Untapped oil within our borders/off-shore...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by ColtCarbine, May 25, 2008.


  1. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Feds: Lift oil, gas restrictions

    Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:59 PM MDT

    LANDER -- Bush administration officials released a report Wednesday indicating that huge amounts of America's oil and gas reserves on public lands are inaccessible to producers. And they argued that it doesn't have to stay that way.

    Citing record-high gasoline prices and a need for greater energy independence, officials with the U.S. Department of the Interior said the nation needs to better utilize its "vast untapped oil and natural gas resources" buried under federal lands.

    As required by congressional energy policy legislation passed in 2000 and 2005, the Bureau of Land Management has completed the third stage of a survey cataloguing the total oil and gas reserves on federal lands in the United States -- and the percentages of those resources currently inaccessible because of environmental and other legal restrictions.

    In Wyoming, a diverse coalition of citizens and elected officials -- including Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal and Republican U.S. Sen. John Barrasso -- continues to fight to keep the Wyoming Range off-limits to oil and gas developers, just as the BLM pushes for fewer restrictions nationwide.

    "Public lands have a significant role to play in meeting our domestic energy needs securely and affordably," BLM Director Jim Caswell said in a prepared statement Wednesday.

    Caswell indicated that new technology and energy development techniques such as directional drilling and strategic pad placement have made some environmental restrictions no longer necessary, or at least in need of revision.

    According to the BLM's new study, on public lands, almost two-thirds of America's potential onshore oil reserves and 41 percent of its natural gas are inaccessible to producers because of legal restrictions.

    The survey looked at 279 million acres of land currently managed by federal agencies, and determined there is an estimated 31 billion barrels of oil and 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas under the surface.

    The United States imports about 10 million barrels of oil per day, Assistant Interior Secretary Stephen Allred said.

    "If we want to lower the cost of energy, we must be willing to use our own energy resources as part of a balanced and rational energy policy," Allred said.

    The report drew harsh criticism from some lawmakers and conservation groups, who called it another ploy by the Bush administration to open up public lands in order to please the energy industry.

    Linda Baker, coordinator for the Upper Green River Valley Coalition, said relatively unrestricted drilling in western Wyoming's Jonah and Pinedale Anticline natural gas fields has already compromised the health of people by creating elevated ozone levels and contaminating the groundwater.

    "It is clear we physically cannot drill our way to energy independence, especially not with natural gas," Baker said. "The BLM is attempting to directly link exorbitant gas prices with a failure to drill every last acre of American soil. Please. Americans are not that stupid."

    'Wyoming has done its share'

    Asked about restrictions on drilling in Wyoming, specifically, the BLM's Allred said relative to other states, Wyoming has "not had a significant amount of area that has been restricted."

    Richard Watson, a senior physical scientist and the BLM's technical leader on the survey, said most of the untapped reserves noted in the report are in the Western states, with a majority of the oil on the North Slope of Alaska and a significant portion of the gas in southwest Wyoming.

    More than 40 percent of the natural gas nationwide is considered inaccessible due to restrictions, but in most locations in Wyoming, the BLM classifies less than 30 percent of the resource "inaccessible."

    "Wyoming has certainly done its share in trying to provide energy relief for the country," Allred said.

    When that comment was relayed to Freudenthal, the governor said, according to his press secretary, Cara Eastwood, "He's right. Wyoming has done its share in providing energy for the nation."

    The governor had no further comment on the new BLM report, she said, other than to reaffirm that he has not changed his view on the need to protect the Wyoming Range "and other special places in Wyoming from further energy development."

    But Bruce Hinchey, president of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, said making the entire Wyoming Range off-limits to energy development runs contrary to the nation's interest in working toward energy independence.

    While the Cowboy State can't accomplish that goal alone, Hinchey said, energy development here has to be a significant piece of the puzzle.

    "To take away that entire range, 1.2 million acres, doesn't bode very well for helping the nation meet its energy needs," he said.

    Contrary to claims made by some critics of the nation's recent energy legislation, if some of the restrictions were lifted nationwide, and if producers were allowed more access to public lands for exploration and production, domestic production could help reduce oil and natural gas prices in the future, Hinchey said.

    "If you can find it and develop it, and you're allowed to do that, then absolutely we could reduce costs for natural gas and/or oil -- either one," he said.
     
