Thread: U.S. Oil Reserves - Disturbing on many levels

If true, the implications are not pleasant for a lot of reasons.



Here's an interesting read, important and verifiable information :

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and
one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to
ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil
does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more
than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only
scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a
revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in
this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota , western South Dakota , and
extreme eastern Montana ..... check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe
Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign
oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion
barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel,
we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5..3 trillion.

"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see
their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana
Legislature's financial analyst.

"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found
in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a
formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the
'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and
into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead
end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells
decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up
the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500
billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels
will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years
straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one
should - because it's from 2006!

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World

Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the
largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION
barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In
three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this
motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

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 .

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the
environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America
become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of
people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?

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.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think
again!
It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just
might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this:

Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you
should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices - by
doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.

--------

Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you
sent this to every one in your address book.

By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!

GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.

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

How wonderful. Let's promote cheap gas and get that global warming moving along even faster.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

How wonderful. Let's promote cheap gas and get that global warming moving along even faster.

That was my first thought. Then I thought why are we still dependent on somebody else's oil? Why did we have to go to war? If the government doesn't trust its own citizens with the truth, then how can its citizens trust the government?

Partly true.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp

This appears to be shale oil, production of which can be environmentally disastrous. The recoverable oil (far less than the total reservoir) isestimated to be equivalent to one year's oil imports. The environmental damage is permanent.

By the way Lance I didn't really want to burst your bubble, but it helps if you get your facts straight. Your quoted numbers I knew were wrong, but wanted to confirm the specifics before deflating them. Specifically "North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation."

That, you will notice, is three orders of magnitude less than what you claim. Three billion, not three trillion. Ah, do you want to claim my figures are wrong. Sorry. I'm just using the source you refer to: "A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil."

The quotes in the above paragraph are taken from the press release by the U.S. Geological Survey, so I trust you are comfortable with them.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

By the way Lance I didn't really want to burst your bubble, but it helps if you get your facts straight. Your quoted numbers I knew were wrong, but wanted to confirm the specifics before deflating them. Specifically "North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation."

That, you will notice, is three orders of magnitude less than what you claim. Three billion, not three trillion. Ah, do you want to claim my figures are wrong. Sorry. I'm just using the source you refer to: "A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil."

The quotes in the above paragraph are taken from the press release by the U.S. Geological Survey, so I trust you are comfortable with them.

The post was an email someone sent me. I presented it as is. The verbiage of the email seemed a bit inflammatory, but I did qualify with 'If true' and it did supply a link that seems to provide proof that our reserves are more than we have been lead to believe. I can say I don't like the feelings I had after reading that email and it is something that could possibly reach millions of people. Am I wrong in wanting to start a dialog on a forum where intelligent people discuss this topic?

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Partly true.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp

This appears to be shale oil, production of which can be environmentally disastrous. The recoverable oil (far less than the total reservoir) is estimated to be equivalent to one year's oil imports. The environmental damage is permanent.

Good link, I think you might be right. I personally believe the earths environment should be of the highest priority for those of us not to burdened just trying to stay alive.

No, the USA must continue to buy Canadian oil, because it's good for Canada and by association good for me.

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

The post was an email someone sent me. I presented it as is.

Despite your qualifying 'if' it was not at all apparent that those were not all your own words. Indeed, the way it was written, I never even considered for a moment this was not your writing. Perhaps in future you could delineate quotations much more clearly.

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

The verbiage of the email seemed a bit inflammatory, but I did qualify with 'If true' and it did supply a link that seems to provide proof that our reserves are more than we have been lead to believe.

Since the post seemed to be your own work and since that was a tiny 'if', the inflammatory aspect came to dominate.

You say the link seemed to provide proof. I didn't bother with the link, but googled to track down the USGS report and turned up the same link. Guess what: as I demonstrated in my previous post the link completely disproves the claim. The USGS is talking about 3 or 4 billion barrels of oil, while the email talks of 2 trillion barrels of oil.

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Am I wrong in wanting to start a dialog on a forum where intelligent people discuss this topic?

It is not for me to judge whether you are wrong or not, but I will say this:
1. You made a post in which the quoted text appeared to be your own.
2. Nowhere in this post did you give any clear indication that you were disturbed by the idea.
3. You completely misinterpreted the document that disproved the claims and instead enthusiastically declared "By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!"
4. You laid out no agenda for the discussion you wished to ensue.

I doubt you were wrong to want to start a dialog, but you tell me: do you think you may have gone about it in the wrong way?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

The post was an email someone sent me. I presented it as is.

Despite your qualifying 'if' it was not at all apparent that those were not all your own words. Indeed, the way it was written, I never even considered for a moment this was not your writing. Perhaps in future you could delineate quotations much more clearly.

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

The verbiage of the email seemed a bit inflammatory, but I did qualify with 'If true' and it did supply a link that seems to provide proof that our reserves are more than we have been lead to believe.

Since the post seemed to be your own work and since that was a tiny 'if', the inflammatory aspect came to dominate.

You say the link seemed to provide proof. I didn't bother with the link, but googled to track down the USGS report and turned up the same link. Guess what: as I demonstrated in my previous post the link completely disproves the claim. The USGS is talking about 3 or 4 billion barrels of oil, while the email talks of 2 trillion barrels of oil.

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Am I wrong in wanting to start a dialog on a forum where intelligent people discuss this topic?

It is not for me to judge whether you are wrong or not, but I will say this:
1. You made a post in which the quoted text appeared to be your own.
2. Nowhere in this post did you give any clear indication that you were disturbed by the idea.
3. You completely misinterpreted the document that disproved the claims and instead enthusiastically declared "By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!"
4. You laid out no agenda for the discussion you wished to ensue.

