WE FOUND OIL!! - Middle east.... kiss our @$$ - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - WE FOUND OIL!! - Middle east.... kiss our @$$ (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:01:07 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Sorry everyone. The oil shale, like somebody else has already said, has been known about for a very long time. Bush is too big a pussy to stop sucking Saudi Arabia's cock.

jq.....how about the environment (ala ANWAR). I believe Clinton and the left in general, blow the crown princes cock just as hard...no?

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:02:49 PM EDT

[#2]

Once the technology advances to where it's cheap to go after, we'll be drilling there. In the '80s, deepwater drilling was expensive. When the oilfield shut down in '85-'86, the shallow water jackups were mostly still drilling while the semi's were stacked. When things dropped again in '98, the jackups were out of work and the floaters were going good. It had to do with technology and costs. When you do something for the first time, it costs more. Deepwater used to be expensive. Now we're going deeper every day and floaters and DP rigs are in high demand. Hell, my company is upgrading one floater for a 10,000' water depth and building 2 new jackups.

Once they figure a way to do it fairly cheap, expect to see a lot of derricks in CO.

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:04:22 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry everyone. The oil shale, like somebody else has already said, has been known about for a very long time. Bush is too big a pussy to stop sucking Saudi Arabia's cock.

jq.....how about the environment (ala ANWAR). I believe Clinton and the left in general, blow the crown princes cock just as hard...no?

Sure he did. Both political parties are little limp dicks when it comes to energy, although the left has looked more seriously at alternative fuels while at the same time acting ailly with their fear of nuke plants. ANWR's oil reserves are purely speculative and might end up being more trouble than it's worth, but I wouldn't care either way if they drilled it or not.

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:11:15 PM EDT

[#4]

This is old news. We have known for quite some time about this. It was the cost of extracting it that stopped us. I think this may be a small part of the reason that Bush is letting oil prices get out of hand: So we eventually depend upon ourselves for oil. Because we can't attack a country that sells us our oil (Saudi Arabia is on the "Evil" list, by the way).

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:12:14 PM EDT

[#5]

It's been general knowledge for a long time that there is huge amounts of oil in various parts of the world in difficult to extract forms. We've been trying to tell the Peak Oil whackoes this for years. Let me go through it real quick again:

There is no magic point at which we will run out of oil. There is enormous amounts of oil all over the world, only some deposits are harder to get to then others. We've been producing from all of the "easy" resevoirs so far. What will happen is that oil prices will gradually rise (due to the continuous increases in demand, and the increasing cost of production), and we will have the financial incentive and technology to produce the harder to get resevoirs. The slow rise in the price of oil will create increasing incentive to research and implement other sources of energy. At some point, some other energy source will become more economical then oil, and oil use will dwindle to almost nothing. Then, we'll do the whole thing all over again.

And BTW, the Saudis do have a substantial amount of oil, but it isn't all the oil in the world, and they don't have any special control over the market. Then can either produce more, or they can produce less. Producing more will tend to drop the market price slightly, and producing less will tend to raise it slightly. Their ability to do this decreases as other countries supply more oil, and as we stabilize the other oil-producing countries in the middle east.

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:15:20 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not pools of oil. It's in another form that must be heated before it can be extracted from rock. Prior to now, the cost of such work was simply too great. But now it might be just as cheap or cheaper to extract since prices of regular oil are through the roof.

Once we start extracting the oil, it's fairly likely that the cost to do so will go down as technologies are refined and new techniques and technology are applied to the task.

By the way, I notice they don't include the oil sand deposits in Kansas. I think there are about 500 billion barrels of oil available in Kansas deposits alone. Roughly the same trouble as shale to get it out of the ground.

Jim

They is extensive drilling going on in western kansas right now. I know one man who said his company alone was drilling 290 wells in one county alone. They are also getting some very good wells. One was hit about a month ago which is producing so much oil they had to bring in a special pump to handle the volumn.

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:15:32 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
It's been general knowledge for a long time that there is huge amounts of oil in various parts of the world in difficult to extract forms. We've been trying to tell the Peak Oil whackoes this for years. Let me go through it real quick again:

There is no magic point at which we will run out of oil. There is enormous amounts of oil all over the world, only some deposits are harder to get to then others. We've been producing from all of the "easy" resevoirs so far. What will happen is that oil prices will gradually rise (due to the continuous increases in demand, and the increasing cost of production), and we will have the financial incentive and technology to produce the harder to get resevoirs. The slow rise in the price of oil will create increasing incentive to research and implement other sources of energy. At some point, some other energy source will become more economical then oil, and oil use will dwindle to almost nothing. Then, we'll do the whole thing all over again.

