per day. Perhaps 3-4 months of oil here and there is "massive" to you, but not to me.



Big Fitz said:


> Still, too bad for you the fantasy of peak oil is just that.  A fantasy designed to scare the simple minded with straight line predictions and massive socialist intrusions as our 'only hope'.



Ah... So now it's "socialists" aligned with the EPA, Big Oil, the International Energy Agency, CERA, the U.S. Geological Survey and on and on who are all lying about energy scarcity. 

What a coordinated effort!


----------



## JiggsCasey

Mr. H. said:


> There is a monumental glut of crude oil in storage worldwide. *Still, new discoveries are being made on a monthly basis.* The petroleum industry has historically supplied oil that the world has demanded and will continue to do so for decades to come.



Where? How much? Link to where you're getting your information please, so the forum has a basis for your argument.

Hypothetical:

If I own a continent, and you own a continent... And you find 1 trillion barrels of oil, and I find 500 billion... yet mine is concentrated amid one isolated region, while yours is spread out over hundreds of small pools all over your continent, as well as dozens off shore... Who do you think is going to have the more successful oil industry? ... Here's a hint: Not yours.

extraction and refining infrastructure cost is a huge part of this equation ... especially amid a recession/depression with no end in sight.


----------



## Douger

JD_2B said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> O.R., a half billion barrels isn't chump change. "Minor producers" add up. Your quoted article does shed new light on the subject but I don't think it exactly trivializes the project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still- nothing wrong with doing a little forward-thinking, and getting a windmill for the ol' ranch house..
> 
> 500,000,000 is NOTHING. It is not enough to cook on a stove for your family, and keep warm, for a full month. Do you understand that, Mr H? It is NOTHING.
> 
> Even if we do find a few trillion.. It is still barely enough to keep afloat with.
Click to expand...

Windmill ? I got ona them thar winmillz.


----------



## Mr. H.

JiggsCasey said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a monumental glut of crude oil in storage worldwide. *Still, new discoveries are being made on a monthly basis.* The petroleum industry has historically supplied oil that the world has demanded and will continue to do so for decades to come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where? How much? Link to where you're getting your information please, so the forum has a basis for your argument.
Click to expand...

Who's arguing? I'm stating a fact.

Follow this link to register and sign up for newsletter emails. Be sure to check the box "Daily Industry News". 

RIGZONE - Newsletters

Here are some examples:

*Apache Successfully Tests West Kalabsha Discovery*

*McMoRan Makes Ultra-Deep Discovery at Davy Jones*

*OGX Discovers Hydrocarbons in Offshore BM-C-42 Block*

*Dana Gas Hits Paydirt in Egyptian Oil Concession*

*North Sea Wildcat Purrs for Petro-Canada*


----------



## Big Fitz

> I see now. All those non-partisan entities are either "lying" or they're dumb. That's excellent.



Ever hear of conflict of interest?  nooooooo... couldn't be THAT!  



> None of the finds of proven reserves off Brazil, Gulf Coast nor ANWR can be considered "massive" by any measurement.



So now we're gonna narrow the goalposts to "proven reserves"?  Nice semantic trick.  They were just discovered.  They will be proven reserves soon enough.  Till then, they're still considered significant/massive/large/important finds.  Pick your own adjective.  But they were still found.



> Wait, did you just punt to the EPA as the culprit behind well-documented U.S. oil production decline? So, the EPA is in cohoots with Big Oil now to give the impression of energy scarcity?



Making up conspiracies yourself now?  Every oil exec I ever listened to or read in passing is saying the same thing, take the handcuffs off and let us drill, refine and grow.  The EPA, and the lawsuit addicted psycho-greens are the ones in the way.  

BTW, why are some oil fields being discovered to have started refilling?  Far as I know, that can't really happen under the green peak oil Olduvai Trench theory.



> You're one of those straw man arguers, aren't you? Adorable. ... when did i mention a word praising hydrogen's potential, pro or con?



Nipping that argument in the bud.  Got a problem with that?  Still, Ethanol for instance, the only current replacement for portable fuel or bio diesel still has an EROI of a fraction that of oil.  I believe I last heard it was about 0.8 to 1 as compared to standard Unleaded which is about 12 to 1.  You can thank the destructive production methods for that as well as the expense of providing reliable 'renewable' raw resources.

My point still stands.



> Ah... So now it's "socialists" aligned with the EPA, Big Oil, the International Energy Agency, CERA, the U.S. Geological Survey and on and on who are all lying about energy scarcity.



Most members of bureaucracies lean socialist.  Simple sociological fact.  Conservatives and capitalists go into business, not politics, because they CAN do so much better there and have little interest in ruling and controlling others.  They have bigger fish to fry.

On the other hand, leftists often can't do and therefore hate a meritocracy like Capitalism, therefore they gravitate to places and groups that seek to control, hamper or stop the thing they hate... Capitalism.

But it's cute that you keep trying to lump in private businesses into these groups.  They will perpetuate frauds to push their anti-civilization meme.  I'm not waiting for you to come around.  Peakers would rather die than admit they're wrong regardless to how history keeps proving them full of shit, day after day after day.


----------



## American Horse

There are continuing to be discoveries of new oil in US discoveries in the lower CONUS.  A lot of it will be outside the power of the Feds to discourage....except of course for the EPA

The trade off between EPA's expanded regulations and JOBS and energy costs to consumers will be more and more in the news during the coming election.  Hopefully the R Party will initiate a debate along the lines of those issues.  

Sarah Palin has already done so. Regardless of what one thinks of her ability to be elected, she does reach a large part of the US electorate and citizenry with the salient issues.


----------



## Mr. H.

The state of Illinois, not the EPA, has primacy with respect to the environmental regulation of oil and gas operations. An exception would be a discharge into a navigable waterway.

Here is a link to "The Illinois Oil and Gas Act" - it's everything you ever wanted to know about drilling for hydrocarbons in this state. Grab a cup of coffee because it's over 200 pages. 

http://dnr.state.il.us/legal/adopted/62-240.pdf


----------



## JiggsCasey

Mr. H. said:


> Who's arguing? I'm stating a fact.



The argument is what is considered "massive." I asked you to link to your referral point, so that we could cover what you seem to be suggesting is "massive." ... I believe the pretentious language you used was "monumental glut."

This would be much easier if I were allowed to provide links, but until I have 15 posts, I can not.