I doubt you were wrong to want to start a dialog, but you tell me: do you think you may have gone about it in the wrong way?

In the title of this post I said "Disturbing on many levels" and while it's true I could have structured the post a little better. Somehow it seemed obvious that it was one of those emails that we all get from time to time. As for laying out an agenda, Well I like free form, letting the responders take the subject in whatever direction they like. Even you Ophie. If you want follow me around as my personal critic that's okay.

From the time of the OPEC oil embargo in the early 70's, the US Government has been crying 'Independence', yet environmental groups were forming to do just the opposite. The 1979 Three Mile Island accident adding to the fuel and their acceptance. Until 1970, the US WAS self sufficient.

Estimated oil reserves from Shale, world wide are 2.8 to 3.3 Trillion Barrels (current worldwide conventional oil reserves 1.3 TB) of which in 2005 was 62% in the US or near 2TB, (Green River Formation), The Bakken Fields half trillion barrel estimates, may not have been in the 2005 Article, with estimates to both reserved and 'recoverable' having been recently increased. The US currently uses around 20MB/D for a host of reasons, about 9MB for gasoline.

Offered as informational only and if you want verifications ask.....

Lance, I received the same email, through a Business Investment site, and it was mixing several things together. Some of the above explains the mix-up, but the concerns you mentioned are valid, explainable and I hope this helps.

That was my first thought. Then I thought why are we still dependent on somebody else's oil? Why did we have to go to war? If the government doesn't trust its own citizens with the truth, then how can its citizens trust the government?

This could get complicated, but in short those concerned, are and have been very much aware of the situation. First 70% of the Green River Fields are on Government Land, and those on private property subject to local or State Laws, which environmentalist use daily in fighting any 'environmental impact study', 'permit to explore', or work a project. No person or business can afford the 100k$ to many millions to get that first gallon of oil. They have had success to ND on private land and why it is the ONLY State today not suffering from the recession. Also, we do import 'shale oil' from Canada, in both the above cases we have been doing for many years...

It is not for me to judge whether you are wrong or not, but I will say this:
1. You made a post in which the quoted text appeared to be your own.
2. Nowhere in this post did you give any clear indication that you were disturbed by the idea.
3. You completely misinterpreted the document that disproved the claims and instead enthusiastically declared "By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!"
4. You laid out no agenda for the discussion you wished to ensue.

Ophie: What in the world is going on here??? This seems so out of character for you. Are you trying to be a Psycho-annalist or something. We can't all be as good as you in offering a thread...though I don't recall one.

How wonderful. Let's promote cheap gas and get that global warming moving along even faster.

Your paying about 8US$ per gallon of gas, today for what Americans pay 2.50. I don't know the average mileage for per UK auto, but in the US it's over 20k miles/y per car. Just to make Americans pay your price would cost the average car owner (2-3 in many families) 5,000 to 15,000 US$ per year. We are in a recession, have lost confidence in government and have one in five now out of work or under employed. What we NEED is anything that would create jobs, reduce dependency of imports and re-instill confidence. The bridge to alternative fuels is being built, has been for years and will continue in accordance to the acceptance of each society, American, Indian, Chinese, Russians or the EU. It can't and won't happen totally for generations, punishing todays population (taxes), for what may very well be a total hoax, seems to me this is pure absurdity to rational thinking.[/list]

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Even you Ophie. If you want follow me around as my personal critic that's okay.

This implies that I have criticised you somewhere else, either on a separate thread, or even on another forum. I accept that I have probably done so. However, I am certainly not aware of it.

I respond to the contents of a post rather than the person who is making the post. It usually takes me a considerable time to recognise the work of particular poster.

I took your title 'Disturbing on Many Levels' to refer to the deafening silence that had greeted the alleged news of vast reserves and the claim that the only thing stopping the drilling was environmentalists. Your feet, it seems, were almost entirely in the opposite camp, a camp I generally find myself in.

So here's the deal. I found your post confusing as to its intent. I suspect others may also have found it so. Would you rather I keep quite and you can continue to confuse people, or would you like me to point out how your posts struck me?

You are free to criticise any aspect of any of my posts any time you wish. If you make a good argument I shall listen. If you don't I shall rebut what you have said, or just ignore you. Guess what! That's how it works on a discussion forum.

I took

Originally Posted by jackson33

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

It is not for me to judge whether you are wrong or not, but I will say this:
1. You made a post in which the quoted text appeared to be your own.
2. Nowhere in this post did you give any clear indication that you were disturbed by the idea.
3. You completely misinterpreted the document that disproved the claims and instead enthusiastically declared "By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!"
4. You laid out no agenda for the discussion you wished to ensue.

Ophie: What in the world is going on here??? This seems so out of character for you. Are you trying to be a Psycho-annalist or something. We can't all be as good as you in offering a thread...though I don't recall one.

No psychoanalysis, straightforward observation. I stand by each of the points above.

I don't think I make especially good posts, but I do try to be unambiguous, not always successfully. Lance was ambiguous and appears to resent being told so.

I don't especially like the implicit accusation of stalking. I don't deny I've been tempted to stalk one or two idiots(into which category I am not placing Lance), but the closest I ever came to that was joining the infamous Archie's forum at his invitation. (I think he booted me out before I had reached twenty posts.)

Regardless of some posting mistakes I may have made. I think this is a topic of concern for many. I want to do my part for the environment, but I see my government dragging it feet when it should be leading the world effort. I see us in a war that's costing us dearly and have to wonder, would we be there if oil was not involved.

In that email a comment was made suggesting OPEC was paying the environmentalist to make it more difficult for us to become energy independent. I really doubt that and I very much want to think that enough concerned people in the U.S. provide much of the funding that supports the environmentalist. I want to see our government take a proactive attitude in supporting our environment and I want this country to be energy independent. But then we are being distracted by a war that's sapping our resources and disrupting our economy. I distrust the governments reasons for being in the war. I lived through Vietnam and still consider that war not to have been in the interest of our country. I don't want to pay for us to police the whole world according to our rules, but at the same time I would not be opposed if the world wanted to pay us for those services.

