This is an unconfirmed report... BUT if true, it really shows how the OIL companies have snookered us, the consumers into paying $4 gallon for gas when it could be much cheaper.<br><br>GO Here and read about the Bakken Oil Formation - 503 billion barrels, enough oil to last 41 years. This is huge compared to offshore drilling, and it's MUCH, MUCH cheaper to extract ..... $16 a barrel cost to extract !! ... and worth $ 5.3 Trilion !!<br> New OIL <br><br>And if that didn't make your jaw hit the floor.... try this one. Another reserve was discovered located 1000 feet under the Rocky Mountains that contains 2 TRILLION barrels ! (worth about $20 Trillion @ $107 / barrel).<br><br>So have we been victims of oil company manipulation? Has the cry for offshore drilling and drilling in ANWAR just been a diversion?<br>With all this available OIL, wouldn't there be pressure for them to reduce prices and give up drilling in ecological sensitive areas ? And like the DeBeers family controls the worldwide price of diamonds, so does the major oil companies of the world try to keep the price of their product as high as they can, justified or not, and they don't care who gets hurt ... even the whole US economy.<br><br>Just some things to think about.<br><br><br>David (OFI)
Loc: Alexandria, VA
USGS assessment here<br><br>Press release (via Reuters) here<br><br>Difference appears to be "potential" vs. "technically recoverable" (i.e. recoverable using today's technology) ...<br><br>Still, nothing to blow your nose at ;-)<br><br>Might help tide things over until alternatives are perfected ...<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
OK a few questions....<br><br>1. WHy has this been so underreported?<br><br>2. Why haven't McCain and other GOP pushing offshore drilling mentioned this ?<br><br>3. Wouldn't this be easier and less costly than offshore drilling, and less risk to the environment?<br><br>4. and what about the other large find under the Rockies? that's 4-5 times this one.<br><br>This is the first I ever heard of ANY of these. Great news, except how to deal with the extra CO2. ... but still better than offshore.<br><br>I'm also POed that they keep saying there were no spills during recent hurricanes.. that's a LIE... sure may not have been the Valdez disaster but 750,000 gallons isn't trivial either. Why can't they just be honest about it ?<br><br>David (OFI)
Easy Peasy<br><br>the INFO WAS OUT THERE...Just no one's been paying attention:<br>The Democratic legislature POINTED THAT FACT OUT BEFORE LEAVING For THEIR VACATION<br><br>It was the ReTHUGnicans that were "playing it down" to create a "Manufactured Issue" by <br>Demonizing the Democrats as GUILTY of Blocking the POOR Obscenely Rich Oil Barons from <br>More Drilling Rights, and for having the ODACITY To Leave during the So-Called "CRISIS".<br><br>But ...the "CONSERVatives" TYPICALLY decided that it was To THEIR Advantage to <br>[color:white]..............</font color=white><br>Play @ STIRRING Up the HEARTlander by "BLAMING OBAMA!!!!" for HIGH PRICES.<br><br>..........it's all KaKa.......... <br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> <br>