Mr. H. said:


> Here are some examples:
> 
> *Apache Successfully Tests West Kalabsha Discovery*



_Proven oil reserves amounted to 4.4bn barrels (bbl) in 2009​_
Not massive, ... by any measurement. ... The world consumes 85 million barrels per day.



Mr. H. said:


> *McMoRan Makes Ultra-Deep Discovery at Davy Jones*



No mention of proven reserves. Even unproven estimates are in the 2-10 billion barrel range. Vague, and... unproven.

Not massive, ... by any measurement. ... The world consumes 85 million barrels per day.



Mr. H. said:


> *OGX Discovers Hydrocarbons in Offshore BM-C-42 Block*



No mention of proven reserves anywhere, but a "90x17 meter column" can't be very much.

_online. wsj. com / article / BT-CO-20100111-703597_

Not massive, ... by any measurement. ... The world consumes 85 million barrels per day.



Mr. H. said:


> *Dana Gas Hits Paydirt in Egyptian Oil Concession*



_The Al-Baraka oil field is located in the Al-Baraka Development Lease and according to Sea Dragon&#8217;s internal estimates, has a discovered, undeveloped oil accumulation of approx.  100 million barrels of Original Oil in Place as Discovered Resources in two productive zones._​
_energy-pedia.com/article.aspx?articleid=138589
_

Not massive, ... by any measurement (in fact, negligible). ... The world consumes 85 million barrels per day.



Mr. H. said:


> *North Sea Wildcat Purrs for Petro-Canada*



From your own link:

The estimated size of the discovery is between 7 and 40 million standard cubic meters of contingent resources​
Or about 6.3 million barrels (with an 'm')...  About 8 hours of U.S. consumption alone.

Not massive, ... by any measurement (in fact, negligible). ... The world consumes 85 million barrels per day.

Do better. ... Where are the "massive" centralized finds?

-----------

I refer back to my hypothetical in post 49 for perspective...  A trillion barrels of proven reserves spread over 1,000 (or even 500) separate sites is not economically viable. 

It cost astronomical amounts of money to build extraction and refinement infrastructure at a single site. If it's only going to yield a month of fuel, it's not sustaining growth!


----------



## Mr. H.

JiggsCasey said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's arguing? I'm stating a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is what is considered "massive." I asked you to link to your referral point, so that we could cover what you seem to be suggesting is "massive." ... I believe the pretentious language you used was "monumental glut."
> 
> This would be much easier if I were allowed to provide links, but until I have 15 posts, I can not.
Click to expand...


You bold-texted my comment "Still, new discoveries are being made on a monthly basis." and I responded. 

It's also a fact that there is a glut of oil in storage around the world. Monumental? That may be debatable but it's certainly not a pretentious assertion. 

For you to compare each and every new discovery in relation to it's affect on total world demand then dismiss them accordingly is, I think, a bit misleading. 

Yup- it's frustrating trying to communicate here until you reach the magic 15 posts but keep going, you'll get there.


----------



## Mr. H.

JiggsCasey said:


> I refer back to my hypothetical in post 49 for perspective...  A trillion barrels of proven reserves spread over 1,000 (or even 500) separate sites is not economically viable.
> 
> It cost astronomical amounts of money to build extraction and refinement infrastructure at a single site. If it's only going to yield a month of fuel, it's not sustaining growth!



It is economically viable to produce a mere 10 million barrels of oil during an entire year from 20,000 separate sites. It's being done here in Illinois. They're called "marginal" wells and there are roughly a half million of them in the U.S. 

I've built "extraction infrastructure" and yes it is very expensive but not necessarily an astronomical expense. If estimated reserves warrant the investment there can be a very profitable reward. 

It seems you're not seeing the forest for the trees.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Mr. H. said:


> It is economically viable to produce a mere 10 million barrels of oil during an entire year from 20,000 separate sites. It's being done here in Illinois. They're called "marginal" wells and there are roughly a half million of them in the U.S.



They are called marginal because they are dying out and close to abandonment, which further underscores my entire thesis: U.S. production is in terminal decline and has been for decades.

From Wiki:

A stripper well or marginal well is an oil or gas well that is nearing the end of its economically useful life. In the United States of America a "stripper" gas well is defined by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission as one that produces 60,000 cubic feet (1,700 m3) or less of gas per day at its maximum flow rate; the Internal Revenue Service, for tax purposes, uses a threshold of 75,000 cubic feet (2,100 m3) per day. *Oil wells are generally classified as stripper wells when they produce ten barrels per day or less for any twelve month period.*

In the United States of America, one out of every six barrels of crude oil produced comes from a marginal oil well, and over 85 percent of the total number of U.S. oil wells are now classified as such. There are over 420,000 of these wells in the United States, and *together they produce nearly 915,000 barrels (145,500 m3) of oil per day, 18 percent of U.S. production.*

*Many of these wells are marginally economic and at risk of being prematurely abandoned.*​
A drop in the bucket. Not exactly a sustaining of "infinite growth" such that our entire economy is predicated upon. 



Mr. H. said:


> I've built "extraction infrastructure" and yes it is very expensive but not necessarily an astronomical expense. If *estimated reserves warrant the investment *there can be a very profitable reward.
> 
> It seems you're not seeing the forest for the trees.



Well, at least you post respectfully, unlike some infantile contributors here. 

As for the bold above, estimated reserves are not proven reserves. The correct statement should read: 

_If *proven reserves warrant the investment *there can be a very profitable reward. _​
Unproven reserves are nothing more than figures on paper, based on hope, to inflate investment optimism. They are the bane of the global oil debate. 

When you're discussing EROI and economic viability in regards to light crude drilling, there is only one figure that matters -- PROVEN reserves.


----------



## Mr. H.

A good geologist will estimate reserves based on best available methods. This is helpful in raising capital for the drilling program. Proven reserves reflect a more accurate estimate based on reservoir deliniation, pressures, and production rates. Proven reserves are useful for reporting and accounting. 

Re: marginal wells- they are extremely important to overall production in the U.S. Here's a DOE report on the subject. It's a bit dated but with a little digging one could find more current figures.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/policy/Policy077.pdf

Well, I'm out 'till Sunday evening. Talk to you later.


----------



## Big Fitz

> From Wiki:



Obviously you still seem to think that this source isn't potentially biased.

Wiikipedia Statistics Suggest Strong Liberal Bias

Liberal Bias at Wikipedia?

I'm not saying it's all biased, but the political hot button postings like energy, healthcare and all active political figures are not to be trusted blindly.  Just thought I'd point that out.