Part of the problem in any discussion on oil is the terms being used.

What's the difference between 'resource' and 'reserve'? Are people using reserve when they should be using resource? What's the difference between a recoverable resource and recoverable reserve? What does recoverable mean, and how does it change through time? Are these resources unconventional or conventional? How does that effect recoverability?

From my limited exposure to oil exploration, until everyone is clear on those terms and questions, any discussion is guarenteed to be a gong show.

Originally Posted by tenderheart bear

Part of the problem in any discussion on oil is the terms being used.

What's the difference between 'resource' and 'reserve'? Are people using reserve when they should be using resource? What's the difference between a recoverable resource and recoverable reserve? What does recoverable mean, and how does it change through time? Are these resources unconventional or conventional? How does that effect recoverability?

From my limited exposure to oil exploration, until everyone is clear on those terms and questions, any discussion is guarenteed to be a gong show.

Excellent observation. these terms are not well understood even in the industry.

While it is likely that there is a massive amount of oil in place Western US and Canada as well, much of the oil is likely to be difficult and very expensive to recover in the short term. I won't speculate on the "total hydrocarbons in place" meaning pretty much what it says, the total mass of hydrocarbons ( crude oil, gas and gas condensates). "Resources" is a term not well defined but generally refers to total hydrocarbons both in place and already recovered. Since this group of deposits make recovery difficult for reasons already discussed, total HC is far, far, far greater that what anybody estimates is recoverable. To make things worse once the easy stuff is recovered the harder stuff gets much much harder or even impractical even as methods improve. It's almost like a one shot deal so timing is very important.

Reserves on the other hand refer to HC with book value. In order to book a reserve, you must be able to show that the HC volume is something that you can be reasonably expected to get out of the ground with technology you have on hand.

"Estimated reserves" are just that .... ballpark estimates.

"Unproved reserves" are reserves that you can infer is there and can reasonably be expected to recover.

"Proved reserves" are reserves that are well understood and accounted for by some form of direct measurement without making any significant further investment to delineate it. The wells and equipment are likely in place to recover it, but further modifications are required to produce it.

"Recoverable reserves" are fully developed with no additional equipment required.

A well may penetrate a producible zone but is cased over so you cannot produce from it without modifying the well. These reserves are proved but not recoverable. A well may be able to produce from a zone but the gas has excessive sulfur and your equipment can't process it ... Not recoverable.

I have many views around the wisdom of developing resources but that will have to wait.

Originally Posted by cypress

Originally Posted by tenderheart bear

Part of the problem in any discussion on oil is the terms being used.

What's the difference between 'resource' and 'reserve'? Are people using reserve when they should be using resource? What's the difference between a recoverable resource and recoverable reserve? What does recoverable mean, and how does it change through time? Are these resources unconventional or conventional? How does that effect recoverability?

From my limited exposure to oil exploration, until everyone is clear on those terms and questions, any discussion is guarenteed to be a gong show.

Excellent observation. these terms are not well understood even in the industry.

While it is likely that there is a massive amount of oil in place Western US and Canada as well, much of the oil is likely to be difficult and very expensive to recover in the short term. I won't speculate on the "total hydrocarbons in place" meaning pretty much what it says, the total mass of hydrocarbons ( crude oil, gas and gas condensates). "Resources" is a term not well defined but generally refers to total hydrocarbons both in place and already recovered. Since this group of deposits make recovery difficult for reasons already discussed, total HC is far, far, far greater that what anybody estimates is recoverable. To make things worse once the easy stuff is recovered the harder stuff gets much much harder or even impractical even as methods improve. It's almost like a one shot deal so timing is very important.

Reserves on the other hand refer to HC with book value. In order to book a reserve, you must be able to show that the HC volume is something that you can be reasonably expected to get out of the ground with technology you have on hand.

"Estimated reserves" are just that .... ballpark estimates.

"Unproved reserves" are reserves that you can infer is there and can reasonably be expected to recover.

"Proved reserves" are reserves that are well understood and accounted for by some form of direct measurement without making any significant further investment to delineate it. The wells and equipment are likely in place to recover it, but further modifications are required to produce it.

"Recoverable reserves" are fully developed with no additional equipment required.

A well may penetrate a producible zone but is cased over so you cannot produce from it without modifying the well. These reserves are proved but not recoverable. A well may be able to produce from a zone but the gas has excessive sulfur and your equipment can't process it ... Not recoverable.

I have many views around the wisdom of developing resources but that will have to wait.

Your comments are very well taken. What you said is probably very close to the real truth. However as a nation how would we react if our foreign supply were to be cut off? Do we go to war yet again and at the same time start tearing up our back yard to make ends meet? It is said 60% of our energy needs are tied to foreign oil. To me that's unacceptable and we are not doing enough, fast enough and I have a very bad feeling about it. First, we need to get weened off gasoline vehicles much faster than we are now. The government could make that happen, yet they continue to believe the slow pace we are moving is acceptable. Where's Homeland Security when you really need them?

I say we should be fighting for both energy independence and carbon footprint reduction at the same time with the same intensity we have when we go to war.

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Your comments are very well taken. What you said is probably very close to the real truth. However as a nation how would we react if our foreign supply were to be cut off? Do we go to war yet again and at the same time start tearing up our back yard to make ends meet?

In a free market society it's the cards we are dealt. The tar sands and oil shales are about twice as costly to develop and produce as foriegn oil is to purchase. Our focus shoul be on taking the savings from purchased oil and spending it on activities that ensure no foriegn country feels like they can afford the risk to attempt to cut us off. If you do a cost benefit analysis I'm sure that is the wiser move.