And BTW, the Saudis do have a substantial amount of oil, but it isn't all the oil in the world, and they don't have any special control over the market. Then can either produce more, or they can produce less. Producing more will tend to drop the market price slightly, and producing less will tend to raise it slightly. Their ability to do this decreases as other countries supply more oil, and as we stabilize the other oil-producing countries in the middle east.

After seeing what gas prices are at $70 a barrel $50 a barrel sounds damn good. Now if the GOP would grow some balls and start repealing stupid ass control legislation.

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:15:39 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

CANADA 1,705 1,722 1,606 1,724 1,622
MEXICO 1,616 1,748 1,568 1,668 1,597

If Mexico is selling that much oil to us, how can they possibly remain such a complete shithole?

Jim

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:17:55 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Saudi Prince: America will always need us for oil. We have it, and you do not. You are beholden to us for that. (basically being a dick)
Boss: Are you aware that 12 years after a nuclear strike oil in the immediate area would be safe to use again?
Saudi: (shocked voice) And how would you know that?
Boss: We studied it. Think about that.
Saudi: walks away shocked.

I like your dad's boss!

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:18:40 PM EDT

[#10]

Those deposits have been known about for 50 years.

To extract the oil from them, you have to spend a LOT of money and a LOT of energy.

When we were pulling oil out of the ground in the 1930s, we were getting 100 barrels for each single barrel we used to get the oil.

The tar sands in Alberta and Venezuela and the shale in CO yield around 3 barrels of oil for each single barrel we use to get the oil. Furthermore, you use shitloads of fresh water in the tar sands to get steam to heat the sand and extract the oil. My understanding is that the Canucks will need to build 1 to 3 nuclear reactors in Alberta. That's multi-billion dollar investments to get the oil.

Gas ain't gonna be $1.50 a gallon when this oil comes onstream. $3 - $6 gas and the "crazy profits the oil companies are making raping us" are what will pay for the infrastructure to bring these oil sources onstream. For the communist set that thinks that profits are evil, they are the things that fund new exploration and development.

To really rain on the parade, here are some numbers. According to the Energy Information Agency (www.eia.doe.gov):
As of 31 December, Global Proven Producing Crude Oil Reserves were 1 trillion barrels.
Now, figure the world goes through 85m bbl/day of oil. That's 31.025 billion barrels in a year.

We have 32.2 years of crude oil left. One big caveat. The Saudis' reserve numbers are shit. They don't allow audits of field by field production of their wells and reserves, and just supply the number with zero transparency. When Aramco was US owned in the early 70s, they reported around 120 billion bbl in reserves. When the Saudis took it over in the late 70's, their reserves magically shot up to 260 billion bbl. That's the same number they report today.

If we bring the Alberta tar sands, which may have 160 billion bbl, and the Colorado / Wyoming shale deposits into the mix with 500 billion bbl, then world reserves would be 1.66 trillion, that gives us 53.5 years of oil left.

In any case, we need to get our shit together and figure out what we're gonna use to drive, fly, make fertilizer, pesticides and plastics with pretty goddamn soon.

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:18:45 PM EDT

[#11]

$50 per barrel works out to a hair over $2 per gallon. A lot better than $3 at $70

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:19:12 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Probably shale oil. Besides the enviros will stop the drilling anyway because of pristine area, wilderness areas, etc.

Wouldn't bother me if they use eminent domain to put a few oil derricks on Robert Redford's ranch.

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:21:08 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Saudi Arabia already has us by the balls with oil.

I doubt our pres, or any future pres will have the cojones to tell Saudi Arabia to F**k off.

We only get 19% of our oil from Saudi Arabia.

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:21:16 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
If Mexico is selling that much oil to us, how can they possibly remain such a complete shithole?

Same reason as in LA, 'gubment corruption.

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:23:01 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:

CANADA 1,705 1,722 1,606 1,724 1,622
MEXICO 1,616 1,748 1,568 1,668 1,597

If Mexico is selling that much oil to us, how can they possibly remain such a complete shithole?