  2. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    May 19, 2008
    The Good and Bad Approaches to Affordable Energy Policy
    by Ben Lieberman
    WebMemo #1927

    Good energy policy is easy to distinguish from bad energy policy: Good policy leads to more supplies of affordable energy, and bad policy leads to less. The recently rejected American Energy Production Act of 2008 (S. 2958), sponsored by Senator Mitch McConnell R–KY), sought for the most part to make it easier to access domestic energy supplies by undoing past constraints, including restrictions on domestic oil production.

    On the other hand, the upcoming Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 (S. 2991), sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV), repeats the mistakes of the past by adding constraints that will discourage domestic energy supplies, including:

    * Raising taxes on domestic oil production,
    * Picking winners and losers among energy alternatives, and
    * Imposing price-gouging legislation.

    S. 2958 was a pro-energy bill, worth pursuing again, while S. 2991 is an anti-energy bill that will only add to already high energy costs.

    Fewer Restrictions on Domestic Oil Production

    America needs fewer restrictions on domestic oil drilling. The U.S. remains the only oil-producing nation that has placed a substantial amount of its energy potential off-limits. This includes a few thousand acres of Alaska's 19.6 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This small proportion of ANWR is believed to contain 10 billion barrels of oil—an amount equivalent to 15 years of imports from Saudi Arabia.[1] Even more oil is located in other restricted areas throughout the United States, and more still in the 85 percent of America's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) that is off-limits.[2]

    Environmental concerns militate against drilling, but improvements in technology have greatly reduced both the above-ground footprint and the risk of offshore spills.[3] Any new drilling would be subject to the world's strictest standards.

    The American Energy Production Act allows for leasing of ANWR. This would bring more domestic oil online several years from now and generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues. This bill would also allow leasing in most of the OCS, provided the relevant state governor approves. Each participating state would get a share of the leasing revenues generated by energy production. This would provide more oil and more natural gas, which is also badly needed.

    Regrettably, the Consumer-First Energy Act contains no such provisions. In effect, it is an energy bill without any energy in it.

    Avoiding the Mistakes of the Past

    The Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 might as well be called the Repeat-Every-Energy-Policy-Blunder-from-1970-to-1980 Act. Among other mistakes from that period, the government increased the taxes levied on domestic oil producers. The result of this windfall profit tax, according to the Congressional Research Service, was "reduced domestic oil production from between 3 and 6 percent, and increased oil imports from between 8 and 16 percent. This made the U.S. more dependent upon imported oil."[4]

    There were also many attempts by the federal government to pick winners and losers among emerging energy alternatives—synthetic fuels, solar, ethanol, and others—and tilt the playing field in their favor. Virtually all turned out to be big disappointments.

    The government also instituted price controls, which served only to create the gas shortages that remain one of the unpleasant memories from that era. Yes, price controls meant that consumers could get cheaper gas—but only after waiting in long gas lines and only if stations didn't run out first.

    One might think that no rational energy policy maker should want to repeat the mistakes of that era, yet the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 tries to do just that. There are new proposals to increase the effective tax rates on U.S. oil companies, both by bringing back a windfall profit tax and by repealing certain deductions against income for expenses related to domestic oil drilling. As happened before, this will discourage domestic oil drilling, which is the exact opposite of what an energy bill should be doing.

    The bill allows oil companies to avoid the windfall profits tax if they invest in congressionally approved alternative energy sources. Though renewable energy sources should be a part of America's energy mix, they should be pursued by the private sector without direction from Washington. The federal government has never been adept at picking winners and losers among such alternatives, as the burgeoning problems with the corn ethanol mandate attest.

    There are also price-gouging measures, which act the same way that price controls act by trying high prices illegal. Like tax hikes, such measures discourage badly needed supply increases and thus end up doing more harm than good. Even the Federal Trade Commission, the agency charged with implementing this scheme, has warned that it is a bad idea.[5]

    Conclusion

    It is no coincidence that, despite the massive 2005 and 2007 energy bills, the price at the pump continues upward. Both measures did little to create new oil and gasoline supplies or to untangle the red tape afflicting existing supplies.

