Oil Reserves in the U.S. Upped

B

Buffalo Roam

Registered Senior Member
New Oil finds in the U.S. is there a shortage, here or around the world?

Peak Oil? doesn't seem so.

Massive crude oil deposit found in Argentina - UnitedStates.com ...
Jan 26, 2008 ... Massive crude oil deposit found in Argentina ... Let's not forget that the Brazilians have also discovered a massive oil find as well. ...
http://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=166738&forum_id=71

Oil companies see big Gulf of Mexico discovery - Oil & energy ...
Sep 6, 2006 ... Major crude discovery in Gulf? Sept 5: NBC's Martin Savidge reports on the implications of a potential new source of oil beneath the Gulf of ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14678206/

Brazil reserves soar on new find, Offshore - January, 2008
Brazil reserves soar on new find. Peter Howard Wertheim, Contributing Editor .... North of Campos basin, offshore Espírito Santo state, another three wells ...
http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/save_screen.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=318223


Planet Ark : New Joint Oil Find May Be Biggest Yet In Brazil
Apr 15, 2008 ... Petrobras also has said previously it sees good prospects for major oil finds in the subsalt areas in the Campos and Espirito Santo basins ...
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=47966&newsdate=15-Apr-2008


May 8th, 2008
The U.S. Geological Survey just published its official results of a groundbreaking study.

Its report confirmed a massive oil reserve in an area the locals have nicknamed the "Bakken," which stretches across North Dakota, Montana and southeastern Saskatchewan.

The new USGS study estimates a whopping 3.65 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken... but here's what they didn't mention:

The reported 3.65 billion barrels of oil mean estimate is for 'undiscovered' oil only, and doesn't include known oil, such as reserves.

In fact, the study reports a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered... compared to the agency's estimate back in 1995.

Discovered over 50 years ago, the Bakken deposit--once impossible to extract--is now being hailed as the single largest oil find in US history.

That's because, today, thanks to breakthrough drilling techniques like horizontal drilling, the Bakken's oil shales can be extracted relatively cheaply.

When that happens, this light, sweet oil will cost Americans just $16 per barrel!
Click to expand...



Brazil is finding new fields monthly,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7086264.stm

Brazil announces new oil reserves
By Gary Duffy
BBC News, Sao Paulo

Brazil has developed expertise in deep-sea drilling in recent years

The Brazilian government says huge new oil reserves discovered off its coast could turn the country into one of the biggest oil producers in the world.

Petrobras, Brazil's national oil company, says it believes the offshore Tupi field has between 5bn and 8bn barrels of recoverable light oil.

A senior minister said Brazilian oil production had the potential to match that of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

Petrobras delivered its estimate after analysing test results.
Click to expand...




May 8th, 2008
The U.S. Geological Survey just published its official results of a groundbreaking study.

Its report confirmed a massive oil reserve in an area the locals have nicknamed the "Bakken," which stretches across North Dakota, Montana and southeastern Saskatchewan.

The new USGS study estimates a whopping 3.65 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken... but here's what they didn't mention:

The reported 3.65 billion barrels of oil mean estimate is for 'undiscovered' oil only, and doesn't include known oil, such as reserves.

In fact, the study reports a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered... compared to the agency's estimate back in 1995.

Discovered over 50 years ago, the Bakken deposit--once impossible to extract--is now being hailed as the single largest oil find in US history.

That's because, today, thanks to breakthrough drilling techniques like horizontal drilling, the Bakken's oil shales can be extracted relatively cheaply.

When that happens, this light, sweet oil will cost Americans just $16 per barrel!
 
"technically recoverable" oil is not the same thing as light, sweet crude- far from it. This so-called bakken discovery was the result of new methodology in calculations, not really a discovery at all. Here is a sampling of one objective analysis:

7. The Bakken potential resource, while large by US onshore field standards, will have only a minor effect on US production or imports. Using 2006 US imports and consumption for comparison, the Bakken undiscovered resource of 3,649 million barrels of oil, if subsequently discovered and fully developed, would provide us with the equivalent of six months of oil consumption or 10 months of imports, spread over 20 or more years. In reality, the reserves developed are likely to be many times smaller than this value.