Jim

2 guesses corrupt leadership and Socialism. Think U.S. in early and mid 80's but worse. Rich get richer everyone else can move abroad to a better life.

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:24:22 PM EDT

[#16]

From The Rocky Mountain News:

SHELL'S INGENIOUS APPROACH TO OIL SHALE IS PRETTY SLICK

Date: Saturday, September 3, 2005

Section: Commentary/Editorial

Page: 25B

Source: By Linda Seebach, Rocky Mountain News

Memo: Linda Seebach is an editorial writer for the News. She can be reached by telephone at (303) 892-2519 or by e-mail at [email protected].
COLUMN

Edition: Final

When oil prices last touched record highs - actually, after adjusting for inflation we're not there yet, but given the effects of Hurricane Katrina, we probably will be soon - politicians' response was more hype than hope. Oil shale in Colorado! Tar sands in Alberta! OPEC be damned!

Remember the Carter-era Synfuels Corp. debacle? It was a response to the '70s energy shortages, closed down in 1985 after accomplishing essentially nothing at great expense, which is pretty much a description of what usually happens when the government tries to take over something that the private sector can do better. Private actors are, after all, spending their own money.

Since 1981, Shell researchers at the company's division of "unconventional resources" have been spending their own money trying to figure out how to get usable energy out of oil shale. Judging by the presentation the Rocky Mountain News heard this week, they think they've got it.

Shell's method, which it calls "in situ conversion," is simplicity itself in concept but exquisitely ingenious in execution. Terry O'Connor, a vice president for external and regulatory affairs at Shell Exploration and Production, explained how it's done (and they have done it, in several test projects):

Drill shafts into the oil-bearing rock. Drop heaters down the shaft. Cook the rock until the hydrocarbons boil off, the lightest and most desirable first. Collect them.

Please note, you don't have to go looking for oil fields when you're brewing your own.

On one small test plot about 20 feet by 35 feet, on land Shell owns, they started heating the rock in early 2004. "Product" - about one-third natural gas, two-thirds light crude - began to appear in September 2004. They turned the heaters off about a month ago, after harvesting about 1,500 barrels of oil.

While we were trying to do the math, O'Connor told us the answers. Upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, covers more than a thousand square miles - the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world.

Wow.

They don't need subsidies; the process should be commercially feasible with world oil prices at $30 a barrel. The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used in production. The process recovers about 10 times as much oil as mining the rock and crushing and cooking it at the surface, and it's a more desirable grade. Reclamation is easier because the only thing that comes to the surface is the oil you want.

And we've hardly gotten to the really ingenious part yet. While the rock is cooking, at about 650 or 750 degrees Fahrenheit, how do you keep the hydrocarbons from contaminating ground water? Why, you build an ice wall around the whole thing. As O'Connor said, it's counterintuitive.

But ice is impermeable to water. So around the perimeter of the productive site, you drill lots more shafts, only 8 to 12 feet apart, put in piping, and pump refrigerants through it. The water in the ground around the shafts freezes, and eventually forms a 20- to 30-foot ice barrier around the site.

Next you take the water out of the ground inside the ice wall, turn up the heat, and then sit back and harvest the oil until it stops coming in useful quantities. When production drops, it falls off rather quickly.

That's an advantage over ordinary wells, which very gradually get less productive as they age.

Then you pump the water back in. (Well, not necessarily the same water, which has moved on to other uses.) It's hot down there so the water flashes into steam, picking up loose chemicals in the process. Collect the steam, strip the gunk out of it, repeat until the water comes out clean. Then you can turn off the heaters and the chillers and move on to the next plot (even saving one or two of the sides of the ice wall, if you want to be thrifty about it).

Most of the best territory for this astonishing process is on land under the control of the Bureau of Land Management. Shell has applied for a research and development lease on 160 acres of BLM land, which could be approved by February. That project would be on a large enough scale so design of a commercial facility could begin.

The 2005 energy bill altered some provisions of the 1920 Minerals Leasing Act that were a deterrent to large-scale development, and also laid out a 30-month timetable for establishing federal regulations governing commercial leasing.