It is said 60% of our energy needs are tied to foreign oil.

It is the cards we are dealt. We used all the cheap stuff prior to the '90's.

To me that's unacceptable and we are not doing enough, fast enough and I have a very bad feeling about it.

It's not that clear to me.

First, we need to get weened off gasoline vehicles much faster than we are now. The government could make that happen, yet they continue to believe the slow pace we are moving is acceptable. Where's Homeland Security when you really need them?

There are other options.

I say we should be fighting for both energy independence and carbon footprint reduction at the same time with the same intensity we have when we go to war.

I think we should ensure that tyrants don't think they can get away with cuting off the energy supply. If they don't think thaey can succeed, they won't try. Eventually the inexpensive supply will be used up and we will have to innovate to find new sources of energy.

Originally Posted by cypress

I think we should ensure that tyrants don't think they can get away with cuting off the energy supply. .

It is their oil. They have a right to decide who to tell it to, when and at what price. Thinking you have an automatic right to it is the height of arrogance.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by cypress

I think we should ensure that tyrants don't think they can get away with cuting off the energy supply. .

It is their oil. They have a right to decide who to tell it to, when and at what price. Thinking you have an automatic right to it is the height of arrogance.

Cypress didn't claim an automatic right to it. That is something you have read into his comment.

I agree that they have the right to decide, but are you suggesting that any attempt to influence that decision is unethical?

His words "we should ensure that tyrants don't think they can get away with cuting(sic) off the energy supply."

The phrase 'get away with' carries a very strong implication of an inherent right to have access to the energy supply. If cypress intended a different meaning he should have phrased it more clearly. I can only respond to implicit or explicit meanings, not intended meanings. I do not have ESP.

Is influencing the decision unethical? It is completely ethical if it involves negotiation and debate and the presentation of economic and socially beneficial arguments. If it involves over military threats, or disproportionate economic retaliation, then it is not.

Originally Posted by cypress

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Your comments are very well taken. What you said is probably very close to the real truth. However as a nation how would we react if our foreign supply were to be cut off? Do we go to war yet again and at the same time start tearing up our back yard to make ends meet?

In a free market society it's the cards we are dealt. The tar sands and oil shales are about twice as costly to develop and produce as foriegn oil is to purchase. Our focus shoul be on taking the savings from purchased oil and spending it on activities that ensure no foriegn country feels like they can afford the risk to attempt to cut us off. If you do a cost benefit analysis I'm sure that is the wiser move.

It is said 60% of our energy needs are tied to foreign oil.

It is the cards we are dealt. We used all the cheap stuff prior to the '90's.

To me that's unacceptable and we are not doing enough, fast enough and I have a very bad feeling about it.

It's not that clear to me.

First, we need to get weened off gasoline vehicles much faster than we are now. The government could make that happen, yet they continue to believe the slow pace we are moving is acceptable. Where's Homeland Security when you really need them?

There are other options.

I say we should be fighting for both energy independence and carbon footprint reduction at the same time with the same intensity we have when we go to war.

I think we should ensure that tyrants don't think they can get away with cuting off the energy supply. If they don't think thaey can succeed, they won't try. Eventually the inexpensive supply will be used up and we will have to innovate to find new sources of energy.

I would suggest your view of the subject is shallow and emotional as it is with many Americans. Let me give you a more personal example that you can relate to. If you and your girlfriend/wife are with a group of friends and some question about your womans loyalty to you comes up and you speak up so that all can hear you, that if you ever caught her cheating on you, you would kill her. Consider the position you just put yourself in. You have just displayed a hot button that when pushed requires a response. Regardless of witch response you make it's not going to be good for you. If you keep your word and kill her, to the community your a murderer that should be made to pay for your crime. If you don't keep your word and kill her your a woose to be taken advantage of whenever possible.

Nations have the same problem. As a member of this nation I don't want to be caught in that kind of no win position, and I think our dependence on foreign oil does put us in a bad way on so many levels I cannot even count them all.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by cypress

I think we should ensure that tyrants don't think they can get away with cuting off the energy supply. .

It is their oil. They have a right to decide who to tell it to, when and at what price. Thinking you have an automatic right to it is the height of arrogance.

Any individual or country can set whatever price they want for their own oil. It is only a problem if they try to prevent others from doing the same.

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

I would suggest your view of the subject is shallow and emotional as it is with many Americans. Let me give you a more personal example that you can relate to. If you and your girlfriend/wife are with a group of friends and some question about your womans loyalty to you comes up and you speak up so that all can hear you, that if you ever caught her cheating on you, you would kill her. Consider the position you just put yourself in. You have just displayed a hot button that when pushed requires a response. Regardless of witch response you make it's not going to be good for you. If you keep your word and kill her, to the community your a murderer that should be made to pay for your crime. If you don't keep your word and kill her your a woose to be taken advantage of whenever possible.

Nations have the same problem. As a member of this nation I don't want to be caught in that kind of no win position, and I think our dependence on foreign oil does put us in a bad way on so many levels I cannot even count them all.

Your example seems completely off the mark. Nations have been posturing to protect their interests for centuries. It works when they can back it up. Have a look at history.

Originally Posted by cypress

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

I would suggest your view of the subject is shallow and emotional as it is with many Americans. Let me give you a more personal example that you can relate to. If you and your girlfriend/wife are with a group of friends and some question about your womans loyalty to you comes up and you speak up so that all can hear you, that if you ever caught her cheating on you, you would kill her. Consider the position you just put yourself in. You have just displayed a hot button that when pushed requires a response. Regardless of witch response you make it's not going to be good for you. If you keep your word and kill her, to the community your a murderer that should be made to pay for your crime. If you don't keep your word and kill her your a woose to be taken advantage of whenever possible.

