Has anyone seen this on MSM? Or Fox, or some such? This is a big deal.
Western North Dakota has large oil reserves. By some estimates, it has more oil than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A federal government geologist estimated a formation called the Bakken shale holds 400 billion barrels of oil.
Just curious as this is a far bigger find than the Brazilian abiotic field. I am wondering when, if ever, this could lead to a decrease of the price at the pump.
Chris, get your facts straight — With all of the ‘available’ sites the oil companies have drilling rights for……….. did you know that 90% of those sites are tied up in litigation right now — environmentalists (of which I am) of the worst kind (far left) are unfortunately suing so oil companies CAN NOT DRILL!! I take care of the earth too — but this is ridiculous — we must drill as well as keep working for alternatives.
Kevin,
Even when oil is over $100/barrel wind is not economical on an industrial scale. The trouble with both wind and solar is that the energy IS both dispersed and unreliable. Furthermore solar is not available at night and the wind usually stops blowing in a heat wave. Storing electrical energy is problematic on an industrial scale.
Kiddin’,
“Our energy would be virtually free after the cost of the cars and homes.”
You gotta stop watching Star Trek. Nothing will ever be free or close to it. You use what is there consistantly as well as proven. Meanwhile you look/research for another consistant source. I would say pop the mantle and you would have unlimited energy. I’m just afraid some fool will screw that up and this big blue marble will go flying thru the universe like a balloon loosing air!
Nice to see the Charm City Brain Trust pop in from time to time to give us simple Virginia country folk the solutions to all of life’s problems..
New bumper sticker: “I Love Wind Power — Blow Me”
[...] in a single day, and it continues to fall. The market knows that the U.S. has huge, untapped energy reserves. The United States has more than three times the amount of Oil the Saudi Arabians do. Due to a [...]
Where did you find that out novatownhall not saying your wrong I would just like to read up on something that states that and is reliable, because if that is true there is no doubt that we could sustain our countrys need of oil for the next 10 years while we have research for other alternative fuels.
And kevin,
Build me a vehicle powered by wind that can go 0-60 in less than 4 seconds yeah there are alternative fuels but efficiency is a big deal too. If the need(at some think theres an absolute need) to get somewhere quicker were not a big deal here in the US we would be a lot like China by now. Yes Ethanol and Hydrogen are coming up in eventually but Oil still outdoes any fuel when it comes to Cost Eficiency and Accessability.
The strategic oil reserve and oil reserves are different things. The source of our misery is the LEFT wing democrat potitician. For the democrat to be elected, the electorate must feel anxious, nervous, pessimistic, and victimized. But for Democrats, we would be far along the road of energy independence. But independence is a dirty word to the democrat. He is like the corner crack dealer in that he trades in dependence and addiction. Stop electing democrats, and stop getting news from the MSM that serves democrats in the way that Pravda and Isvestia served the Kremlin. Get back to American traditions and values.
FYI, pokenhorn, Democratic president Jimmy Carter tried to have solar heating panels installed at the White House and was thoroughly ridiculed for such a stupid idea.
You sound like a total extremist, bringing in Pravda and Isvestia.
I guess the Democrats will make it this November since I believe a majority of Americans “feel anxious, nervous, pessimistic, and victimized.” After yesterday’s stockmarket plunge, the bailout of Fannie and Freddie, banks going under, housing market in the basement, and the deficit at an ALL TIME high even without counting in the expense of our wars. there’s definite cause for anxity, nervousness, and pessimism.
All im saying is we are not there yet we have the technology but it will be a while before people start to realize that there is something better we can use and therefore be a while before companies start to make a genuine effort to produce things that will use it.
until that happens we will be depending on oil again cost is the one of the reasons oil is still on top and that can only be changed by catching peoples interest in alternate fuels.
BigDodge,
People’s interest are there for other fuel sources. Unfortunately, there is nothing available at this time that is as plentiful and low cost as oil. When a new, as cheap or cheaper source comes on the scene that won’t STARVE half the world and is plentiful, King Oil will then diminish.
US blame india and china for oil price crisis as they have started consuming more oil. US people should know that fact that US consume 44% of world oil and small state like california consume more oil than whole of India.
