More fuel for thought

On Apr 14, 9:48 pm, wrote:
On Apr 14, 6:10 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:



wrote in message

...

On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" wrote:
I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
made.

Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate

By Dennis T. Avery
web posted April 14, 2008

Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.

The US Geological Survey begs to differ:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

They say 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels. At our current rate of consumption
-- about 20 million barrels per day -- that would last us about 6
months. Not sure where the 400 billion figure comes from.

USGS said that Northern Slope Alaska would be depleted by about the early
80's, too.

Back in the early 1900's, they aid we would run out of oil by 1920...then
1940...then 1960...then...

According to their press release, "USGS worked with the North Dakota
Geological Survey, a number of petroleum
industry companies..." to reach this assessment. It's difficult to
imagine that petroleum companies, of all people, would underestimate a
potential oil reserve by a factor of 100 to 1.

If I am not mistaken, current world consumption is about 85 million
barrels per day. The 4 billion barrels will last 50 days. I don't
understand the reason for celebration.

On Apr 14, 7:16 pm, Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On Apr 14, 9:48 pm, wrote:



On Apr 14, 6:10 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:

wrote in message

...

On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" wrote:
I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
made.

Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate

By Dennis T. Avery
web posted April 14, 2008

Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.

The US Geological Survey begs to differ:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

They say 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels. At our current rate of consumption
-- about 20 million barrels per day -- that would last us about 6
months. Not sure where the 400 billion figure comes from.

USGS said that Northern Slope Alaska would be depleted by about the early
80's, too.

Back in the early 1900's, they aid we would run out of oil by 1920...then
1940...then 1960...then...

According to their press release, "USGS worked with the North Dakota
Geological Survey, a number of petroleum
industry companies..." to reach this assessment. It's difficult to
imagine that petroleum companies, of all people, would underestimate a
potential oil reserve by a factor of 100 to 1.

If I am not mistaken, current world consumption is about 85 million
barrels per day. The 4 billion barrels will last 50 days. I don't
understand the reason for celebration.


When you're addicted to something, even a tiny amount is cause for
celebration.

wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 6:10 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:
wrote in message

USGS said that Northern Slope Alaska would be depleted by about the early
80's, too.

Back in the early 1900's, they aid we would run out of oil by 1920...then
1940...then 1960...then...


According to their press release, "USGS worked with the North Dakota
Geological Survey, a number of petroleum
industry companies..." to reach this assessment. It's difficult to
imagine that petroleum companies, of all people, would underestimate a
potential oil reserve by a factor of 100 to 1.

Ummm...maybe they don't want a price spike?

Recall they (USGS and the producers) said the same about the Alaska North
Slope back 30 some years ago.

They said the same about Oklahoma, the Continental Shelf....

But like the Energizer bunny, they keep going and going and going and
going...

"Private" wrote in message
...
I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary made.

Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate

By Dennis T. Avery
web posted April 14, 2008


And an announcement today from Brazil.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/...NIYFQAZQSAsnsA

"Private" wrote in message
...

"Private" wrote in message
...
I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
made.

Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate

By Dennis T. Avery
web posted April 14, 2008


And an announcement today from Brazil.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/...NIYFQAZQSAsnsA

That is potentially a very good find. But keep in mind that only about 35%
of an oil reservoir can be economically extracted. (Less hope future
advances are made). So if the world uses 85M barrel a day ....... So about
135 days of world's supply.

Private wrote:
I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary made.

Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate


Eh. I lived around there, had friends who went off to work in the North
Dakota oil fields a time or two. Every time petroleum goes through the
roof in price, someone reopens the oil shale fields, which require an
astronomical amount of work and expenditure to wring oil from the rock.

Then when the price goes down the projects are immediately dropped. It's
costly, messy and just barely worth the trouble even when the fuel's
literally black gold.

And this report is only an estimate, in location thoroughly probed for
many years...and even IT calls the invisible resources "technically
recoverable," basically admitting that it would take a good deal of
technical processing, some of it pretty speculative, to squeeze oil out
of those cold fields.

Don't take it from me: take it from the local folks.
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/414164

In article Stella Starr writes:

Eh. I lived around there, had friends who went off to work in the North
Dakota oil fields a time or two. Every time petroleum goes through the
roof in price, someone reopens the oil shale fields, which require an
astronomical amount of work and expenditure to wring oil from the rock.

Back when oil was getting close to $30/barrel, an article on cnn.com
commented that there was a huge amount of oil in oil shale, but it would
not be economical to extract unless oil got to $40/barrel. Well, at $100
per barrel, it seems that the oil companies are hoping for even more profit
when they finally decide to get it.

Alan

Alan wrote:
In article Stella Starr writes:

Eh. I lived around there, had friends who went off to work in the North
Dakota oil fields a time or two. Every time petroleum goes through the
roof in price, someone reopens the oil shale fields, which require an
astronomical amount of work and expenditure to wring oil from the rock.

Back when oil was getting close to $30/barrel, an article on cnn.com
commented that there was a huge amount of oil in oil shale, but it would
not be economical to extract unless oil got to $40/barrel. Well, at $100
per barrel, it seems that the oil companies are hoping for even more profit
when they finally decide to get it.

Two things have happened:

The cost of extraction from oil shale and tar sands (both of which have
enormous amounts of oil) has gone up along with everything else. Current
costs are estimated to be in the $80 to $100 per barrel range.

Since a long term, large capital investment is required to do this, the
oil companies waited to make sure the price was above, and going to stay
above, the level where recovery was economical.

Recovery from such sources is starting now, but in some places is being
hindered by the NIMBY's and CO2 fanatics.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Private wrote:
I just found this on another forum, facts not verified,

Why not?
Got time to forward something without caring if it's true or not?
Interesting view of responsibility.
I'm just sayin'.

"P" == Private writes:

P I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no
P commentary made. Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy
P climate debate

Then let's get some facts. The USGS just released a new assessment of
the Bakken.

"3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in
North Dakota and Montana's Bakken Formation--25 Times More Than 1995
Estimate"

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation.

Apparently the Bakken formation has been known for decades, but its
potential usable oil estimates not so well known.

As for changing the climate debate, that will happen only among
republicans, religionists, and rednecks. Science continues without
regard to politics of greed and convenience.
--
I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with
my legs.
~ Frederick Douglass, escaped slave