Nations have the same problem. As a member of this nation I don't want to be caught in that kind of no win position, and I think our dependence on foreign oil does put us in a bad way on so many levels I cannot even count them all.

Your example seems completely off the mark. Nations have been posturing to protect their interests for centuries. It works when they can back it up. Have a look at history.

I like being a citizen in powerful nation. But I don't enjoy high inflation caused by rising oil prices and cost of maintaining a war. Also, I want to see more progress and leadership in the area of global warming. Rather than finding more oil, I would like to see more tech that gets us away from oil. Like electric cars at a reasonable price that can be afforded by the majority of our population. With government incentives for both the manufactures and the buying public. The nice thing about electric cars is when oil prices go up you don't take a big hit in the pocket book and if our entire driving population was electric we would not be dependent on foreign oil at all. Plus we would have a big bonus in the area of global warming as we would be showing the rest of the world how it's done. That's what I call a WIN - WIN - WIN...etc. situation for all concerned.

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Rather than finding more oil, I would like to see more tech that gets us away from oil. Like electric cars at a reasonable price that can be afforded by the majority of our population.

How do you intend to generate the electricity?

IEA Whistleblower Claims Agency Has Downplayed Looming Oil Shortage
According to a senior International Energy Agency official, the energy watchdog agency fears the truth would trigger panic buying
By Jeremy Hsu Posted 11.11.2009 at 11:45 am 12 Comments

Energy Numbers Whistleblowers have added to outside criticism of the IEA's energy figures for the future IEA

A senior official at the International Energy Agency turned whistleblower just prior to the release of a major IEA report, and claimed that the international organization has downplayed a looming oil shortage to appease the U.S. and prevent panic buying.

The anonymous whistleblower apparently told his story to The Guardian on the eve of the new World Energy Outlook report that went public Tuesday. He alleged that the international watchdog has bowed to U.S. pressure to underplay the decline of existing oil fields and overplay the possibility of tapping new fields.

Related Articles
Arpa-E, Government's Mad Science Lab for Energy, Funds First Projects
The Future of Energy: A Realist's Roadmap to 2050
Shell's New Ships Will Dwarf Everything on the High Seas
Tags
Science, Jeremy Hsu, energy, fossil fuels, iea, international energy agency, oil shortage, peak oil, renewable energy, whistleblower

Outside economists and energy experts have already criticized a figure within the new report that states oil production can grow from 83 million barrels per day to 105 million barrels per day by 2030.

The whistleblower added that the IEA had already dropped its 2030 estimates from 120 million barrels a day to 116 million, and then 105 million. He also said that many IEA members believe maintaining oil supplies at just 90 million or 95 million barrels per day seems impossible.

These claims seem backed by a second IEA source who has already left the watchdog agency, but similarly wished to remain anonymous. He told The Guardian that the IEA had a rule of not angering the U.S., and affirmed that the world has already entered the peak oil zone.

Whatever the case with the actual oil production figures, the IEA report seems sobering enough in its predictions. The IEA predicts that the world needs to invest $26 trillion through 2030 for new energy projects to meet growing demand, and another $10.5 trillion toward mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. To the guys and gals meeting at Copenhagen in December and hoping to tackle the issue of climate change, we say "No pressure."

But seriously, almost everyone not hiding in a cave recognizes that our cars and homes won't run on fossil fuel energy sources forever. That's why we created PopSci's realist roadmap to 2050 for energy. It's also why the U.S. Department of Energy's new mad science lab has begun spraying funding in all directions for breakthrough technologies that could boost energy efficiency and improve renewable sources.

[The Guardian via Scientific American]

The following link will take you to this posting and the other related links.

http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...g-oil-shortage

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Rather than finding more oil, I would like to see more tech that gets us away from oil. Like electric cars at a reasonable price that can be afforded by the majority of our population.

How do you intend to generate the electricity?

I like the next article I found to supply a good start on answering that question.

The Future of Energy: A Realist's Roadmap to 2050
Feature
Which technologies will finally free us from oil?
Posted 06.17.2009 at 11:57 am 31 Comments

The Future of Energy

This December, when representatives from 170 countries meet at the United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen to replace the expiring Kyoto climate treaty, the smart money predicts unprecedented collaboration. American political change coupled with spiking carbon dioxide levels could inspire a communal project on a scale not seen since World War II. A consensus, backed by science, is emerging among the international community that by 2050 we need to reduce emissions of C02, methane and other greenhouse gases to approximately 80 percent lower than they were in 1990.

It will mean a wholesale reinvention of the global energy economy; anything less could result in catastrophe. Here's how we'll get there.

To reach this goal will require a two-pronged approach. First, we have to get serious about the small stuff: better insulation, tossing the incandescent lightbulbs and, yes, inflating our tires all the way. Second, we need to scale up every low-carbon energy source we have — wind, solar, nuclear — pretty much immediately. Our realist's road map to 2050 shows how we get there:
Solar Power

Harnessing the terrawatts of energy we get from the sun
Hydro Power

Subtle movements create current
Biofuels

Beyond ethanol
Wind Power

Turbines to take root in the sea
Safer Nuclear

Six Generation III+ reactors set for the U.S.
Geothermal Energy

Energy from the Earth's core comes to the surface
Cleaner Fossil Fuels

Carbon-capture technology comes on the scene
The Plan to Build the Next Electric Grid

Even if we tap every renewable power source available, it won't mean a thing without a final, crucial step: reinventing the grid

The following link will take you to this posting:

http://www.popsci.com/environment/ar...t-roadmap-2050

And the next link has many energy articles all very interesting.

http://www.popsci.com/category/tags/energy

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

I like being a citizen in powerful nation. But I don't enjoy high inflation caused by rising oil prices and cost of maintaining a war.

the stored energy in place in US soil is generally far more expensive to recover than that in other nations. Rising oil prices are the only way to make it economic to recover the US reserves. There is no way around what you want to avoid.