Shell has been deliberately low-key about their R&D, wanting to avoid the hype, and the disappointment, that surrounded the last oil-shale boom. But O'Connor said the results have been sufficiently encouraging they are gradually getting more open. Starting next week, they will be holding public hearings in northwest Colorado.

I'll say it again. Wow.

Wow indeed.

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:31:07 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
From The Rocky Mountain News:
SHELL'S INGENIOUS APPROACH TO OIL SHALE IS PRETTY SLICK

Date: Saturday, September 3, 2005

Section: Commentary/Editorial

Page: 25B

Source: By Linda Seebach, Rocky Mountain News

Memo: Linda Seebach is an editorial writer for the News. She can be reached by telephone at (303) 892-2519 or by e-mail at [email protected].
COLUMN

Edition: Final

When oil prices last touched record highs - actually, after adjusting for inflation we're not there yet, but given the effects of Hurricane Katrina, we probably will be soon - politicians' response was more hype than hope. Oil shale in Colorado! Tar sands in Alberta! OPEC be damned!

Remember the Carter-era Synfuels Corp. debacle? It was a response to the '70s energy shortages, closed down in 1985 after accomplishing essentially nothing at great expense, which is pretty much a description of what usually happens when the government tries to take over something that the private sector can do better. Private actors are, after all, spending their own money.

Since 1981, Shell researchers at the company's division of "unconventional resources" have been spending their own money trying to figure out how to get usable energy out of oil shale. Judging by the presentation the Rocky Mountain News heard this week, they think they've got it.

Shell's method, which it calls "in situ conversion," is simplicity itself in concept but exquisitely ingenious in execution. Terry O'Connor, a vice president for external and regulatory affairs at Shell Exploration and Production, explained how it's done (and they have done it, in several test projects):

Drill shafts into the oil-bearing rock. Drop heaters down the shaft. Cook the rock until the hydrocarbons boil off, the lightest and most desirable first. Collect them.

Please note, you don't have to go looking for oil fields when you're brewing your own.

On one small test plot about 20 feet by 35 feet, on land Shell owns, they started heating the rock in early 2004. "Product" - about one-third natural gas, two-thirds light crude - began to appear in September 2004. They turned the heaters off about a month ago, after harvesting about 1,500 barrels of oil.

While we were trying to do the math, O'Connor told us the answers. Upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, covers more than a thousand square miles - the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world.

Wow.

They don't need subsidies; the process should be commercially feasible with world oil prices at $30 a barrel. The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used in production. The process recovers about 10 times as much oil as mining the rock and crushing and cooking it at the surface, and it's a more desirable grade. Reclamation is easier because the only thing that comes to the surface is the oil you want.

And we've hardly gotten to the really ingenious part yet. While the rock is cooking, at about 650 or 750 degrees Fahrenheit, how do you keep the hydrocarbons from contaminating ground water? Why, you build an ice wall around the whole thing. As O'Connor said, it's counterintuitive.

But ice is impermeable to water. So around the perimeter of the productive site, you drill lots more shafts, only 8 to 12 feet apart, put in piping, and pump refrigerants through it. The water in the ground around the shafts freezes, and eventually forms a 20- to 30-foot ice barrier around the site.

Next you take the water out of the ground inside the ice wall, turn up the heat, and then sit back and harvest the oil until it stops coming in useful quantities. When production drops, it falls off rather quickly.

That's an advantage over ordinary wells, which very gradually get less productive as they age.

Then you pump the water back in. (Well, not necessarily the same water, which has moved on to other uses.) It's hot down there so the water flashes into steam, picking up loose chemicals in the process. Collect the steam, strip the gunk out of it, repeat until the water comes out clean. Then you can turn off the heaters and the chillers and move on to the next plot (even saving one or two of the sides of the ice wall, if you want to be thrifty about it).

Most of the best territory for this astonishing process is on land under the control of the Bureau of Land Management. Shell has applied for a research and development lease on 160 acres of BLM land, which could be approved by February. That project would be on a large enough scale so design of a commercial facility could begin.

The 2005 energy bill altered some provisions of the 1920 Minerals Leasing Act that were a deterrent to large-scale development, and also laid out a 30-month timetable for establishing federal regulations governing commercial leasing.

Shell has been deliberately low-key about their R&D, wanting to avoid the hype, and the disappointment, that surrounded the last oil-shale boom. But O'Connor said the results have been sufficiently encouraging they are gradually getting more open. Starting next week, they will be holding public hearings in northwest Colorado.