_________________________ . "...or am I a butterfly dreaming she's a woman?"
Wow, this is fantastic news! Or is it? The status says unconfirmed. I bet it's true though. How can we test it to make sure the quantity they're saying is there? <br><br>Should we all write to senators Obama & McCain? One of them is going to be the next president. <br><br>Too many lives they've spent across the ocean. Too much money been spent upon the moon. Well, until they make it right, I hope they never sleep at night. They better make some changes and do it soon. -Things Goin' On/Lynyrd Skynyrd
_________________________ Well, until they make it right, I hope they never sleep at night. They better make some changes and do it soon. -Things Goin' On/Lynyrd Skynyrd
This is not the first or the largest or the last shale oil formation they will find. There is a lot of oil in different formations around the world and a lot in the United States and Canada. But the feasibility of extracting it is the problem. The Utah/Colorado shale formation or the Canada sand oil formation are other examples. <br><br>But if you have to burn a one energy unit to collect 1.2 energy units that is a scam on the order of Brown's gas. Entrepreneurs will actually push this kind of extraction and through government subsidies and increasing price of oil will get the gullible to buy into it. <br><br>Don't buy into it. Burning a ton of coal to get a barrel of oil is insanity. The ethanol scam is already working very well. We will get higher food prices, depleted soil and ten cents off your gasoline bill. <br><br>Stop whining about four dollar a gallon gas. Start whining that it is not six dollars and the taxes raised help to fix the problem. Raping the Dakotas is not the answer.<br><br>
Loc: Central Florida
Ah, the Bakken formation. I once worked a well in eastern Montana in the Williston Basin and the Bakken was one of the objectives (amongst several others). This was in the early '80s and the POTENTIAL of the Bakken was well known even then. It is not some surprising new discovery. If the Bakken is suffering from a lack of positive PR, it is probably because of the known problems with developing this kind of formation.<br><br>Submitted for your approval, this article at The Oildrum provides not only specifics about the Bakken but also a very good primer on the production of oil in general. It's a long read but pretty user-friendly and if you want to save the time and mental effort, scroll down to the nine summary points at the end of the article.<br><br>You know, I think I am beginning to understand the backlash of average citizens (certainly NOT meaning you, David, a full-time working scientist in your own right) against scientific reality. All too often, pesky "facts" and physical realities of how the world works contradict our own self interests and this makes us unhappy. <br><br>P.S. Why is this post on the Political Soapbox board?<br><br>
Poly and Cope,<br><br>First from what I read, the USGS determined the formation had 4-5 times what was previously thought back in 1995.<br><br>Second, yes it's not easy, but new technology has made it practical to extract, they didn't say the details except $16 / barrel when oil is selling for >$100. again - no details, but as we know from computers, technology changes - though oil extraction technology is probably much slower than CPUs.<br><br>They also didn't go into details about the larger pool under the Rocky's either, but it made me realize maybe the offshore ruse was a diversion and a political football used by Big Oil and their political buddies to get their way. (they avoid referring to conservation, CAFE stds, solar, and wind like the plague- it's OIL or nutin !)<br><br>MY big concern is IF it is there and it IS economically recoverable, what's the impact on atmospheric CO2 and climate warming ? THAT doesn't look good, and that's why I'm really pissed some in Congress (incl. McCain) don't support continuing (they are in place now) tax breaks for solar and wind. That SUCKS ! seems a logical way to reduce our need for foreign oil and gas, and be green too !<br><br>David (OFI)
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> All too often, pesky "facts" and physical realities of how the world works contradict our own self interests and this makes us unhappy. <p><hr></blockquote><p> It seems that 99% of what passes for scientific discussion on the internet is fantasy. Ignoring facts is de rigueur.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>P.S. Why is this post on the Political Soapbox board?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Scientific fantasy and religion are two sides of the same coin. Same reason why Brown's gas is always relegated to the basement back room.<br><br><br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>First from what I read, the USGS determined the formation had 4-5 times what was previously thought back in 1995.<p><hr></blockquote><p> And the shills for bakken futures quote 25 times more. It's still bullsh[i][/i]t. 25 times the stuid number the USGS came up with in 1995 is still a stupid number.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>Second, yes it's not easy, but new technology has made it practical to extract,<p><hr></blockquote><p> No, it hasn't. Read Cope's link. Your great great grandson may use some Bakken shale oil to grease his maglev skateboard but spending 110 bucks of energy to extract out a barrel of oil is still stupid even if a barrel was 400 a barrel. A total waste of resources. Burning coal and gas to rape the Dakotas is ridiculous. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>They also didn't go into details about the larger pool under the Rocky's either,<p><hr></blockquote><p> Because that is Mancos shale as dificult to extract as this stuff. There is no pool. Calling it or the Dakota formation a pool of sweet oil is misinformation being perpetrated by scam artists selling oil futures.<br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.