Also, I want to see more progress and leadership in the area of global warming. Rather than finding more oil, I would like to see more tech that gets us away from oil. Like electric cars at a reasonable price that can be afforded by the majority of our population. With government incentives for both the manufactures and the buying public.

Who do you think pays for government "incentives"? They don't grow on trees. They don't fall from the turnip truck.

The nice thing about electric cars is when oil prices go up you don't take a big hit in the pocket book and if our entire driving population was electric we would not be dependent on foreign oil at all. Plus we would have a big bonus in the area of global warming as we would be showing the rest of the world how it's done. That's what I call a WIN - WIN - WIN...etc. situation for all concerned.

About 40% of our electrical supply is from natural gas. There is no win-win. When one form of energy is changed for another the price of all energy goes up. That's because energy is the product not the oil or coal or gas or electricity.

The writer of the letter is living in a dream.

[quote="cypress"]

the stored energy in place in US soil is generally far more expensive to recover than that in other nations. Rising oil prices are the only way to make it economic to recover the US reserves. There is no way around what you want to avoid.

Who do you think pays for government "incentives"? They don't grow on trees. They don't fall from the turnip truck.

About 40% of our electrical supply is from natural gas. There is no win-win. When one form of energy is changed for another the price of all energy goes up. That's because energy is the product not the oil or coal or gas or electricity.

The writer of the letter is living in a dream.

I don't expect weening off fossil fuel will be easy for anyone. I only have about 20 -25 years before I check out of this life, so I don't even expect to see any of the benefits that will come about by getting the job done sooner rather than later. There are lots of ways to produce sustainable energy, and we need to work all of them with a sense of urgency. If the government can cough up almost a trillion dollar bail out to keep us from sliding to far into depression, then they should be able to do what is needed to improve our national security by getting us off our big OIL habit, and at the same time give all our people the feeling of being better citizens of the world by taking a leading roll in reducing our carbon foot print in a major way.

I know the problems of doing that will be big ones, but I also know the problems of not doing it will be worse. So I would rather choose to make what I see as the best course of action and commit myself to do whatever I can to make it happen. In my case that might not be very much, but I can at least make sure I have the right attitude and express it whenever possible.

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

I don't expect weening off fossil fuel will be easy for anyone. I only have about 20 -25 years before I check out of this life, so I don't even expect to see any of the benefits that will come about by getting the job done sooner rather than later. There are lots of ways to produce sustainable energy, and we need to work all of them with a sense of urgency. If the government can cough up almost a trillion dollar bail out to keep us from sliding to far into depression,

The government does not generate income. The money comes from tax payers. The bailout just moved money around. You must think the government knows better than us how to spend our money.

then they should be able to do what is needed to improve our national security by getting us off our big OIL habit, and at the same time give all our people the feeling of being better citizens of the world by taking a leading roll in reducing our carbon foot print in a major way.

I know the problems of doing that will be big ones, but I also know the problems of not doing it will be worse.

You mean you think not doing it will be worse. In reality you are just guessing.

So I would rather choose to make what I see as the best course of action and commit myself to do whatever I can to make it happen.

But you want the government to force me to make the same choice. Despite the fact that you are just guessing.

In my case that might not be very much, but I can at least make sure I have the right attitude and express it whenever possible.

As long as you don't get the government to compel me to have the same attitude.

Originally Posted by cypress

The government does not generate income. The money comes from tax payers. The bailout just moved money around.

So... All of that money from interest the government is earning as several banks continue to pay back their bailout loans... I suppose that doesn't count as "income" in your world because it would compel you to adjust your way of thinking? It would negate your driving premises and preconceptions, and force you to change your preferred storyline?

Give me a break. If you're going to base your argument on false premises and empty platitudes, then your contributions can be safely disregarded.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/329/story/69754.html

When Congress passed the $700 billion Wall Street bailout package last fall, critics said it'd be a money loser. But when 10 banks returned $68 billion of the money on Tuesday, President Barack Obama said the government had realized a small profit.

Did it really?

In addition to returning the $68 billion, the 10 banks paid the government $1.8 billion in dividends on the preferred shares of stock the government owned. That translates to an annualized rate of return of about 4.64 percent on the $68 billion.

In all, the government has received $4.5 billion from all bailout recipients, who've received $200 billion, for an annualized rate of return since Nov. 12, 2008, when the money was lent out, of 3.94 percent.

<...>

The government stands to earn even more when it sells the stock warrants it holds in conjunction with its preferred shares in the 10 bank-holding companies that are paying their bailout. Treasury and the banks are negotiating a fair-market value for these warrants.

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, thinks that the warrants issued against preferred shares of stock from all bailout recipients — not just the 10 authorized Tuesday to repay the government — are worth at least $5 billion. So for a snapshot in this point in time, the Wall Street bailout has been profitable.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by cypress

The government does not generate income. The money comes from tax payers. The bailout just moved money around.

So... All of that money from interest the government is earning as several banks continue to pay back their bailout loans... I suppose that doesn't count as "income" in your world because it would compel you to adjust your way of thinking? It would negate your driving premises and preconceptions, and force you to change your preferred storyline?

Give me a break. If you're going to base your argument on false premises and empty platitudes, then your contributions can be safely disregarded.

First of all, and true to your normal pattern, you change the poster's premise into something different. I was talking about government grants, which are not paid back and you are talking about loans which often are. Also the overwhelming source of income for government is taxes not interest from loans. It is a red herring argument. But even here you are likely wrong.

So let's see we have about $700 billion going out and $90 billion coming in and that in your mind is a net profit?