    America needs fewer laws, regulations, taxes, and other government-created impediments to a more affordable gasoline supply. Most of the provisions in the American Energy Production Act are intended to liberate Americans from that morass. In contrast, the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 contains just about everything we don't want or need.
     
  3. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Open up drilling just to please the energy industry? Horsefeathers. If anything, it's to please the people that desire cheapness to maintain lifestyle. And I don't think that is a bad thing, even if not too good in the long term. It will buy time for alternatives to be developed. No matter what, cost to produce will drive the alternatives.
     
  4. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    What was that 10 billions barrels equals 15 yrs. of imports from Saudi Arabia, yeah we should be telling them to go pound sand. Guess that 8 billion barrels Brazil found isn't much at all.
     
  5. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Government Restrictions on Domestic Energy Development Contribute to U.S. Dependence on Foreign Oil

    By John K. Carlisle

    Frustrated consumers, angry over rising gasoline prices, should ask the federal government why it is fostering U.S. dependence on foreign oil by waging war against development of our nation's domestic energy industry.

    A major reason the United States imports more than half of its oil from foreign sources is the federal government's policy of barring oil exploration and production on most federally-owned land. This is a tragedy given that there are potentially huge amounts of oil that can be recovered.

    Although the U.S. has about 20 billion barrels of proved reserves, most Americans would be pleasantly surprised to learn that experts believe the nation probably has more than 110 billion barrels of recoverable oil, five times the estimated current supply. A 1995 National Assessment of U.S. Oil and Gas Resources prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) concluded that, in addition to the 20 billion barrels of proved reserves, there are another 30 billion barrels of undiscovered oil that could be recovered using conventional drilling and exploration technology. There are at least 60 billion barrels of inferred reserves which can be recovered with new technology. Including the oil that can be extracted from shale and other unconventional sources, the USGS believes the U.S. has 112.3 billion barrels of oil.1

    Full exploitation of this potential supply would not make the U.S. energy independent, but it would help decrease our dependence on the whims of the OPEC cartel. There is one problem, however. The federal government will not get out of the way.

    Since 1983, federal land available for oil and gas exploration in the western U.S. - where 67% of the nation's onshore oil reserves and 40% of natural gas reserves are located - has decreased by more than 60%.2 In total, more than 300 million onshore acres of federal land have been effectively removed from the market for oil exploration.3 The Clinton Administration's proposal to prohibit new road construction on 43 million acres of federal land will further reduce oil development as the roadless ban will affect areas where oil and gas exploration is being conducted.4

    The numbers are similarly disturbing for offshore oil development. Over the years, Congress has prohibited exploration and production on more than 460 million offshore acres, which includes virtually all of the best prospects for major new offshore discoveries outside the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico.5 This relatively narrow portion of the Gulf of Mexico produces the majority of current offshore oil and gas, but new reserves are increasingly short-lived. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the federal portion of offshore drilling, which currently comprises 18% of U.S. production, will rise to nearly a third of domestic oil and gas supply within a decade. Failure to relax federal restrictions in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean and on the Pacific coast would amount to a de facto strangulation of domestic oil production capacity.6

    By far, the most dramatic example of the federal government's war against domestic oil production is the prohibition on development of the oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The American Association of Petroleum Geologists estimates that ANWR contains at least 9.2 billion barrels of oil.7 Other estimates show that ANWR probably contains as much as 16 billion barrels, making ANWR the single most important oil reserve in the nation.8 But environmentalists, citing ecological concerns, have successfully stopped drilling in ANWR even though oil drilling equipment would cover just 2,000 of ANWR's 19 million acres.9

    Oil isn't the only casualty of the federal government's wrongheaded land-use policy. Access to the nation's vast reserves of natural gas is also imperiled. This is of special concern because natural gas is projected to be the primary energy source to fulfill the nation's huge need for electricity. Energy experts Daniel Yergin, Chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, and Thomas Robinson, author of a new study on natural gas, note that "just 15% of our current electric generating capacity is fired by natural gas. But an extraordinary 95% of the new proposed generating capacity is gas-fired!" Yergin and Robinson also say that "it will be up to exploration and production in areas such as the Rocky Mountains... to stave off a more serious gas supply shortfall."10

    However, that will be difficult because the federal government has barred energy development on huge amounts of western land.