> hen you're discussing EROI and economic viability in regards to light crude drilling, there is only one figure that matters -- PROVEN reserves.



Then why didn't we run out in 1984 or so when the first Earth Day participants predicted it based on mathematics and current proven reserves?


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is economically viable to produce a mere 10 million barrels of oil during an entire year from 20,000 separate sites. It's being done here in Illinois. They're called "marginal" wells and there are roughly a half million of them in the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are called marginal because they are dying out and close to abandonment, which further underscores my entire thesis: U.S. production is in terminal decline and has been for decades.
Click to expand...


As long as oil is a non-renewable resource, the thesis that not only is U.S. production in decline, but worldwide production is in decline, could be a no-brainer. The only thing that could possibly make your thesis worthwhile is if we ignore the potential that technological advances, and economics have for finding and producing reserves of crude. The fact that it is more economical to produce oil NOW from marginal wells, has no bearing on future production. 

To believe otherwise, you'd also need to assume that every fall will be the last harvest of crops, and you'd appear as ridiculous as Chicken Little.





JiggsCasey said:


> [Unproven reserves are nothing more than figures on paper, based on hope, to inflate investment optimism. They are the bane of the global oil debate.
> 
> When you're discussing EROI and economic viability in regards to light crude drilling, there is only one figure that matters -- PROVEN reserves.



I'm not sure how anyone would seperate EROI and economic viability to light crude drilling, and producing _*any other*_ type of crude, but at any rate I'll accept that we limit the figure that matters to "proven" reserves (although, here again, there's the debate between what is "proven" and what is "unproven").

Anyway, according to The Energy Resource Conservation Board, The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Oil and Gas Journal, and the United States Energy Information Administration there are as of 2007, 211 BILLION bbl _PROVEN_ oil reserves in North America.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> As long as oil is a non-renewable resource, the thesis that not only is U.S. production in decline, but worldwide production is in decline, could be a no-brainer. *The only thing that could possibly make your thesis worthwhile is if we ignore the potential that technological advances,* and economics have for finding and producing reserves of crude. The fact that it is more economical to produce oil NOW from marginal wells, has no bearing on future production.
> 
> To believe otherwise, you'd also need to assume that every fall will be the last harvest of crops, and you'd appear as ridiculous as Chicken Little.



Ah... Time, and financing. Two of the three main components of this equation.

Still, no where did I discredit innovation, or say anything about technological advances, pro or con. 

Regardless, my thesis of domestic oil production decline IS "worthwhile," because it's true. And it explains US national security and foreign policy aims almost entirely since 1945.

U.S. oil production is in decline, and the likelihood of new significant pools of conventional oil being found are next to nil. This earth has been scoured, make no mistake about it. Using technology that would make a some people's head explode with its genius. ... It's been scoured for decades....  It's not being found. .... Still. Let's say a miracle pool crops up 10 miles under ground some day. Right there in Texas, even, where infrastructure is already in place!...  ... Once you find it, if you can get to it, you got a very long lead time before that black gold ever gets in your gas tank. Years, actually... From discovery all the way to gassing up the Humvee.

Meanwhile, collapse is starting now. What's the count now on banks that have gone belly up? What's the real unemployment figure? What's the trade deficit at? 



Samson said:


> I'm not sure how anyone would seperate EROI and economic viability to light crude drilling, and producing _*any other*_ type of crude, but at any rate I'll accept that we limit the figure that matters to "proven" reserves (although, here again, there's the debate between what is "proven" and what is "unproven").
> 
> Anyway, according to The Energy Resource Conservation Board, The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Oil and Gas Journal, and the United States Energy Information Administration there are as of 2007, 211 BILLION bbl _PROVEN_ oil reserves in North America.



211 bbl, indeed...  Not a whole lot, if we're thinking about our kids. ... And three-quarters of it is in Canada, and most of THAT is heavy bitumen in tar sands. Look at the map on page 4 of your link. Look how sprinkled the remaining conventional pools are, yet how solid the huge tar sands nightmare is.

It's a crisis. ...

I'll just say it plainly.... Peak oil > climate change. ... 

Compared to the joke that climate change debate has become, no one really talks about oil depletion and what it means for our empire. It's pathetic, but I suspect big media has absorbed the corporate mandate loud and clear: _"do no upset the markets with truth... ever!"_

When one gets his head around the fact that energy is the No. 1 priority for our the 'growth' of our monetary system, everything else sort of explains itself as to the question of why our leaders do what they do.


----------



## Big Fitz

> I'll just say it plainly.... Peak oil > climate change. ...



Hah!  One fantasy is worse than another.  There is some degree of logic to this, were either of them true, though.


----------



## FactFinder

We are swimming in oil and as demand continues its decline the ocean of it is only likely to deepen.

BP Gulf Oil Find May Hold 3 Billion Barrels: Petrobras, ConocoPhillips Also Stakeholders in Field
BP Gulf Oil Find May Hold 3 Billion Barrels: Petrobras, ConocoPhillips Also Stakeholders in Field

Bakken Oil Shale Map - North Dakota- Bakken Shale Formation

over 4000 active wells in North Dakota alone.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3021/

Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated mean undiscovered volumes of 3.65 billion barrels of oil, 1.85 trillion cubic feet of associated/dissolved natural gas, and 148 million barrels of natural gas liquids in the Bakken Formation of the Williston Basin Province, Montana and North Dakota


----------



## Big Fitz

:::waves hand:::

This is not the oil you are looking for.....


----------



## JiggsCasey

FactFinder said:


> We are swimming in oil and as demand continues its decline the ocean of it is only likely to deepen.
> 
> BP Gulf Oil Find May Hold 3 Billion Barrels: Petrobras, ConocoPhillips Also Stakeholders in Field
> BP Gulf Oil Find May Hold 3 Billion Barrels: Petrobras, ConocoPhillips Also Stakeholders in Field
> 
> Bakken Oil Shale Map - North Dakota- Bakken Shale Formation
> 
> over 4000 active wells in North Dakota alone.
> 
> USGS Fact Sheet 2008-3021: Assessment of Undiscovered Oil Resources in the Devonian-Mississippian Bakken Formation, Williston Basin Province, Montana and North Dakota, 2008
> 
> Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated mean undiscovered volumes of 3.65 billion barrels of oil, 1.85 trillion cubic feet of associated/dissolved natural gas, and 148 million barrels of natural gas liquids in the Bakken Formation of the Williston Basin Province, Montana and North Dakota



Love when new people drop into the thread and pump the same non starter. 

