Posted on 06/18/2008 10:10:46 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
“Are these USGS employees in the union and who does their union back in this election?”
More than likely.
And in the name of job security they’ll support osama-bama or anything else with a “D” next to their name.
You can download the report and read it rather than filter it through a reporter.
Note, that is technically recoverable undiscovered reserves, and is only a small fraction of the oil in place in the formation.
According to the article at the USGS Newsroom the assessment shows a 25 fold increase over the amount of technically recoverable oil estimated in the 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.
That is a significant increase.
Development began in the Elm Coulee Field (Eastern Montana) in 2000, and now over half the oil produced from the Bakken has come from that field.
When the estimates of how much of the oil present in the formation is technically recoverable range from 3% of the oil present to 10%, with some estimates as high as 18% over in the Elm Coulee Field in Montana, you can multiply the recoverable oil by a factor ranging from 6 to 33, and get an estimate of oil in place.
Which is the 'other number' which seems to be causing this writer to get their knickers in a knot.
Estimates vary, but a better discussion of the process and the questions raised is to be found at the NDGS website which explains the development of the controversy in relatively simple terms.
Thanks.
I thought the debate was about getting away from our dependence on imported crude. I don’t care where it is produced, if we bring on line a huge amount of crude, the members of OPEC will just sell their over production to China and India, both of whom are just waiting to buy more crude. Our bringing on more crude, will not reduce the demand, China is trying to build up a strategic oil reserve of 1,000,000 barrels, so far they have not been able to get that much surplus crude, India is trying to buy more crude any place it becomes available. It is a population thing, in that these two countries have booming population increase and these people want the better things of life, ie autos. 20 years ago China had 10,000 private autos in their country now they have over 1,000,000 personal autos and they all run on gas. So no matter how much we produce domestically there will always be a shortage until we find an alternative energy source.
Ethanol may be good for the big corporate farms, but does little or nothing for the little guy.
Ethanol also takes more energy to produce, and is not as efficient as regular gasoline is due to its lower stoichiometric fuel ratio.
Ethanol also causes problems for cars that are not designed to use ethanol in that it damages the fuel system. Older cars would need a completely new fuel system that does not have bare magnesium, aluminum, or rubber parts in the system. Also for vehicles with fuel-tank mounted electric fuel pumps, additional differences to prevent arcing, as well as flame arrestors positioned in the tank’s fill pipe, are also needed since ethanol is more electrically conductive than gasoline. Fuel injection control systems must have a wider range of pulse widths to inject approximately 40% more fuel.
Now take E85 for example, when made from corn E85 reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 15-20% as compared to gasoline BUT this is negated because it burns 25% to 30% less efficiently than traditional gasoline in most vehicles.
It’s just like the push for electric cars. Yeah the cars are zero emission, but now the powerplant is increasing it’s emissions to produce more power to recharge the cars.
It also reduces carbon monoxide and benzine emissions BUT it releases emissions of acetaldehyde which is a toxic pollutant.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the car manufacturers who are pushing the most for the ethanol fuel additives, so when people face mounting repair bills for their older cars (fuel system damage), they’ll come crawling to the local stealership for a new one.
In other words, all this BS with electric cars, and ethanol, global warming, and “going green” is just a scam to screw the people over.
On the money
Housing was first market exploited by the Hedge funds, oil is currently being exploited, Water is probably next
Also, offshore California. There are some nice-sized fields just off of the coast but the Malibu-types don’t want their views disturbed.
A vertical well costs about $100 a foot to drill.
A vertical well costs about $100 a foot to drill.
What if it’s not a bubble? You do realize that investors must sell their contract or take delivery (which they don’t want to do)? You also realize that despite record high prices, inventory levels are way down and well below the historic norm? Probably no more than $20/barrel is speculation currently which means we’d still have $4/gal gas.
Actually, as far as inventory levels goes, they are higher because global production outpaces consumption.
And according to numerous articles I’ve read, upwards of $60 in the price is from speculation.
Source? My source is the DOE.
And according to numerous articles Ive read, upwards of $60 in the price is from speculation.
Really? Find me one.
When you consider the source “The latest study, which was commissioned by U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)”, I think the entire article is basicly bogus and meant to generate public condemnation of oil drilling.
Your points are on the mark and therefore you know how to research.
BUT it releases emissions of acetaldehyde which is a toxic pollutant.
Forgotten about that, thanks again.
Coincidences don't happen by accident as now the midwest has been flooded along with corn, soy, wheat and so on. Maybe this will end the ethanol scam.
Nonetheless ethanol is helping American farmers as am surrounded by acres of corn as far as I can see as I type.
More to the point, let's say that there's 4B there that's easily extractable, and 200B there that needs new technology to efficiently extract. The 4B justifies laying down the pipelines and infrastructure.
Once the infrastructure is there and the easy oil has been gotten, that justifies the incremental expense to develop the technology to go after the slightly-more-difficult nearby fields, and so on.
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.