Posted on 01/02/2007 10:21:37 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
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 its all right here in the Western United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at rinf.com ...
I think you are right.!!!
Old news, but good news. Yes, it's true.
tin foil hat stuff
This is similar to the oil sands in Canada which is being developed on a monstrous scale. This has made Canada the #1 crude supplier to the U.S., all within the last 5 to 10 years. The u.s. oil shale supplies are well known.
I sense a zot, but I'll bite.
The fact is, there is a lot of shale oil in Rocky Mountains. This has been known for decades. However, it's much more expensive to extract than the usual oil supply. In particular, there are huge start-up costs.
If I recall correctly, at current prices, it's close to profitable to extract it. But if the prices go down (which any ME country could do by increasing supply) the whole process becomes a money-loser and there's no way to recover it.
There is no conspiracy.
I'd advise that you avoid such poorly-written articles in general and this website in particular.
There's no conspiracy or secret.
This is supposedly just one of several.
I read a book 30 years or so ago about how during Ike's Presidency the decision was made to keep secret lots of heavy duty deposits--and to not use them until the rest of the world ran out of oil.
I don't doubt that something like this could be true. Whether it is or not remains to be seen. And why are the puppet masters allowing it out, now. To forestall the zero-point energy technologies from being outted?
We shall see.
Is it really true? Do you have other sources? I guess it'S realistic and imaginable, but this would be HUGE news!
I can imagine all those Enviro-loonies clamoring, there will be no more oil in future...Lol! Even without this (apparent) Jumbo-Oilfield, we can cover our needs and even export by Oil-shale.
We should jump off the Arabs oil and let them slip into irrelevance.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9143/index1.html
????????
The above link may help.
There has been a oil find in central Utah that is estimated at 200 million to as high as 1 billion barrels recently:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600131526,00.html
There is oil in the western US. The reason why it hasn't been found, much less exploited is that the drilling depths are much deeper than in previous finds, and the exploration costs much more. That, and the USGS models of geology in Utah, Nevada, western CO, etc are simply wrong.
There are oil wells here in Nevada in the Railroad Valley that were good finds in their day. There is oil here in western intermountain states, it is just that the geology isn't operating according to West Texas models. This means that oil exploration companies need to have deep, deep pockets to develop new (and accurate) geological models, seismic surveys, do exploratory drilling, etc, etc.
There is plenty of oil in the CONUS area. We just have to quit listening to the environmentalist twaddle, pablum and dogma against drilling.
There is a huge difference between tar sands and shale oil. The tar sands have been in development stages for 10-15 years and only recently has the production of oil from tar sands become cost effective. The time and dollars spent to refine the process have been huge.
Shale oil on the other hand represents a huge potential, as the oil is there. However, at this time the refining method or I should say the most cost effective extraction method is still to be developed.
That has a bit of a 'tin foil hat' ring to it. How about this alternate wording:
not to use them until "the cost of oil had risen to such a level that they could justify the much higher extraction costs"
We are nearing or at that point today, as witness the developments in Alberta. I would guess we are 5-10 years away from serious development in shale oil extraction.
Is this a cue strange music type of thread?
Extract costs are very high, but at least some of it can be extracted for less than $60/bbl and a lot less than the cost of the Seventh Fleet.
1 billion barrels is a mere .05% of the 2 trillion barrels that the article suggests.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.