Bakken was put into proper perspective in this thread and/or the one right under it. Shale is not oil, combustible engine vehicles won't run on it. Plenty of jet fuel, though... at great cost.

Oh, and 3.65 billion barrels is a kiddie pool. That's also been covered. Sorry. The world consumes 85 million barrels per day.


----------



## Big Fitz




----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> I'll just say it plainly.... Peak oil > climate change. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hah!  One fantasy is worse than another.  There is some degree of logic to this, were either of them true, though.
Click to expand...


Neither are fantasy. 

Your "everything-is-fine, nothing-to-see-here," Frank Drebbin routine got dismantled, and the best you were able to come back with was punting to the tired claim that Wiki was "liberal biased."

So, in addition to Big Oil, the "enviros", the IEA, the USGS, ASPO and the U.N., ... now Wikipedia is also in on the grand conspiracy to dupe us all into believing there is an energy crisis. The geologists, of course, are all well-documented liars for liberal causes, and Wikipedia is in their hip pocket!!! 

What's it like being a person like you, where you can just assign blame for everything that ails you by simply pointing at some group you don't like and yelling  "THEY did it!!!" really loud?


----------



## Big Fitz

This from a man claiming we are going to run out of oil sooooooon.

You have no credibility, you know.  So it is Ironic that you accuse others of not having credibility for they deny the claims of your fantasy supporting claimants.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as oil is a non-renewable resource, the thesis that not only is U.S. production in decline, but worldwide production is in decline, could be a no-brainer. *The only thing that could possibly make your thesis worthwhile is if we ignore the potential that technological advances,* and economics have for finding and producing reserves of crude. The fact that it is more economical to produce oil NOW from marginal wells, has no bearing on future production.
> 
> To believe otherwise, you'd also need to assume that every fall will be the last harvest of crops, and you'd appear as ridiculous as Chicken Little.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah... Time, and financing. Two of the three main components of this equation.
> 
> Still, no where did I discredit innovation, or say anything about technological advances, pro or con.
> 
> Regardless, my thesis of domestic oil production decline IS "worthwhile," because it's true. And it explains US national security and foreign policy aims almost entirely since 1945.
> 
> U.S. oil production is in decline, and the likelihood of new significant pools of conventional oil being found are next to nil. This earth has been scoured, make no mistake about it. Using technology that would make a some people's head explode with its genius. ... It's been scoured for decades....  It's not being found. .... Still. Let's say a miracle pool crops up 10 miles under ground some day. Right there in Texas, even, where infrastructure is already in place!...  ... Once you find it, if you can get to it, you got a very long lead time before that black gold ever gets in your gas tank. Years, actually... From discovery all the way to gassing up the Humvee.
> 
> Meanwhile, collapse is starting now. What's the count now on banks that have gone belly up? What's the real unemployment figure? What's the trade deficit at?
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how anyone would seperate EROI and economic viability to light crude drilling, and producing _*any other*_ type of crude, but at any rate I'll accept that we limit the figure that matters to "proven" reserves (although, here again, there's the debate between what is "proven" and what is "unproven").
> 
> Anyway, according to The Energy Resource Conservation Board, The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Oil and Gas Journal, and the United States Energy Information Administration there are as of 2007, 211 BILLION bbl _PROVEN_ oil reserves in North America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 211 bbl, indeed...  Not a whole lot, if we're thinking about our kids. ... And three-quarters of it is in Canada, and most of THAT is heavy bitumen in tar sands. Look at the map on page 4 of your link. Look how sprinkled the remaining conventional pools are, yet how solid the huge tar sands nightmare is.
> 
> It's a crisis. ...
> 
> I'll just say it plainly.... Peak oil > climate change. ...
> 
> Compared to the joke that climate change debate has become, no one really talks about oil depletion and what it means for our empire. It's pathetic, but I suspect big media has absorbed the corporate mandate loud and clear: _"do no upset the markets with truth... ever!"_
> 
> When one gets his head around the fact that energy is the No. 1 priority for our the 'growth' of our monetary system, everything else sort of explains itself as to the question of why our leaders do what they do.
Click to expand...


Apparently, you've convinced yourself you have a relevant "worthwhile" thesis. 

First you argue that unproven reserves don't count.

Then you argue PROVEN reserves don't count, and that they are in Canada, not the USA (as if that makes any difference).

Then you argue that its the wrong TYPE of Proven Reserves, despite the fact that the Canadians have developed technology on scales that make the recovery of crude from oil sands not just viable, but an ongoing and growing business.

Finally, Given 211 BILLION bbl and the 85 million bbl/day, The planet has about 7 years left, if it only depends on North American Crude.  But the United States consumes the most at 19,650,000.00 bbl per day, a full 25% of the world's oil consumption.

So the USA, which will no doubt become more dependant on proven Canadian Reserves, will have 30 years before the PROVEN NORTH AMERICAN reserves are gone, assuming that the consumption rate doesn't decline as these reserves are depleted, and the scarcity of the resource doesn't drive the cost up to encourage substitutes (primarily natural gas).

Frankly, Chicken Little, the sky is NOT FALLING, m'k? 

The EU and Japan are really the bellweathers here. If you want to discuss how the lack of domestic natural resources effect future societies and domestic economies, focus on these (especially EU). My guess is that whatever they are doing today, the US will be doing in 15 years.


----------



## Samson

Big Fitz said:


> This from a man claiming we are going to run out of oil sooooooon.
> 
> You have no credibility, you know.  So it is Ironic that you accuse others of not having credibility for they deny the claims of your fantasy supporting claimants.



Well, we need some dogmatic raving lunatic wearing a cardboard box with "THE END IS NEAR," to walk through our midsts every once in a while. Not only does it keep us entertained, but it should also give us some unsettling pause to wonder:

1. Do they have any plausible arguement?
2. What may have caused them to go nuts?
3. Are the salvagable?


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> Apparently, you've convinced yourself you have a relevant "worthwhile" thesis.



U.S. domestic oil depletion is a fact. My thesis is that it's important element in acknowledging our import requirements. 



Samson said:


> First you argue that unproven reserves don't count.



This is about the only thing you got correct regarding what I've actually typed.



Samson said:


> Then you argue PROVEN reserves don't count, and that they are in Canada, not the USA (as if that makes any difference).