Do you actually believe that when all is said and done, the government treasury will have net income from the $700 billion outlay? If you do, please provide an estimation of the debits and credits expected.

Originally Posted by cypress

Do you actually believe that when all is said and done, the government treasury will have net income from the $700 billion outlay?

What I believe is that... had we done nothing... the costs would have been orders or magnitude worse, and that I'm growing increasingly tired of people like you who let their ideology trump reality. That's what I believe.

Also, I believe I successfully refuted your assertion that the government does not generate income. When viewed as a function of money to specific institutions and what those institutions have paid back, they absolutely have... and absolutely will continue to do so as more banks pay back those loans. Not all banks have been successful in paying back their loans, nor will all banks be successful in doing so. However, my point was that the loans made to many banks have, in fact, generated income... contrary to your blanket assertion to the contrary in the post above.

You seem to wish to ignore that fact because it gets in the way of your preferred storyline.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by cypress

Do you actually believe that when all is said and done, the government treasury will have net income from the $700 billion outlay?

What I believe is that... had we done nothing... the costs would have been orders or magnitude worse, and that I'm growing increasingly tired of people like you who let their ideology trump reality. That's what I believe.

Thank you for that admission. We agree there will not be a net profit. Part of the $700 Billion will be on the taxpayer.

Also, I believe I successfully refuted your assertion that the government does not generate income. When viewed as a function of money to specific institutions and what those institutions have paid back, they absolutely have... and absolutely will continue to do so as more banks pay back those loans. Not all banks have been successful in paying back their loans, nor will all banks be successful in doing so. However, my point was that the loans made to many banks have, in fact, generated income... contrary to your blanket assertion to the contrary in the post above.

You only refuted an incorrect interpretation of what I was saying. You are an expert at changing the context and refuting the changed context instead.

You seem to wish to ignore that fact because it gets in the way of your preferred storyline.

I think your methods are cheap and insincere. The reality is that government money does not grow on trees; it comes from the public as a whole. I have not seen a clear demonstration (except in the case of public goods) that a government makes better spending decisions than the consuming public.

Originally Posted by cypress

We agree there will not be a net profit. Part of the $700 Billion will be on the taxpayer.

Unless you take a more realistic view and include "avoided costs" as part of your "net." It's only by falsely restricting your review that you can say we are "losing money." It's disingenuous, at best.

Yes... tax payers needed to step up and we'll lose some money. However, this was not done in ideal conditions as your argument implicitly requires. The choice for us was not "leave it alone and things will be great" or "spend a bunch of money and shoot ourselves in the foot." The issue is that we had to choose the least bad option.

The least bad option was to pump money into the system to prevent us from going off the cliff into another depression. Analysis from multiple independent firms ALL confirm this point. Further, many of those investments to individual banks have returned a very significant return, so my point stands.

Originally Posted by cypress

You are an expert at changing the context and refuting the changed context instead.

I think your methods are cheap and insincere.

Again, why don't you stop trying to deflect attention on to me and stick with the merit of the points presented.

Originally Posted by cypress

The reality is that government money does not grow on trees; it comes from the public as a whole.

Please use the quote feature provided by the vBulletin software to show precisely where I suggested it was not. I'll give you a hint... I didn't, so you're directing your response against an argument I never made.

Originally Posted by cypress

I have not seen a clear demonstration (except in the case of public goods) that a government makes better spending decisions than the consuming public.

Again, use the quote feature to show precisely where anyone made any such argument. I'd wager money that you cannot, which would de facto mean you are attacking a strawman.



Finally, this is precisely why I dismiss you as a troll. This thread began as one about oil reserves, and here we are on a long off-topic tangent because of your refusal to adjust your preferred storyline toward reality.

Then we agree, inow. But who is the troll? I took exception to Lance's belief that the government makes better decisions regarding energy consumption and research into alternatives than the consumer. He suggested the government could afford it because they have all kinds of money and he implied that it would not have a cost to the consumer. I corrected him and you launched off on this sidebar.

I see that you failed to use the quote feature to clarify where anyone suggested that money grows on trees or that the government makes better spending decisions than the public.

I think we're done, now.

Lance suggested both.

Originally Posted by cypress

Lance suggested both.

Then use the quote feature to show it, and please be sure to do so in context.

Originally Posted by cypress

Then we agree, inow. But who is the troll? I took exception to Lance's belief that the government makes better decisions regarding energy consumption and research into alternatives than the consumer. He suggested the government could afford it because they have all kinds of money and he implied that it would not have a cost to the consumer. I corrected him and you launched off on this sidebar.

I actually have to agree with inow. Every time you respond to my post you always put your own twist on what I actually said and then repeat it back with a completely different meaning than anything I really said, The above quote is completely bogus as to what I said. I never said or suggested any such thing.

I think you are a forum heckler. You twist what I say and then put me down for it. You haven't contributed anything positive to this dialog and you've been deliberately missing my point over and over again. Everybody that reads my posts does not need your running commentary on what I really said and meant and if they do have a problem with it. I am sure they will speak up about it.

It's really tough hearing you misquote me and then attack me based on your misquote. You haven't even been close, when I read your responses to my posts I have a big problem taking you serious, because they are so far off base. Anyway, it's becoming obvious to others so I'm going to ignore you until you have something constructive to add to the dialog.

I'm not an economist Lance Wenban but I'd like to add some context to US economy and oil imports that I think is correct, as I get it mostly from the IMF site and Wikipedia.

The US dollar, and economy, has a unique and counterintuitive relationship with global oil.