I'll say it again. Wow.
Wow indeed.

Thats amazing... I hope that we can do it.

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:33:07 PM EDT

[#18]

Practical fuel cell technology will make all this business about oil mute.

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:38:52 PM EDT

[#19]

tag

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:40:51 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Saudi Arabia already has us by the balls with oil.

I doubt our pres, or any future pres will have the cojones to tell Saudi Arabia to F**k off.

Pretty much.

Even if we decided to process coal into oil or grab the shale. Whatever price we can do it for, the Saudis (TErrorists) will just lower the prices to make sure we keep buying from them and any investment we spend to get our own would be wasted in the eyes of the FedGov.

We will ALWAYS be under the mercy of the Terrorist oil nations. Bet on it.

Are you under the impression that barrels of oil are marked with UPC codes with a set price on the way out of the M.E.?

No but they do influence the price in a pretty signifigant way. More influence than a terrorist should have anyway.

Posted: 9/3/2005 12:43:30 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Practical fuel cell technology will make all this business about oil mute.

As long as you can figure out where to get the hydrogen and oxygen to run through the fuel cell, sure.

Jim

p.s.--It wouldn't make it quiet or unable to talk(mute), it would make it moot.

Posted: 9/3/2005 1:03:32 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
I heard on Fox News radio today that an oil exploration company has found oil in Colorado and surrounding states.

It is going LARGELY unmentioned because of the Crisis in NO, but you aren't going to believe how much they found!!!!!

The guy said they found more oil than exists in the entire middle east region!!!!

Low end would be 500,000 billion recoverable barrels, and high end would be 1.2 trillion recoverable barrels!!!

If anyone can find a news story on this, it would be great. Like I said, I heard it on Fox News radio 570 KLIF dallas Ft. Worth radio.

Wrong state and its NOT shale oil or tar sands:

Major Oil Discovery In Central Utah
LAST UPDATE: 5/4/2005 7:56:30 PM

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Geologists are calling it a spectacular find in an unlikely place. A tiny oil company says there could be as much as one billion barrels of oil in central Utah.

Wolverine Gas and Oil has snapped up leasing rights to a half-million acres in a part of the state that major oil companies gave up on long ago. Geologists are calling it the largest onshore discovery in at least 30 years.

The area contains high-quality oil that is already commanding a premium at refineries. But some industry analysts have their doubts. Oppenheimer senior oil analyst Fadel Gheit calls the expectation of one billion barrels "highly unlikely."

Industry players expect the find will prompt a bidding war at the next Utah leasing auction in two weeks.

Posted: 9/3/2005 1:04:54 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I heard on Fox News radio today that an oil exploration company has found oil in Colorado and surrounding states.

It is going LARGELY unmentioned because of the Crisis in NO, but you aren't going to believe how much they found!!!!!

The guy said they found more oil than exists in the entire middle east region!!!!

Low end would be 500,000 billion recoverable barrels, and high end would be 1.2 trillion recoverable barrels!!!

If anyone can find a news story on this, it would be great. Like I said, I heard it on Fox News radio 570 KLIF dallas Ft. Worth radio.

Wrong state and its NOT shale oil or tar sands:

Major Oil Discovery In Central Utah
LAST UPDATE: 5/4/2005 7:56:30 PM

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Geologists are calling it a spectacular find in an unlikely place. A tiny oil company says there could be as much as one billion barrels of oil in central Utah.

Wolverine Gas and Oil has snapped up leasing rights to a half-million acres in a part of the state that major oil companies gave up on long ago. Geologists are calling it the largest onshore discovery in at least 30 years.

The area contains high-quality oil that is already commanding a premium at refineries. But some industry analysts have their doubts. Oppenheimer senior oil analyst Fadel Gheit calls the expectation of one billion barrels "highly unlikely."

Industry players expect the find will prompt a bidding war at the next Utah leasing auction in two weeks.

www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=12595

Posted: 9/3/2005 1:25:52 PM EDT

[#24]

Theve know about the oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoning since at least the past 30-years, just can't economically extract it

Posted: 9/3/2005 1:30:03 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Theve know about the oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoning since at least the past 30-years, just can't economically extract it

Read my post about eight posts up. It took them twenty-five years, but it appears they've figured out how to do it, and make a profit, at prices as low as $30/barrel. At $70/barrel they'll be chomping at the bit to get going.