No, I didn't. Liar. I never said they don't count. What I simply said was, tar sands are heavy oil, and make up the majority of your 211 billion barrel total. It was mere perspective when considering what's involved in that total. Try focusing on what I actually write, not what you hope I mean.



Samson said:


> Then you argue that its the wrong TYPE of Proven Reserves, despite the fact that the Canadians have developed technology on scales that make the recovery of crude from oil sands not just viable, but an ongoing and growing business.



"Ongoing," anyway. Certainly not commercially viable nor growing. A 2:1 or 3:1 return on energy investment is not going to maintain the kind of 7% growth our economy is predicated upon. For every optimistic thread you can present suggesting tar sands or oil shale are 'growing," I can gladly counter with another that insists it's a technology that is decades away from being economically viable, if ever. Heavy oil is a desperate alternative, not a sustaining one.

Again, ultimately this isn't about suggesting we're going to flat run dry at the gas pump. This is about economic crash in advance of energy depletion.



Samson said:


> Finally, Given 211 BILLION bbl and the 85 million bbl/day, The planet has about 7 years left, if it only depends on North American Crude.  But the United States consumes the most at 19,650,000.00 bbl per day, a full 25% of the world's oil consumption.
> 
> So the USA, which will no doubt become more dependant on proven Canadian Reserves, will have 30 years before the PROVEN NORTH AMERICAN reserves are gone, assuming that the consumption rate doesn't decline as these reserves are depleted, and the scarcity of the resource doesn't drive the cost up to encourage substitutes (primarily natural gas).



First of all, the United States can not just horde North American oil for its own use alone. Global oil trade doesn't work that way. I would have thought a poster like yourself would understand this basic concept.

Second of all, you appear to have no grasp of the exponential function, and how it relates to growth consumption. If everything is fine, as you say, then that 20 million b/d becomes 21.4 million b/d next year, and 22.89 million in 2012, 24.49 million in 2013 and so on. ... The only way you have a decline in demand consumption is a recession, as we are witnessing today -- which really speaks to my entire point. That, or war.

Any "recovery" in our economy will be a mirage, because as soon as demand starts to return, prices will spike all over again (happening now). It's called the "bumpy plateau," and it's well-described by world-class geologists, physicists and economists far smarter than you or I. Google it.

Goes a bit like this:


1. Price shock (as the capacity limit is breached)
2. Economic recession cutting demand
3. Price collapse (the market overreacts to small imbalances between surplus and shortage)
4. Economic recovery [followed by increased demand]
5. Price shock (as the falling capacity limits are again breached)​


Samson said:


> Frankly, Chicken Little, the sky is NOT FALLING, m'k?



For the purposes of our flawed monetary system, it sure is. But, did you just say "m'k?" That's only moderately pretentious, but whatever works for your posting style to help make your flawed argument seem stronger. 



Samson said:


> The EU and Japan are really the bellweathers here. If you want to discuss how the lack of domestic natural resources effect future societies and domestic economies, focus on these (especially EU). My guess is that whatever they are doing today, the US will be doing in 15 years.



This is a global problem, and the EU and Japan are in far worse shape than we are right now.  The EU can't even heat homes very well this winter. Japan is an absolute mess.

_Japan will issue fresh debt worth a record $485 billion, in line with an earlier estimate, he said. The new borrowing brings Japan&#8217;s public debt to about $9.4 trillion, or 181 percent of gross domestic product, at the end of March 2011, by far the highest in the industrialized world._​
If anything, the U.S. may be able to stall peak longer than most industrial nations due to what else? Iraqi oil...Which we largely control now, and new production from there hasn't even really come online yet.

Ah well. You can keep at it all you like. I'll be right here to remind you that exponential growth (populations, economies) can not sustain without abundant cheap energy.

Here's a college course for you, if you have a fundamental problem grasping the exponential function:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY"]Arithmetic, population and energy[/ame], by Dr. Alfred A. Bartlett

I look forward to your next straw man response, misrepresenting everything I just offered above. You're clearly excellent at it.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you've convinced yourself you have a relevant "worthwhile" thesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. domestic oil depletion is a fact. My thesis is that it's important element in acknowledging our import requirements.
Click to expand...


Thank You Captain Obvious. I imagine you also may have a thesis that water will continue to be wet, and the earth will continue to be round. As a non renwable resourse, the depletion of oil has been a given since it was discovered, and anyone could assign its importance to our import requirements.

You should try a thesis that wasn't writ circa 1973.



Samson said:


> First you argue that unproven reserves don't count.





JiggsCasey said:


> This is about the only thing you got correct regarding what I've actually typed.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't. Liar. I never said they don't count. What I simply said was, tar sands are heavy oil, and make up the majority of your 211 billion barrel total. It was mere perspective when considering what's involved in that total. Try focusing on what I actually write, not what you hope I mean.



What you said was:



> 211 bbl, indeed... Not a whole lot, ....It's a crisis. ...



When, in fact, This is PROVEN reserves, just across the boarder, in Canada: NOT a "CRISIS." 

Hormonal Much?





JiggsCasey said:


> Ongoing," anyway. Certainly not commercially viable nor growing. A 2:1 or 3:1 return on energy investment is not going to maintain the kind of 7% growth our economy is predicated upon. For every optimistic thread you can present suggesting tar sands or oil shale are 'growing," I can gladly counter with another that insists it's a technology that is decades away from being economically viable, if ever. Heavy oil is a desperate alternative, not a sustaining one.



Yet, oddly, you present nothing as evidence suggesting that production of oil sands is not growing? Why am I walking into refineries where they use "synthetic oil" (derived from Alberta's oil sands)? Petro-Canada owns and operates the MacKay River in situ facility, where steam separates sand from oil underground.





JiggsCasey said:


> Again, ultimately this isn't about suggesting we're going to flat run dry at the gas pump. This is about economic crash in advance of energy depletion.



To fulfill you apocolyptical scenario of "The Falling Sky," you like throwing babies out with the bathwater: I'll readily admit that there obviously is no SUSTAINABLE Oil source; but I disagree with your assumption that heavy oil is only a "desperate alternative."

You're drama will sell to anyone that would rather not give your thesis much thought.




JiggsCasey said:


> First of all, the United States can not just horde North American oil for its own use alone. Global oil trade doesn't work that way. I would have thought a poster like yourself would understand this basic concept.



Maybe I should add my own drama: "Liar, Liar, Pants-on-Fire!!"

Did I say the USA would hoard all 211 BILION bbl of PROVEN North American Reserves for its own use? No.