Sanjeev,
Who in the U.S. blame India and China? The news media? And considering your “facts” are correct, are you in India consuming oil or are you in America? Either way, you are part of the problem or….part of the problem!
I’m sorry to see so much opinion and so little in the way of facts to back them up. That makes this site rather useless for my needs. What I need is: 1) where & how many deposits exist in the world? 2) what is the quality/quantity of each of those deposits? 3) What would be the environmental impact vs costs of getting at each of those deposits? 4)In the western states, water is, perhaps, a more precious commodity than oil! What will be the water requirements to extract oil from oil sands and oil shales? So much of this discussion relies on purely emotional content with little, if any, factual information to support ANY of the positions. TOTALLY USELESS!
Mark,
This is not an article about shale Oil. That is another article. Try this one …
http://novatownhall.com/2008/06/19/shale-oil-yet-another-alternative/
Water rights can be bought. That is the common practice out there. The water availability is being taken into account otherwise Shell and the other Oil companies would not consider the idea profitable.
As for your (1,2,3&4) you won’t find all that information on any one sight anywhere. So what is your point?
In regard to the Bakken oils reserves, these are oil shale deposits. The oil is locked in the shale, you cannot drill and extract the oil. The shale must be mined and the oil extracted from it. Current technologies for doing so involve heating and injecting heated liquids. Current technology does not provide economical extraction even at today’s high oil prices.
As far as offshore drilling is concerned it is a political red herring. Currently, every offshore drilling rig in the world is drilling and under contract to drill in another location when that job is completed. There would not be a drill rig available to drill for at least 5 years.
Drilling onshore is another story and Anwar is the biggest single researve. Although I consider myself an environmentalist I have no objection to drilling there if it is done in a safe manner. However, all oil extracted there should remain in the U.S. Over 15 billion barrels of oil have been extracted from the Prudhoe Bay site (yes, BP is a major producer there)and almost all of it has been sent to China and Japan. How does it help America gain energy independence if U.S. oil is extracted and sent to foreign countries? Oil companies make billions and all were are left with is empty holes in the ground. Yes, all our politicians are to blame but so are the oil companies who want to keep us tied to world oil markets. Oh, yes Democrats have held production down but consider that when the Alaska pipeline was built Democrats proposed a bill to require that all oil pumped through it must stay in the U.S. Republicans (including McCain) voted it down. Yes, drill dril drill, but keep the oil here. You won’t hear Republicans say That because they are owned by big oil.
There is no proven method of extracting oil from oil shale.
Jack, are we resorting to grade school responses. Dave has the only logical response on this site that I’ve read. I always here everyone talk about shale and these reserves of 200 billion barrels (potentially). I’m with Dave. ANWAR has proven recoverable “mean” reserves of about 10.5 Billion barrels. As a percentage of consumption, it would provide a source until 2030 or so, based upon internal use and current consumption levels. So, with new technologies (NGV,hybrid, electric, clean burning coal) we could decrease our need to use the ANWAR oil and oil in general. We could require that oil companies fund through fees, public transportation nationally. If that is a transport tax, fine. If they keep the oil domestically, then eliminate a large part of that. So, if we can figure out a way to cheaply and effectively get shale into heating oil and fuel, let’s do it. The truth is, oil companies and the powers that be don’t want to invest in the infrastructure to do this. Oil companies want the government to do that. I believe that is what could be referred to as corporate welfare. So, if we currently provide subsidies (welfare) to oil and gas, we could also provide subsidy to local and regional transportation. Privatize it if that makes more sense.
“We could require that oil companies fund, through fees, public transportation nationally.”
That’s a non-starter. That will simply drive up the price of domestic petrol. How would you impose such fees on foreign companies? Our companies are already burdened with ridiculously high income taxes, making them less competitive in the global market. Now you want to make them pay for public transportation, too? Then we will be buying even MORE foreign oil, because we will be making the domestic stuff more expensive.
“So, if we can figure out a way to cheaply and effectively get shale into heating oil and fuel, let’s do it. The truth is, oil companies and the powers that be don’t want to invest in the infrastructure to do this. Oil companies want the government to do that.”