Posted: 9/3/2005 1:36:07 PM EDT

[#26]

... Oh yeah, you didn't know?

... Utah, Colorado and parts of Wyoming were HUGE dinosaur hang-outs in their day!

Posted: 9/3/2005 1:36:36 PM EDT

[#27]

Great news. We'll have our own oil and the Chinese can fuck with the ME. Can't get much better than that can it?....huh?....c'mon......?

Posted: 9/3/2005 1:42:06 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I heard on Fox News radio today that an oil exploration company has found oil in Colorado and surrounding states.

It is going LARGELY unmentioned because of the Crisis in NO, but you aren't going to believe how much they found!!!!!

The guy said they found more oil than exists in the entire middle east region!!!!

Low end would be 500,000 billion recoverable barrels, and high end would be 1.2 trillion recoverable barrels!!!

If anyone can find a news story on this, it would be great. Like I said, I heard it on Fox News radio 570 KLIF dallas Ft. Worth radio.

Wrong state and its NOT shale oil or tar sands:

Major Oil Discovery In Central Utah
LAST UPDATE: 5/4/2005 7:56:30 PM

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Geologists are calling it a spectacular find in an unlikely place. A tiny oil company says there could be as much as one billion barrels of oil in central Utah.

Wolverine Gas and Oil has snapped up leasing rights to a half-million acres in a part of the state that major oil companies gave up on long ago. Geologists are calling it the largest onshore discovery in at least 30 years.

The area contains high-quality oil that is already commanding a premium at refineries. But some industry analysts have their doubts. Oppenheimer senior oil analyst Fadel Gheit calls the expectation of one billion barrels "highly unlikely."

Industry players expect the find will prompt a bidding war at the next Utah leasing auction in two weeks.

www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=12595

Thats old, old, old news. We have known about oil shale for a long, long time. In fact there is much more oil in tar sands in Canada. The oil found in Utah is authentic new news.

Posted: 9/3/2005 1:52:03 PM EDT

[#29]

500 billion barrels.
At 9 million a day, that's about 150 years worth of oil.
Hopefully we'll put more effort into alternatives (hopefully replacing gasoline in our vehicles with electricity from nuclear sources, much less figuring out a way to power our air and space industries with other forms of energy), so that the petrol will last us much longer than that, and even longer for non-fuel purposes (basically everything that we can't synthesize until we can).

Posted: 9/3/2005 2:00:20 PM EDT

[#30]

Ahhhh right only 1 person from Colorado chimed in,and I just found this thread.
Yes there is drilling,extration going on here.Yes there is opposition,nobody wants a drilling rig in their backyard.Mineral rights are NOT included in the purchase of property,neither are water rights.
At least not here in Colorado.Most drilling is for natural gas but also new experimentation on oil shale .
Supposedly they tried nuking it out in late early 50's -60's,,guess what it came out radioactive and unsable

They both need to be bought seperatly.Save the Roan Plateu Colation is fighting a losing battle ,thanks to the BLMs opening for exploration.Now on top of all this Chinesse rigs are inbound with crews.
So not only are people upset about the drilling now we gotta rely on foreign help.
Estimated plans are now for another 120-180 more rigs/wells

Company's involved
Encana,Williams,Haliburton and others

http://www.garfield-county.com/home/index.asp?page=594

Posted: 9/3/2005 2:52:09 PM EDT

[#31]

Im very sorry residents of Colorado. But majority rules in this situation.

Oil is really the only reason we arent going after the real terrorrists in the ME. And oil is the only reason they have money.

Posted: 9/3/2005 3:33:06 PM EDT

[#32]

What the hell do you mean, you don't get mineral/water rights with land in Colorado? That's insane!

What, does the deed say you own the soil down to a depth of 3 feet, not including precious metals and gems?

Jim

Posted: 9/3/2005 3:36:15 PM EDT

[#33]

Must be using some of that thar alien teknologee....

Posted: 9/3/2005 3:40:04 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Saudi Arabia already has us by the balls with oil.

I doubt our pres, or any future pres will have the cojones to tell Saudi Arabia to F**k off.

Pretty much.