    Decreasing dependence on foreign oil can only be accomplished by aggressive development of the nation's considerable energy resources. But as long as the federal government continues to shut off its land to oil and natural gas production, Americans can only look forward to a bleak future of decreasing energy independence.
     
  6. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    The main reason gas is the preferred fuel for recently contracted power plants is the cost of the plant itself. NG plants are far less capital intensive to build than either coal or nuclear. Coal pays a monster capital penalty in emissions control technology and hardware up front, and I guess we are all familiar enough with the obstacles to nuclear. Personally, I prefer the nuclear option simply because of the conservation of resources for other uses. NG is a feedstock for many things besides its use as a fuel. All kinds of chemicals, for example, including (especially) fertilizer. And like it or not, there is a peak gas scenario, not yet as close as peak oil, but it is there, and the highest and best use of NG is most assuredly not power plant fuels when it comes to the survival of the species.
     
  7. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    INCONVENIENT TRUTHS ABOUT OIL
    May 23, 2008 at 4:47 pm

    INCONVENIENT TRUTHS ABOUT OIL

    Before my recent retirement after a career of almost 40 years, I had the unique opportunity to work in the technology areas for a major oil company, an international financial operation, and one of the world’s largest international banks. As a result, although not an expert in either exploration or production of crude oil and its impact on financial and consumer markets, I did have access to information that most American consumers did not. This was not secret data, nor was it proprietary information. It was simply a case of facts the media was not interested in reporting, and our politicians felt were not germane to their own agendas. Let me start with a few simple facts.

    At the time of the 1972 OPEC oil embargo, the domestic production of crude oil in America peaked at about 10 million barrels per day. This domestic production accounted for almost 2/3’s of our total needs, resulting in about 1/3 of our needed crude to be imported. The chilling effect of the embargo on our economy, and ability to provide for the national defense, resulted in our political leadership pledging that the government would work to allow America to achieve energy independence in 10 years. What have we achieved so far?

    By 1980, domestic crude production had fallen to 8,572 million barrels per day, while our oil usage climbed to 16,058 million barrels per day. Imports had risen to 7,486 million barrels per day, or 46% of our needs. In 2005, our total crude oil requirements were 20,802 million barrels per day, while domestic production had fallen to 7,486 million barrels per day. The 15,624 million barrels per day necessary to keep America and her economy moving were met by imports, which now account for 75% of our needs. So much for the pledge to make America independent of unreliable foreign sources. What went wrong?

    Of natural crude, we have large reserves off the coasts of California and Florida. However, no drilling in these areas has been permitted by law since the late 1960’s. China, however, by using agreements with Cuba to drill in this area, will begin doing so shortly.

    America also has additional reserves in the Gulf areas, from Florida to Texas. However, no drilling is permitted in most of these areas. Mexico, however, has no such restrictions.

    In Alaska, both onshore and offshore, we have large areas of proven reserves, which are not allowed to be developed by law. Canada has no laws prohibiting such development.

    In the mountain Western states, large amounts of oil are available in the shale rock formations. However, EPA regulations prohibit their development.

    In the far West, vast areas of tar sands remain undeveloped due to environmental restrictions. As with the geographic areas noted above, most of the land is owned or controlled by the federal government. Canadian use of tar sands is a major source of their oil exports.

    The conversion of coal to oil, a technology available for over 100 years, remains another untapped resource, due to legislative and environmental restrictions.

    The bottom line is that America could have become energy independent with regard to crude oil by the mid 1980’s. In the area of electricity, the addition of more coal fired generating plants, nuclear power plants, and additional hydro electric plants could have made the need for gas and oil fueled electrical plants unnecessary by 1990. That would have freed up more crude for other purposes, and reduced our overall consumption of oil. In addition, our electrical generation capacity would substantially exceed our present needs, rather than the sporadic shortages we now experience.

    Some analysts have estimated that if all of these options had been initiated in the immediate aftermath of the OPEC embargo, crude oil today would have a domestic price of 40-45 dollars per barrel, with secure supplies, and uninfluenced by foreign costs or international speculators. Why didn’t this happen?

    It is popular to blame the oil companies, oil cartels, or greedy speculators. But in truth, we are in a bed of our own making. It is not the usual suspects who have passed laws based on bad science, radical environmental lobbies, self interest, political agendas or ignorance of technological advances and free enterprise economics. It is the result of our own government, mainly through the ineptness of Congress. At the risk of sounding glib, the following old saw comes to mind. If the opposite of Pro is Con, what is the opposite of Progress?