Of course they do — why take the risk yourself if the government is willing to do it?
“We could also provide subsidy to local and regional transportation.”
Almost all local and regional transportation systems already ARE owned by the government.
ANWAR has enough oil to power America for about 8 months–if we could get all of the oil out at one time. It won’t lower prices because there won’t be enough fuel coming out at one time to lower prices. As of 2000, the EIA (Energy Information Administration) said USA had 21 billion barrels of PROVEN oil reserves. The US, in 2000 used 7 billion barrels per year. You do the math.
Last, even if we started drilling right now, that oil will not be infused into the economy until around 2030.
Is there really 500 billion barrels of oil in shale? Not according to oil company estimate. It’s more like 8-10 billion recoverable.
Now add up how much more energy is going to be used when China, Africa, and India come fully online power wise. This is not a situation we can drill our way out of.
The other concern is global warming from fossil fuels. If you don’t believe that is a problem, ok fine, you go against virtually all scientific studies on the subject.
There is something that could revolutionize fossil fuels however. It’s a new, genetically modified type of algae that can turn into usable sweet crude in less than a day instead of a million years. The upside? It’s CO2 neutral. The algae takes in, before it turns to oil, as much CO2 as it puts out when burned. This is where we should be spending our time and money, not on drilling.
Two Words Nut Jobs: Climate Change
[...] have enough alternative supplies in place by the time drilling gets underway, we have enough oil reserves to feed our current consumption rate for over 100 years in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming alone. The [...]
The good Lord has placed minerals, and other substances on earth for us to use. We use timber to build our houses, and every thing that we can use from the earth to make our lives more comfortable. Oil is one of those things we have used since the beginning of the combustible engine. All our machinery has been set up over the last several decades for oil. Oil provides us with hundreds of other biproducts that we take for granted. The environmentalist who are telling us not to drill or use more oil, that we are ruining the environment is being deceitful or they are nuts. While Big Al Gore is telling us this very same thing, he is in his huge mansion and flying his big airplane around the country. He wants us to save while he traverses across the country telling us how bad it is to use oil. That way he will have more to use. Let’s face it, he is a hypocrit. I say let’s continue with the drilling until we can find another alternative form of energy that we can use efficiently. Do not use athenol as this is driving up the price on corn, and we know what that does to the cost of our food products. (End)
“While Big Al Gore is telling us this very same thing, he is in his huge mansion and flying his big airplane around the country.”
Truth be known, the elitists want to be sure the oil lasts for their exclusive use..
Nobody talks about burning fossil fuels more effeciently. Inventors have patents on carburation that gets 100 mpg or more in cars of today. If our government was serious about the oil crisis we face in the states,then why do they regulate fuel efficiency in american cars.
My old 1980 honda accord gets 45+ mpg in the city and better on the interstate. Auto manufacturers boast their cars getting 28mpg, WOW! what happened there?
Imagine producing cars that get 100 mpg. It seems to me that all the numbers I have read on oil reserves would increase dramiticly.
Those of us who are from N Dak. are well aware of the oil reserves here. We are wondering with all the risks in off Shore Drilling why this oil reserve is not being used. The owners of the mineral rights, which I am one of, have long waited for this to happen. The dependence on forien oil has become a threat to us all.
Like it or not, it will take 30 years to develop technology and infrastructure required to replace oil as a portable fuel. The U.S. has a 200 year supply of oil, at the present U. S. consumption rate, in the ground on shore and offshore in deep water. Most of this is under BLM or MMS control. Cut red tape, produce U. S. oil, natural gas and coal. Create jobs in the U. S. and keep our money here. This will also keep world oil prices lower and deprive Russia, Venezuela and Middle Eastern countries of extra money to create mischief. Increase research on clean burning fossil fuel technology. Build nuclear power plants (France produces 75% of its electricity with nuclear power plants). Give generous management fees to companies, with best production technology, to develop and produce oil under BLM and MMS controlled lands. Sell oil at world market prices and dedicate profits from BLM and MMS controlled production to pay down the U. S. debt.