Even if we decided to process coal into oil or grab the shale. Whatever price we can do it for, the Saudis (TErrorists) will just lower the prices to make sure we keep buying from them and any investment we spend to get our own would be wasted in the eyes of the FedGov.

We will ALWAYS be under the mercy of the Terrorist oil nations. Bet on it.

Are you under the impression that barrels of oil are marked with UPC codes with a set price on the way out of the M.E.?

No but they do influence the price in a pretty signifigant way. More influence than a terrorist should have anyway.

Thier influence is to reduce supply. They can temporarily hurt us, but all it it does in the long run is drive us faster to domestic sources to replace them and thus cuts their throats. They don't have the additional capacity to dump enough crude on the market to drive prices below $50 a barrel. Unless they are hiding some huge reserves and keeping them offline that we don't know about.

Think about it. Choking supply is counter-productive now. People are already making changes at todays prices of 3 and 4 dollars a gallon. It is causing people to conserve and switch to other means of transport. That means your product would then be priced above maximum profit as you are now facing declining sales due to cost. The only way to affect the price of oil is to adjust supply and all SA can do to adjust is produce less. They don't have nearly the power you think they do.

Posted: 9/3/2005 3:40:45 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
The oil is currently only viable at the high barrel prices. The middle east will lower the price per barrel to stop extraction before kissing their money train goodbye. There is only one solution and it is alternative fuels.

My thoughs exactly. And I drive a Jeep too. Coincidence?

Cept the alternative fuel part. To me, alternative fuel is Diesel.

Posted: 9/3/2005 3:44:48 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Just found it or saving the discovery for a more strategic time?

Exactly right.

It's a damn shame that info like this can't be released until a crisis emerges because the god-damned environmental wackos wouldn't allow it to be explored during a normal time.

Now, I think there is enough public outcry about the price of gas to sail anything regarding oil exploration.

Posted: 9/3/2005 3:47:01 PM EDT

[#37]

Uhm how bout this, And it's cheaper and would create jobs.

May get flamed.
Drill Alaska.

Posted: 9/3/2005 3:48:29 PM EDT

[#38]

Barrels will be around $30 in the near future. Forbes told me.

Posted: 9/3/2005 3:53:47 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Barrels will be around $30 in the near future. Forbes told me.

And gas would still be $2.50 a gallon.

Posted: 9/3/2005 3:57:01 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
What the hell do you mean, you don't get mineral/water rights with land in Colorado? That's insane!

What, does the deed say you own the soil down to a depth of 3 feet, not including precious metals and gems?

Jim

Mineral estate is often separated from the surface estate in the Western US. I did a fair amount of mineral property work, lemme know if you have any questions.

SRM

Posted: 9/3/2005 4:02:27 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Ahhhh right only 1 person from Colorado chimed in,and I just found this thread.
Yes there is drilling,extration going on here.Yes there is opposition,nobody wants a drilling rig in their backyard.Mineral rights are NOT included in the purchase of property,neither are water rights.
At least not here in Colorado.Most drilling is for natural gas but also new experimentation on oil shale .
Supposedly they tried nuking it out in late early 50's -60's,,guess what it came out radioactive and unsable
They both need to be bought seperatly.Save the Roan Plateu Colation is fighting a losing battle ,thanks to the BLMs opening for exploration.Now on top of all this Chinesse rigs are inbound with crews.
So not only are people upset about the drilling now we gotta rely on foreign help.
Estimated plans are now for another 120-180 more rigs/wells

Company's involved
Encana,Williams,Haliburton and others

http://www.garfield-county.com/home/index.asp?page=594

Yes, there is significant activity on the western slope right now. The Wolverine oil discovery is still being evaluated, no one wants another Busang. The NIMBY's will lose this fight and Colorado will still survive.

They did not nuc the oil shale. It is still there and awaiting better extractive technology.

SRM

Posted: 9/3/2005 4:06:45 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Practical fuel cell technology will make all this business about oil mute.

MOOT, not Mute.

Posted: 9/3/2005 4:07:06 PM EDT

[#43]

How about we find an alternative source so we dont have to deal with the middle east. Without oil money pouring in it they will become no existant and lessen the threat of terrorism

Posted: 9/3/2005 4:09:11 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Barrels will be around $30 in the near future. Forbes told me.

And gas would still be $2.50 a gallon.