    One need only look at the energy bill recently passed to confirm my opinion. While this 86.3 billion dollar legislation (including 3.8 billion in pork that has nothing to do with energy) does tell the auto makers how to build cars, tell us that we can’t buy incandescent light bulbs after 2012, and demand that we continue to use 1.25 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 gallon of ethanol (subsidized by us of course); it does not result in one new gallon of gasoline, or one watt of new electricity.

    So who is to blame for the “new” energy crisis we face? Look no further than Washington DC. For 34 years, through Republican and Democratic controlled Congresses and Presidencies, they have done all that they can to create what we, the consumer, must now face. And I see no hope that they will do anything to correct the situation they have created. The resources are there, the technologies are proven, and the self corrective economic system is in place. We need only a government that is both accountable and responsive.
     
  8. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    The US Government’s Secret Colorado Oil Discovery

    Rense

    Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world - more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. Three companies have been chosen to lead the way. Test drilling has already begun

    Dear Reader,

    Five months ago, the U.S. Energy Department announced the results of a land survey

    It was conducted to determine the official amount of oil a thousand feet deep in the Rocky Mountains

    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.

    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.

    When asked about America’s least-publicized oil supply, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch said:

    “The amounts of oil are staggering. Who would have guessed that in just Colorado and Utah, there is more recoverable oil than in the Middle East?”

    Here’s the kicker

    The U.S. government already owns the land. It’s been right there under our noses the whole time.

    In fact, the government’s appointed a small group of companies to begin the drilling.

    Test drilling has already begun.

    And the profit forecasts are ridiculous. According to the RAND Corporation (a public-policy think tank for the government), this small region can produce:

    Three million barrels of oil per day That translates into more than $20 BILLION a year.

    These are the conservative estimates. The U.S. Energy Dept. estimates an eventual output of 10 million barrels of oil per day. At that rate, the money flow would be even greater.

    I’ve written this letter to tell you everything I’ve learned about this rarely publicized oil reserve who’s drilling it and how to get a piece of the world’s biggest, untapped oil supply - before it’s too late.

    Here’s the full story

    The Next American Oil Boom

    There’s a new source of oil in the American West.

    Today, it sits idle - untapped - inside more than 16,000 square miles of rock and sand.

    Geologists call what lies in this region, oil shale.

    What is oil shale?

    At first glance, oil shale looks like an ordinary black rock.

    It feels grainy to the touch and greasy. You see, what’s inside oil shale has huge governments, Big Oil, venture capitalists, and even everyday investors scrambling to stake a claim.

    Oil shale - when heated - oozes bubbling crude.

    This precious resource is rare - found only in a few select countries. Places like China, Brazil, Estonia, Morocco, and Australia.

    But the real story is how much untapped oil shale lies beneath U.S. soil. As the chart to the right indicates, there’s 4-times more oil shale in the U.S. than in all other countries combined.

    Over the past 125 years, oil shale has been the secret oil source for a handful of nations. Specifically, those fortunate enough to have it

    * China’s been using oil shale since 1929. Today, China is the largest producer of oil from oil shale. It plans to double the daily rate of production soon.

    * Estonia is an oil shale dependent economy. Over 90% of the country’s electricity is fueled by shale oil. In fact, electricity run on oil shale is a chief export.

    * In 1991, Brazil built the world’s largest oil shale facility. They’ve already produced more than 1.5 MILLION tons of oil to make high quality transportation fuels.

    * Jordan, Morocco, and Australia have recently announced plans to utilize their oil shale resources. All 3 governments are currently working to build oil shale facilities.

    But all these countries’ oil shale resources pale in comparison to the U.S. supply. As you can see from the table to the right, the United States dominates the oil shale market - with over 72% of the world’s oil shale resources.

    Our gargantuan supply of oil lies beneath an area called the Green River Formation - a barren stretch of land covering portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

    World-renowned geologist Walter Youngquist calls the oil beneath the Green River Formation, “a national treasure.”

    Congress calls this area simply, “the next Saudi Arabia.”