One fact I haven’t seen relates to the costs, both in dollars and in other resources in obtaining “technically recoverable” oil from oil-shale that the “Drill baby Drill” croud want to count as part of the US “Oil Reserves”. After the Oil Embargo of the 1970’s over $10 Billion was invested in an effort to learn how to recover the oil from the shale. Despite this investment, over a 13-year period, only five million barrels were produced, as much oil as the U.S. now consumes every six hours. If oil shale really is “the richest fossil fuel resource on earth, why has no nation ever produced more than 16,000 barrels a day? The energy content of oil shale is about half that of municipal trash. However lets assume we can find some company willing and able to invest $500 million per year to buy the energy needed to produce 100,000bpd of oil from Colorado deposits. Someone else will need to build a $3 Billion power plant that will consume 5 million tons of coal. Of course we can ignore the pollution from both the coal mining and burning of coal. If all the above were spent tomorrow it would still be 10 years before we reached the 100,000 BPD goal. A side benefit would be that the water currently running in the Colorado river would be needed to process the shale oil. We can of course expect that everyone in Arizona, Nevada and southern California that depends on the Colorado river for water to drink or to irrigate farms to grow food will not complain. After doing all this to get our 100,000 BPD what will we have to show for our effort? About the same affect as increasing fuel efficiency of American automobiles by two miles per gallon. The “vast,” “immense,” “unrivaled” deposits of oil shale buried in Utah and Colorado have the energy density of a baked potato. If someone told you there were a trillion tons of tater tots buried 1,000 feet-deep, would you rush to dig them up? Oil shale has one-third the energy density of Cap’n Crunch. But no one is counting on Kellogg to become a major energy producer soon. No one is proposing drilling in the cereal aisle
So far every attempt to replace oil as a primary energy source has been limited in result or a complete failure. Hybrids batteries represent a major future disposal problem, wind isn’t constant, solar energy doesn’t work at night, and sputters along in the winter months when it is needed most. What is left? Coal and natural gas. Great, but hardly a replacement for gasoline unless you own an old Stanley Steamer.
Let’s face it, if we don’t start drilling soon we will be be financially ruined by those who hate us.
The technology of our time drills and produces oil with a minimum of damage to the environment.
It is time to disregard the wimpy environmentalists with their disaster stories. Seems they fought the pipeline because the moose population was in danger. Don’t go near the pipeline today without moose poop free boots!
Waylon,
My sentiments exactly. Welcome to the vast right wing conspiracy. A.K.A. normal tax paying Americans
I scratch my head over the current “renewable resource” cars myself…
On one hand we have gas.
On the other hand, we have electricity, which is generated by burning coal or natural gas, sent over aluminum and copper transmission lines, through transformers constructed of steel, iron, and copper, and stored in batteries containing lead, nickel, cadmium, and lithium. And what exactly here is renewable ?
Windmills ? Think T. Boone Picken’s plan. He had plans for a privately owned $2 billion windmill farm, but the bottom fell out when he could not get $7 billion in public financing to build the infrastructure connect to the grid.. bummer..
Properly placed, both wind and solar are reasonable methods of generation. Of course proper placement is not here in the Mid-Atlantic. Desert southwest is perfect for solar. Left coast (at the coast) has some really good wind generation places (where the wind is controlled more by the ocean than anything else). It isn’t constant, but it can be stored. Hydro is more useful, but people complain when they have to close out thousands of square miles of land for the lake that it requires. Nuclear is plentiful, and if we can just convince people that radioactive glass (spent fuel turned into glass/ceramic beads) don’t pose a threat because they *seal* in insoluble pellets the radioactive material, then we could have near inexhaustible energy.
Solar and wind can help in the southwest where cooling is the main user of energy. Nuclear ought to be used around here. Off shore wind is possible as well (and that is much more reliable). Put in place the means of generating cheap electricity and back-fill when those don’t work well.
New bumber sticker: “I love wind power — blow me!”
Brian,
“Off shore wind is possible”
Do we also need to consider the the possibility of offshore wind being a target for terrorists, or a strategic wartime target ?
Comments
Leave a comment Trackback