VGs is right we need to expand our refineries and deregulate state-by-state regs on gas blends, their are over 40+ blends if we could consolidate down to sat 10 not including ethanol/biodeisel it will make it far cheaper. Also whether we use it great numbers or not we should tap our sources now so in a decade or two when needed it is available. Short of some massive cheap new fuel source other than oil based gas that is viable in current and past combustion engines we will need oil for a long time.

The GOP needs to grow balls and deregulate EPA, Fed and State Gov. laws, and expand our capacity. It would only be a good thing if we export nore oil than we import.

Posted: 9/3/2005 4:12:07 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Practical fuel cell technology will make all this business about oil mute.

MOOT, not Mute.

You can have your acid bath should you get in a bad accident. Problems and not viable shortterm. Even hybrids will only help short-term and we will quickly be where we are now unless we deregulate.

Posted: 9/3/2005 4:12:27 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:

CANADA 1,705 1,722 1,606 1,724 1,622
MEXICO 1,616 1,748 1,568 1,668 1,597

If Mexico is selling that much oil to us, how can they possibly remain such a complete shithole?

Jim

corruption up the wazzu all the profits get funneled into other things and off shore accounts.

Posted: 9/3/2005 4:13:01 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Those deposits have been known about for 50 years.

To extract the oil from them, you have to spend a LOT of money and a LOT of energy.

When we were pulling oil out of the ground in the 1930s, we were getting 100 barrels for each single barrel we used to get the oil.

The tar sands in Alberta and Venezuela and the shale in CO yield around 3 barrels of oil for each single barrel we use to get the oil. Furthermore, you use shitloads of fresh water in the tar sands to get steam to heat the sand and extract the oil. My understanding is that the Canucks will need to build 1 to 3 nuclear reactors in Alberta. That's multi-billion dollar investments to get the oil.

Gas ain't gonna be $1.50 a gallon when this oil comes onstream. $3 - $6 gas and the "crazy profits the oil companies are making raping us" are what will pay for the infrastructure to bring these oil sources onstream. For the communist set that thinks that profits are evil, they are the things that fund new exploration and development.

To really rain on the parade, here are some numbers. According to the Energy Information Agency (www.eia.doe.gov):
As of 31 December, Global Proven Producing Crude Oil Reserves were 1 trillion barrels.
Now, figure the world goes through 85m bbl/day of oil. That's 31.025 billion barrels in a year.

We have 32.2 years of crude oil left. One big caveat. The Saudis' reserve numbers are shit. They don't allow audits of field by field production of their wells and reserves, and just supply the number with zero transparency. When Aramco was US owned in the early 70s, they reported around 120 billion bbl in reserves. When the Saudis took it over in the late 70's, their reserves magically shot up to 260 billion bbl. That's the same number they report today.

If we bring the Alberta tar sands, which may have 160 billion bbl, and the Colorado / Wyoming shale deposits into the mix with 500 billion bbl, then world reserves would be 1.66 trillion, that gives us 53.5 years of oil left.

In any case, we need to get our shit together and figure out what we're gonna use to drive, fly, make fertilizer, pesticides and plastics with pretty goddamn soon.

Hmmm.....those are different numbers than I have seen. What I have seen indicates the total petroleum reserve is some 2.5 to 3.5 trillion barrels. Approximately 1 to 1.5 trillion barrels on the CO/UT border, primarily in oil shale. To date, we humans have used about 500 billion barrels of petroleum.

It is out there. How much do you want to pay?

SRM

Posted: 9/3/2005 4:21:40 PM EDT

[#48]

ALASKA
for gods sake

Posted: 9/3/2005 4:34:54 PM EDT

[#49]

I say drill anywhere to get some prices down to less than $1.80

Posted: 9/3/2005 4:38:05 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Practical fuel cell technology will make all this business about oil mute.

MOOT, not Mute.

You can have your acid bath should you get in a bad accident. Problems and not viable shortterm. Even hybrids will only help short-term and we will quickly be where we are now unless we deregulate.

Fuel Cells dont use acid.

Modery hybrids and LithIon Batteries do not use a liquid acid like led-acid batteries. You are arguing against 21st century technology with a 30 year old strawman.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - WE FOUND OIL!! - Middle east.... kiss our @$$ (Page 2 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us