    It’s easy to see why

    This region holds the largest known oil reserve on the planet

    Colorado’s Oil Lands - Restricted for 76 Years, Now Open for Drilling

    There are over 16,000 square miles of oil shale in the Green River formation…

    Each acre holds 2 million barrels of oil - it’s the most concentrated energy source on earth, according to the Energy Department.

    The federal government owns 80% of this oil-rich land.

    In fact, the government placed protective legislation on this land in 1930, forbidding anyone to touch it.

    You see, the government always knew this land was saturated with oil - but getting it out has always been expensive.

    Buying oil from foreign countries was always the cheaper bet. It has been for the past 80 years.

    Wisely, the government kept the land around for a “rainy day”, protecting it with 1930s legislation.

    I’m sure you’re aware of today’s situation at the gas pump. Buying oil from foreign countries has gotten out of hand. The price of oil is sky-high. It’s way too expensive to keep buying foreign oil. In other words, the “rainy day” has finally arrived.

    The timing couldn’t be more perfect. Oil shale technologies have begun to advance Â* drastically.

    Companies are coming up with ways to extract oil from the Green River Formation very cheaply.

    For example, one Utah-based company says it can extract the oil for as little as $10 a barrel. In fact dozens of companies have stepped forward with similar claims. With oil prices approaching $70 a barrel Â* these are pretty significant breakthroughs.

    That’s all the government needed to hear.

    On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed into law, a mandate lifting the protective legislation on the Green River Formation.

    This mandate is called The Energy Policy Act of 2005. It calls for the opening phases of oil extraction in the Green River Formation Â* the world’s most concentrated energy source.

    We’re finally ready to tap the largest oil reserve on the planet
     
  9. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Well it's rense, they are out there at times..
    Sounds way too good to be true..., oil shale is "rocks"; which means open pit strip mining( like ore)or coal not drilling relatively small holes.Good luck getting that past the subaru and birkenstock crowd.
    heat it with cheap steam from a nuke plant could be the answer to our transportation fuel (oil) isues...
     
  10. Tracy

    Tracy Insatiably Curious Moderator Founding Member

    ;) Word of advice: If you find that you're quoting yourself (post #4), 'tis time to step away for a minute ;)
     
  11. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    This is from the USGS 2006 survey on oil shale deposits and conclude the largest deposits are in the U.S. The report is 49 pages long so I'm not going to post it.

    Thought I'd post up about other sources of oil within our borders besides known oil fields that we aren't allowed to drill or explore for future reserves.

    Oil-shale deposits are in many parts of the world. They range in age from Cambrian to Tertiary and were formed in a variety of marine, continental, and lacustrine depositional environments. The largest known deposit is in the Green River Formation in the western United States; it contains an estimated
    213 billion tons of in-situ shale oil (about 1.5 trillion U.S. barrels).
    Total resources of a selected group of oil shale deposits in 33 countries are estimated at 409 billion tons of in-situ shale oil, which is equivalent to 2.8 trillion U.S. barrels of shale oil. These amounts are very conservative because (1) several deposits mentioned herein have not been explored sufficiently to make accurate estimates, and (2) some deposits were not included in this survey.

     
  12. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder

    :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

    OGM
     
  13. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder

    Yes I think we should tell all the Arabs to pack sand. But Saudi Arabia is not very high on the list of countries that we import from. IIRC they are 5th or 6th on the list. I believe Venasvela, Mexico, and Canada are the top 3. The one story you posted said the hugh oil field in the west could produce 3mil barrels per day, and could go up to 10 mil. barrels per day, thats great. But we use over 25 mil. barrels per day. I would love to be energy independent as much as you would. That is going to take some serious changes that I don't believe this country is ready for. I'm not saying it shouldn't be drilled. I believe it should be done. Lets just not make it anouther super-fund project. We need to be working on alternitives as well, because one day we are going to pump the wells dry and still be over the barrel so to speak.

    OGM
     
  14. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Well if my numbers are incorrect I'm sure somebody will correct me. I do believe we import about 10 million barrels a day and if this one field was able to produce this same amount we could tell them all to go pound sand. This would be better than any Stimulus Package the government could come up with to keep the economy going by producing jobs here in America, feeding American families, creating new jobs in construction of the oil industry besides all the suppliers of products and vendors that come along with the industry.
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7