8. The October 2007 production rate of 75,000 BOPD amounts only 0.4% of US oil consumption, or 0.6% of imports.

9. Per-well Bakken production peaked in August 2005 at 116 barrels a day, and was down to 79 barrels a day in October 2007. If the Bakken production history in the 1990s can be used as a guide, the peaking of per-well production may portend a peak in total Bakken production.​
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868
 
spidergoat said:
"technically recoverable" oil is not the same thing as light, sweet crude- far from it. This so-called bakken discovery was the result of new methodology in calculations, not really a discovery at all. Here is a sampling of one objective analysis:

7. The Bakken potential resource, while large by US onshore field standards, will have only a minor effect on US production or imports. Using 2006 US imports and consumption for comparison, the Bakken undiscovered resource of 3,649 million barrels of oil, if subsequently discovered and fully developed, would provide us with the equivalent of six months of oil consumption or 10 months of imports, spread over 20 or more years. In reality, the reserves developed are likely to be many times smaller than this value.

8. The October 2007 production rate of 75,000 BOPD amounts only 0.4% of US oil consumption, or 0.6% of imports.

9. Per-well Bakken production peaked in August 2005 at 116 barrels a day, and was down to 79 barrels a day in October 2007. If the Bakken production history in the 1990s can be used as a guide, the peaking of per-well production may portend a peak in total Bakken production.​
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3868
Click to expand...


Objective by who's standards?
 
Buffalo Roam said:
New Oil finds in the U.S. is there a shortage, here or around the world?

Peak Oil? doesn't seem so.

Massive crude oil deposit found in Argentina - UnitedStates.com ...
Jan 26, 2008 ... Massive crude oil deposit found in Argentina ... Let's not forget that the Brazilians have also discovered a massive oil find as well. ...
http://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=166738&forum_id=71

Oil companies see big Gulf of Mexico discovery - Oil & energy ...
Sep 6, 2006 ... Major crude discovery in Gulf? Sept 5: NBC's Martin Savidge reports on the implications of a potential new source of oil beneath the Gulf of ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14678206/

Brazil reserves soar on new find, Offshore - January, 2008
Brazil reserves soar on new find. Peter Howard Wertheim, Contributing Editor .... North of Campos basin, offshore Espírito Santo state, another three wells ...
http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/save_screen.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=318223


Planet Ark : New Joint Oil Find May Be Biggest Yet In Brazil
Apr 15, 2008 ... Petrobras also has said previously it sees good prospects for major oil finds in the subsalt areas in the Campos and Espirito Santo basins ...
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=47966&newsdate=15-Apr-2008






Brazil is finding new fields monthly,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7086264.stm






May 8th, 2008
The U.S. Geological Survey just published its official results of a groundbreaking study.

Its report confirmed a massive oil reserve in an area the locals have nicknamed the "Bakken," which stretches across North Dakota, Montana and southeastern Saskatchewan.

The new USGS study estimates a whopping 3.65 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken... but here's what they didn't mention:

The reported 3.65 billion barrels of oil mean estimate is for 'undiscovered' oil only, and doesn't include known oil, such as reserves.

In fact, the study reports a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered... compared to the agency's estimate back in 1995.

Discovered over 50 years ago, the Bakken deposit--once impossible to extract--is now being hailed as the single largest oil find in US history.

That's because, today, thanks to breakthrough drilling techniques like horizontal drilling, the Bakken's oil shales can be extracted relatively cheaply.

When that happens, this light, sweet oil will cost Americans just $16 per barrel!
Click to expand...

mu brother is on good terms with a professor who used to work in the oil industry so next time i talk to him i ask him to get his proffs opinion on this to see if what your saying is real or just bs
 
Whats the point in arguing? Just agree.

Yes, yes, there is no peak oil. Oil reserves will last forever.
 
iceaura said:
Wanna bet ?

Fit them all into this: http://www.oilposter.org/posterlarge.html

A blip, essentially. Maybe a fairly large one - maybe not.
Click to expand...

We were suppose to run out of oil 10 years ago, it hasn't happened yet, and don't look like it will in the forseeable future, and more and more fields are being found and opened.


When did Julian Simons think we would run out of oil? "Never!" was his answer. With 1.28 trillion barrels of oil in proven reserves today – more than ever in recorded human history, despite oil consumption in the world nearly doubling in the last three decades – we should seriously consider that Julian Simons might well be right.
Click to expand...