But given the fact that both the reserves and the 20 million bbl/d consumer are adjacent to one another, I think its safe to say the USA will buy most of it.



JiggsCasey said:


> Second of all, you appear to have no grasp of the exponential function, and how it relates to growth consumption. If everything is fine, as you say, then that 20 million b/d becomes 21.4 million b/d next year, and 22.89 million in 2012, 24.49 million in 2013 and so on. ... The only way you have a decline in demand consumption is a recession, as we are witnessing today -- which really speaks to my entire point. That, or war.



Your grasp of Algebra I is impressive, and I commend you for what appears to have been an excellent 9th grade year. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that you've learned much since then, and that there are many economic models that don't follow an exponential curve until reaching inflection, which could easily last for decades while alternative energy sources are substituted for oil.

Of course, since this doesn't fit the "Falling Sky" thesis, we must use our imagination, and consider anything but catastrophe a "mirage;"



JiggsCasey said:


> Any "recovery" in our economy will be a mirage, because as soon as demand starts to return, prices will spike all over again (happening now). It's called the "bumpy plateau," and it's well-described by world-class geologists, physicists and economists far smarter than you or I. Google it.
> 
> Goes a bit like this:
> 
> 
> 1. Price shock (as the capacity limit is breached)
> 2. Economic recession cutting demand
> 3. Price collapse (the market overreacts to small imbalances between surplus and shortage)
> 4. Economic recovery [followed by increased demand]
> 5. Price shock (as the falling capacity limits are again breached)​
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, Chicken Little, the sky is NOT FALLING, m'k?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the purposes of our flawed monetary system, it sure is. But, did you just say "m'k?" That's only moderately pretentious, but whatever works for your posting style to help make your flawed argument seem stronger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing more pretentious is your dogmatism: scholorship is based on seeing BOTH sides of an issue. Your Thesis Has A Blind Side.
> 
> Since you mentioned straw men: "Flawed Monetary System?" I'll readily admit its flawed, but have no idea how this is relevant to this thread. Why don't you conjure up something from your fevered imagination to explain how this fits into the "Falling Sky" thesis and Oil.
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The EU and Japan are really the bellweathers here. If you want to discuss how the lack of domestic natural resources effect future societies and domestic economies, focus on these (especially EU). My guess is that whatever they are doing today, the US will be doing in 15 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a global problem, and the EU and Japan are in far worse shape than we are right now.  The EU can't even heat homes very well this winter. Japan is an absolute mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, expect the USA to be there in 15 years, unless they adapt, which, since EU and Japan provide excellent bell-weathers, we should be able to do given the location of proven oil reserves and the current technology used to produce its crude.
> 
> And we ignore other sources of domestic resources (coal, natural gas) that simply don't exist in Japan, and few of which are in EU.
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, isn't this "Peak" your entire thesis? You think that exponential curves all continue to a peak, then reach a maximum, then invert, declining in some neat inverse exponential that will fit your catastrophic economic model: Why are you even discussing a "Stall?"
> 
> We all know why:
> 
> Because even you realise that the castostrophic model is the least likely scenario given the realities
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JiggsCasey

Well, I predicted you'd be back misrepresenting my argument. You didn't disappoint, even truncating my prose to mean something else altogether.



Samson said:


> Thank You Captain Obvious. I imagine you also may have a thesis that water will continue to be wet, and the earth will continue to be round. As a non renwable resourse, the depletion of oil has been a given since it was discovered, and anyone could assign its importance to our import requirements.
> 
> You should try a thesis that wasn't writ circa 1973.



Wow, you don't seem to know whether you feel my thesis is "worthwhile" or "obvious." But again, you seem to have very selective reading comprehension issues. What I said was it was important to acknowledge U.S. oil depletion (a fact your pal in this thread denies) when considering our ever-increasing IMPORT requirements. Regardless, as you understood it,  If US depletion was so "obvious," why then do so many people deny it's true and/or try and inject heavy oil into the equation?



Samson said:


> What you said was:
> 
> When, in fact, This is PROVEN reserves, just across the boarder, in Canada: NOT a "CRISIS."
> 
> Hormonal Much?



Being smarmy like you are here since you began addressing me .... is that what earned you all those reputation points?

If you feel that our 211 billion barrel contribution (most of it bitumen and kerogen) to a global consumption rate of 85 million b/d (and growing) is significant enough to stave off shock, you officially don't know what you're talking about. But then, I was convinced of that fact after your last post.



Samson said:


> Yet, oddly, you present nothing as evidence suggesting that production of oil sands is not growing?



And you did, showing the opposite? Reputable links sway an argument. Your alleged personal experience below convinces me of very little. Considering how much of a jerk you've revealed yourself to be in an otherwise civil discussion, forgive me for not trusting you.



Samson said:


> Why am I walking into refineries where they use "synthetic oil" (derived from Alberta's oil sands)? Petro-Canada owns and operates the MacKay River in situ facility, where steam separates sand from oil underground.
> 
> To fulfill you apocolyptical scenario of "The Falling Sky," you like throwing babies out with the bathwater: I'll readily admit that there obviously is no SUSTAINABLE Oil source; but I disagree with your assumption that heavy oil is only a "desperate alternative."



Very well... Here's some examples of why I believe heavy oil will never sustain our 7% annual growth paradigm:

_
Tar sands are another example of a process with a very low EROEI. Tar sands are typically mined which requires a large amount of energy to start the process. The tar sands are then heated with hot water or steam to extract the bitumen, which is very heavy viscous oil. The energy to create the hot water or steam usually comes from natural gas. The bitumen then has to be upgraded so that it can be refined. This can be done by adding methane or hydrogen from more natural gas to the bitumen to create lighter oil. The EROEI on this process is about 5. Tar sands are not as energy efficient as drilling for oil, but more energy efficient than oil shale.

A lower EROEI has a direct relationship to the amount of carbon dioxide released by the fuel as it impacts global warming. You have to add in all of the carbon dioxide released by the production process to gauge the total impact a fuel source has on global warming.​_
By most every estimate, the EROEI for tar sands hovers around 3:1






On top of extraction and refining cost, is environmental costs:

_Both mining and in situ operations use large volumes of water for their extraction process, between 2 and 4.5 volume units of water is used for the extraction of one volume unit bitumen (National Energy Board 2006). Currently the mining operations are licensed to divert 370 million cubic meters (equivalent to 2.3 million barrels) of fresh water per year from the Athabasca river. The planned mining projects will push the cumulative diversion with 529 million cubic meter (3.3 million barrels) per year (Alberta Environment 2006). Almost all process water ends up in tailing ponds.