After WW2, US dollars were safe. "Good as gold" because of stable economy and also because each dollar was a promise by US government to redeem in gold. Like a cheque. They actually had a fort crammed with the metal. So everybody wanted US dollars, and the US obligingly printed them. US dollars became a reserve currency countries could show as proof of their own stability. The more dollars they held, the more secure you'd feel about investing in them or their own currency, since they held virtual stockpiles of gold albeit in the USA. Dollars also replaced British pounds and German marks as the standard currency of international trade. Trade in oil for example, which was growing more and more vital to countries everywhere.

By this time nobody really wanted gold so much as they wanted oil. Gold was just an outdated kind of currency, but oil - that drove economies.

In 1971 Nixon decoupled the US dollar from gold. In other words he put a stop order on all those cheques issued... lol the bastard. Suddenly, dollars were worthless! Nixon wasn't done yet. He made a deal with the Saudi royal family, then the undisputed kingpin of OPEC; that America would guarantee their protection, and in exchange they'd sell oil only for US dollars. The Americans and Saudis pressured remaining OPEC countries to do likewise. This "pegged" the US dollar to oil, in place of gold. It meant that everybody, more than ever, needed US dollars. And the strangest thing, was that since oil could be had for US dollars, and only the US could print dollars, this one country essentially owned all the world's oil, above and under the Earth. If a Japanese wanted oil, he had to (directly or indirectly) do something to earn a dollar from America, then pass that to the Saudis (who were swimming in dollars and recycling them back through America). Lol you bastards.

So there's a bit of context that suggests it understandably naive to say the US shouldn't waste money on oil imports.

Things have shifted a bit in more recent history. Saddam Hussein declared US dollar "enemy currency" and henceforth Iraq would trade oil for Euros not dollars as it ramped up production. US promptly regime-changed that, and ruled: no, Iraq will trade oil only for dollars, "dictators take note", and those Euro weenies better keep earning dollars if they know what's good for them. To his credit Bush did say he'd protect the American way of life and he did just that. Nonetheless Venezuela's Chavez and Iran's Khatami pressed a shift to Euro, since America can't be everywhere at once. Big oil importers like China began to "diversify" their reserves, meaning they began to quietly dump dollars.

The "floating" US dollar remains linked to international oil if anything.

At his point I get lost. Maybe an economist could explain what's happening between value of dollar and value of oil.

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Originally Posted by cypress

Then we agree, inow. But who is the troll? I took exception to Lance's belief that the government makes better decisions regarding energy consumption and research into alternatives than the consumer. He suggested the government could afford it because they have all kinds of money and he implied that it would not have a cost to the consumer. I corrected him and you launched off on this sidebar.

I actually have to agree with inow. Every time you respond to my post you always put your own twist on what I actually said and then repeat it back with a completely different meaning than anything I really said, The above quote is completely bogus as to what I said. I never said or suggested any such thing.

I think you are a forum heckler. You twist what I say and then put me down for it. You haven't contributed anything positive to this dialog and you've been deliberately missing my point over and over again. Everybody that reads my posts does not need your running commentary on what I really said and meant and if they do have a problem with it. I am sure they will speak up about it.

It's really tough hearing you misquote me and then attack me based on your misquote. You haven't even been close, when I read your responses to my posts I have a big problem taking you serious, because they are so far off base. Anyway, it's becoming obvious to others so I'm going to ignore you until you have something constructive to add to the dialog.

I'm sorry you feel that way Lance. You saaid that if the government (meaning the taxpayer) can come up with nearly a trillion, for the bailout we should be able to ...

Inow thinks that was money well spent. I tend to agree with him. The way you talk you seem to not realize where the money comes from. Perhaps I was wrong.

In a free market, the consumer will pay the lowest market rate for a product. As that product becomes scarce, the price will rise and suppliers will do research and find other sources for the product. If the government intervenes to drive market forces, it generally results in inefficiency and total cost to the consumer/taxpayer goes up. This is why I disagree with your approach.

Originally Posted by cypress

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

Originally Posted by cypress

Then we agree, inow. But who is the troll? I took exception to Lance's belief that the government makes better decisions regarding energy consumption and research into alternatives than the consumer. He suggested the government could afford it because they have all kinds of money and he implied that it would not have a cost to the consumer. I corrected him and you launched off on this sidebar.

I actually have to agree with inow. Every time you respond to my post you always put your own twist on what I actually said and then repeat it back with a completely different meaning than anything I really said, The above quote is completely bogus as to what I said. I never said or suggested any such thing.

I think you are a forum heckler. You twist what I say and then put me down for it. You haven't contributed anything positive to this dialog and you've been deliberately missing my point over and over again. Everybody that reads my posts does not need your running commentary on what I really said and meant and if they do have a problem with it. I am sure they will speak up about it.

It's really tough hearing you misquote me and then attack me based on your misquote. You haven't even been close, when I read your responses to my posts I have a big problem taking you serious, because they are so far off base. Anyway, it's becoming obvious to others so I'm going to ignore you until you have something constructive to add to the dialog.

I'm sorry you feel that way Lance. You saaid that if the government (meaning the taxpayer) can come up with nearly a trillion, for the bailout we should be able to ...

Inow thinks that was money well spent. I tend to agree with him. The way you talk you seem to not realize where the money comes from. Perhaps I was wrong.

In a free market, the consumer will pay the lowest market rate for a product. As that product becomes scarce, the price will rise and suppliers will do research and find other sources for the product. If the government intervenes to drive market forces, it generally results in inefficiency and total cost to the consumer/taxpayer goes up. This is why I disagree with your approach.

I do know where the money comes from. I also know the Gov. spends money under the table so most of the voters won't be aware of it. When I suggest the Gov. spend money, I expect it to be above board and visible to all. I happen to believe most of the voters if they have all the facts would do the right thing. It's just that those facts can be made very confussing by interest oppossed to that kind of expense. Also, I don't believe the Gov. is always right. But they do have access to the best information and could choose to make it available so the masses would have it to.