Besides the fresh water diversions, the mining operations have a direct effect on the ground water level. Mining pits are excavated up till 70-80m below ground level, which is often below natural ground water levels as well. *To prevent water flowing into the mining pit, the groundwater has to be controlled by pumping it up. As a result, the groundwater level of the surroundings is lowered, and the flows are disturbed. *
_​
Even British Petroleum's own definition of proven reserves does not include tar sands:

_Bitumen is not suitable as feedstock for oil refineries because it is too low in hydrogen. Condensates from the same local stranded natural gas are available to add to the bitumen to increase the hydrogen content. The result is called syncrude and it is a suitable feedstock for oil refineries. The entire process is energy intensive. The energy costs of producing syncrude may exceed the energy in the syncrude. Large quantities of contaminated water, sulfur, asphalt, and bitumen contaminated sand are byproducts of syncrude production. The resulting environmental mess must be counted as an expense. There is also air pollution and carbon dioxide emission. The availability of low cost stranded gas may be necessary to make tar sand economic. Canada does not have large gas reserves, although Canada is a net gas exporter. It seems likely that Canada will be using most of its gas for domestic heating and little for syncrude production in a few years. Canadian tar sand may not be a useful fossil fuel without natural gas.

According to BP, Canada's Proven Reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia, but only if you count tar sand. *Tar sand certainly does not fit BP's own definition of a Proven Reserve.*
​_
Then there's the natural gas limitation issue, a component for heating the sands, which presents a whole other hurdle. From that "liberal" bastion, Wikipedia:

_... since natural gas production in Alberta peaked in 2001 and has been static ever since, it is likely oil sands requirements will be met by cutting back natural gas exports to the U.S.​_
More on the natural gas shortfall:

_Production growth at the tar sands slowed considerably in 2007. *It is hard to avoid the conclusion that natural gas availability at the tar sands is a disaster waiting to happen.* Investment continues to pour in, but it seems that few analysts or reporters have taken a hard look at future tar sands production in light of declining natural gas production in the WCBS. Alternative energy sources such a nuclear or bitumen gasification are a long way off. Look for this emerging story to appear in press accounts within the next few years. *Production of synthetic crude at the tar sands is not likely to provide the much longed for salvation that will keep American drivers on the road.*
​_


Samson said:


> You're drama will sell to anyone that would rather not give your thesis much thought.



Now there's some irony. 

How long have you been shovelling the "everything will be well" mantra based on the assumption of technology and dirty oil? Did anyone counter your prose, or did "m'k?" slam it shut for you before now?



Samson said:


> Did I say the USA would hoard all 211 BILION bbl of PROVEN North American Reserves for its own use? No.



Then why did you offer the math that suggested it represented a 30 year supply for us?  



Samson said:


> But given the fact that both the reserves and the 20 million bbl/d consumer are adjacent to one another, I think its safe to say the USA will buy most of it.



So, you're not SAYING it's all ours. Just most of it. 



Samson said:


> Your grasp of Algebra I is impressive, and I commend you for what appears to have been an excellent 9th grade year. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that you've learned much since then, and that there are many economic models that don't follow an exponential curve until reaching inflection, which could easily last for decades while alternative energy sources are substituted for oil.



Oh, good...  So, a civilization dependent upon 5-7% annual growth has something lined up and ready to go to seamlessly maintain stasis? This despite facing a 7-9% annual decline in the very commodity they've attained their system of growth upon for decades? What alternative source is this, exactly? And, why hasn't it kicked into gear while U.S. states and foreign governments grow insolvent with each passing week? This global meltdown is only temporary then, right? 



Samson said:


> Of course, since this doesn't fit the "Falling Sky" thesis, we must use our imagination, and consider anything but catastrophe a "mirage;"



Open your eyes. Do you think 15-20% unemployment and decaying infrastructure all around us is just the result of shady banking practices and fiat currency?



Samson said:


> The only thing more pretentious is your dogmatism: scholorship is based on seeing BOTH sides of an issue. Your Thesis Has A Blind Side.



Wrong again. My thesis has considered ALL sides, including the same tired arguments trotted out by "everything is fine" pundits much like yourself. "Yeah but, you're overlooking (x)" arguments that don't tread water under any semblance of critical analysis.



Samson said:


> Since you mentioned straw men: "Flawed Monetary System?" I'll readily admit its flawed, but have no idea how this is relevant to this thread. Why don't you conjure up something from your fevered imagination to explain how this fits into the "Falling Sky" thesis and Oil.



It's very simple, actually. Energy IS the economy. And the economy IS energy. Printing up money, and creating astronomical amounts of consumer debt based on the assumption of infinite growth (limitless energy) later is a fundamentally flawed monetary system. In fact, I would say our system has been flawed since 1914, but certainly since the early 70s when Nixon scrapped the Gold Standard.




Samson said:


> Well, isn't this "Peak" your entire thesis? You think that exponential curves all continue to a peak, then reach a maximum, *then invert, declining in some neat inverse exponential that will fit your catastrophic economic model*: Why are you even discussing a "Stall?"



When did I say that? Of course there are blips here and there, like when Alaskan oil came online in the late 70s and offered a very brief upturn in U.S. production. Didn't result in much; We still have plummeted ever since.

Iraq's largely untapped 11% of the world's remaining crude will yield the same. A short-lived flat-line or upturn, followed by the return of global decline. We knew it was there, it wasn't a new discovery. 



Samson said:


> We all know why:



Your pap has been put in perspective on this topic at each turn. You really shouldn't attempt to speak for the forum at this point. It's hubris.

If you just represented my argument accurately, and spoke to me with some measure of respect, we wouldn't be here.



Samson said:


> Because even you realise that the castostrophic model is the least likely scenario given the realities



I said nothing of catastrophic. My point is that times will get much much tougher due to the (undeniable) global energy crisis, and there is no recovery to come any time soon. Not before a profound change in the current paradigm. I said nothing of die-off, or war.

Speculating on "end times" or any such ramifications of peak oil is not my interest. I focus on the arithmetic, the physics, the geology, and the doublespeak that tries desperately to deny all of it.


----------



## hvactec

we need to get of oil as fast as possible.
solar power and wind, natural gas


----------



## namvet

well your not gonna get it.  Pelosi and craps and enviro wacks say we can't drill our way out of this problem. they have a better solution

House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.



[URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWAT00953020080520"]source[/URL]

and the Saudi's reply????


----------



## Mr. H.

Where was the house of reps in '99 when oil was $10/bbl and OPEC was dumping crude on U.S. markets at below cost? Fuck them. We lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the petroleum industry and no one gave a shit.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> _Production growth at the tar sands slowed considerably in 2007. *It is hard to avoid the conclusion that natural gas availability at the tar sands is a disaster waiting to happen.* Investment continues to pour in, but it seems that few analysts or reporters have taken a hard look at future tar sands production in light of declining natural gas production in the WCBS. Alternative energy sources such a nuclear or bitumen gasification are a long way off. Look for this emerging story to appear in press accounts within the next few years. *Production of synthetic crude at the tar sands is not likely to provide the much longed for salvation that will keep American drivers on the road.*
> ​_
> 
> Speculating on "end times" or any such ramifications of peak oil is not my interest. I focus on the arithmetic, the physics, the geology, and the doublespeak that tries desperately to deny all of it.



 Great example of Double-Speak!!!

I have no doubt what your interest is: Crying "The Sky is Falling" and supporting this ridiculously skewed worldview with sources like the one above from:



> Energy Bulletin is a program of Post Carbon Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping the world transition away from fossil fuels and build sustainable, resilient communities.





Certainly not the most objective of opinionated blogs.

Well, I wish I had time to cut and paste the opposing arguements from equally bias sources, but I'm afraid you'll just have to run around alone in your hysterical little circles.






I've already followed you through your "only Proven Reserves Count," and then your "only Proven Reserves in the USA Count," and now your "only proven reserves that are not in oil sands count" arguements.

I expect your next point will witlessly be "only proven reserves that are Not On Planet Earth Count" 

Perhaps someone else will be so charitable to give this absurd thesis the attention poor Jiggs believes it deserves: We will run out of oil, despite all proven reserves, creating an economic catastrophe of biblical proportions. Base the thesis on the obvious fact that oil is a non-renewable resource, and then dramatically extrapolate the fact into the economic science fiction where markets cannot adjust to changes.

Pretty simple recipe for all science fiction, but hardly worthy of serious discussion.

Time for me to move on to another topic.


----------



## Big Fitz

namvet said:


> well your not gonna get it.  Pelosi and craps and enviro wacks say we can't drill our way out of this problem. they have a better solution
> 
> House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWAT00953020080520"]source[/URL]
> 
> and the Saudi's reply????
Click to expand...

I predict Pelosi, Reid and many other greens will not be in office in 2011.

Also, in regards to dumping cheap crude to break domestic oil?  Use a Tariff.  Take the money and pay down debt with it, don't do more subsidies, but rather cut maybe the gas tax equal to the Tariff's gain.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> Great example of Double-Speak!!!
> 
> I have no doubt what your interest is: Crying "The Sky is Falling" and supporting this ridiculously skewed worldview with sources like the one above from:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Energy Bulletin is a program of Post Carbon Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping the world transition away from fossil fuels and build sustainable, resilient communities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not the most objective of opinionated blogs.
> 
> Well, I wish I had time to cut and paste the opposing arguements from equally bias sources, but I'm afraid you'll just have to run around alone in your hysterical little circles.
> 
> I've already followed you through your "only Proven Reserves Count," and then your "only Proven Reserves in the USA Count," and now your "only proven reserves that are not in oil sands count" arguements.
> 
> I expect your next point will witlessly be "only proven reserves that are Not On Planet Earth Count"
> 
> Perhaps someone else will be so charitable to give this absurd thesis the attention poor Jiggs believes it deserves: We will run out of oil, despite all proven reserves, creating an economic catastrophe of biblical proportions. Base the thesis on the obvious fact that oil is a non-renewable resource, and then dramatically extrapolate the fact into the economic science fiction where markets cannot adjust to changes.
> 
> Pretty simple recipe for all science fiction, but hardly worthy of serious discussion. :somesmarmyemote:
> 
> Time for me to move on to another topic.
Click to expand...


Very well, run along then. 

Your limited arsenal was exposed after your last post, so it's best you just declare victory and withdraw. Not quite used to getting faced around here, are you, know-it-all?

I knew you wouldn't man-up and acknowledge the realities of dirty oil, even though you complained that I didn't source it at first. Suddenly, after I put it in proper perspective, you're not interested in that aspect of the energy crisis. Probably a good idea, considering you rested your entire smarmy claim on the wonders of bitumen.

It got so bad for you, you punted to messenger smearing, pretending energybulletin.net is some liberally biased source of research. A debate is officially over when one side can't counter the material, and relies solely on connotation of alleged bias. You didn't even source how/why they have an alleged bias, just insisted it somehow _must _be.  Oh? ok. 

Regardless, they're hardly a "blog." I could have sourced any number of energy analysis sites, but here's their mission statement, tool:

_EnergyBulletin.net is a clearinghouse for information regarding the peak in global energy supply. We publish *news, research and analysis* concerning:

    * energy production statistics, models, projections and analysis
    * articles which provide insight into the implications of peak oil across broad areas including geopolitics, climate change, ecology, population, finance, urban design, health, and even religious and gender issues.
    * a range of information to help people prepare for peak energy, such as:
          o renewable energy information
          o alternative financial systems
          o low energy agriculture
          o relocalization
    * any other subjects that could lead to better understanding the implications of an energy production peak

We welcome original content, and *we especially invite industry insiders, independent researchers, journalists, specialists and activists to submit their insights relevant to these issues.*

We attempt to be at all times both accurate and current. *The opinions, inferences or calculations within individual news items are the responsibility of the author alone, and the editors of EnergyBulletin.net do not necessarily support them*. _​
It's hardly surprising that you'd travel the the smarmy route of surface denial and baseless silver-bullet hope. It's the default response of countless posters before you who can't get their heads around just what is happening in the world today despite a glacier's worth of evidence smacking them right in the face. You'll be telling us "the market will fix everything" and "technology will save us" all the way, even through war and civil disorder, no doubt. Sorta like this guy:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic[/ame]

I just thought you'd last a little longer than most do before effectively waiving the white flag and tucking tail. There are comprehensive sites out there, "debunking" peak oil. I was ready for more.

So yeah, run along. Move on to the "next topic," hopefully one you have some honest and working knowledge of next time. You certainly weren't "worthy of serious discussion" on this effort.


----------