Julian Simon's Ghost Haunting Peak Oil
Peak Oilers love to say that "there just aren't any big finds left out there." The logical conclusion then is that oil production will decline. Well, you can't produce oil if you don't look for oil. Exploration has been declining for decades, so why should we not expect declining production? If we actually looked for oil and did so aggressively on a sustained basis, we wouldn't be facing declining production. Technology plays a huge role. The state of the art allows us to look only so many places and only so deep into the earth. Peak Oilers may have a point about our steady state existence, akin to saying we are pedaling as fast as we can on the bicycle. But what if somebody invents a motorcycle? The critical flaw in the Peak Oil theory is that it doesn't account for getting off the bicycle and mounting the motorcycle. As the state of the art in exploration and extraction technology advances, we can drill in more places and look deeper into the earth. If we've previously been constrained at, say, 8000 feet, who's to say what moving that constraint to 20,000 feet will yield us? Maybe nothing or maybe previously unimaginable availability of resource. Very likely it will be somewhere in between.

Well, today comes news about that motorcycle and what it may mean for us. Chevron, Statoil, and Devon have tapped what looks like a monster reservoir at an astounding depth. The implications are enormous, and I'll leave it at that, but suffice to say that the Peak Oil theory has two strikes and human ingenuity seems to still be throwing 95 mph heaters.

"Peak-Oil Production" believers regard Shell Oil geologist M. King Hubbert as their theoretical deity. In 1956, Hubbert drew a bell-shaped curve that he said showed U.S. oil production would peak in the 1970s and decline from there until U.S. oil would in 2050 be nearly depleted. Subsequently, Hubbert's adherents have expanded his analysis into a worldwide prediction that we are running out of oil. Again, "Hubbert's Peak" theorists have serious critics, including prominent oil and gas analyst Michael C. Lynch. In a paper titled, "The New Pessimism about Petroleum Resources: Debunking the Hubbert Model (and Hubbert Modelers)," Lynch argues that Hubbart's initial analysis was anything but rigorous or scientifically formal:


The initial theory behind what is now known as the Hubbert curve was very simplistic. Hubbert was simply trying to estimate approximate resource levels, and for the lower-48 U.S. he though a bell-curve would be the most appropriate form. It was only later that the Hubbert curve came to be seen as explanatory in and of itself, that is, geology requires that production should follow such a curve.

Indeed, for many years, Hubbert himself published no equations for deriving the curve, and it appears that he only used a rough estimation initially. In his 1956 paper, in fact, he noted that production often did not follow a bell curve. In later years, however, he seems to have accepted the curve as explanatory.


Supporters like to argue that U.S. production "peaked" in 1970. To counter this claim, critics argue that U.S. production has only declined since 1970 because environmentalists and the political Left have aggressively blocked oil production in Alaska and offshore, where oil exploration has generated new finds.

In writing "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," Craig Smith and I have presented a 7-point plan we believe would allow the United States to increase domestic oil production to the point where once again the U.S. could approach oil independence.

In the first paragraph of his 2005 book, "Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak," Kenneth Deffeyes, professor emeritus at Princeton, boldly predicts that world production of crude oil will peak in just a few days, on Thanksgiving Day 2005. What happens when crude oil production statistics show increases well into 2006? Will Kenneth Deffeyes eat crow for Thanksgiving Day 2006 if he is wrong? Probably not.

Most likely Deffeyes will simply readjust his theory and pick a new day for "peak-oil production," either that or he will assert he only meant the prediction metaphorically, not empirically. At any rate, Craig Smith and I are inclined to agree with Julian Simon. When will we run out of oil? "Never!" we too argue. The world has never had proven oil reserves as large as we have today and the trend shows no sign of reversing.
Click to expand...



Economist Michael Lynch [32] argues that the theory behind the Hubbert curve is overly simplistic, and that available evidence contradicts some of the more specific predictions. [33] He analyzed the timing of the global peak as predicted by Colin Campbell: initially predicted to occur in 2000, it was later pushed back to 2010. Lynch claims that Campbell's predictions for world oil production are strongly biased towards underestimates.[34] Throughout 2001-2003, in his monthly newsletters, Campbell maintained that his 1996 prediction of a peak in 2000 was unchallenged, but in 2004 he shifted the peak to 2010. Later, he brought the predicted peak forward to 2006, but in 2005, he again published a 2010 peak date.[13]

Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri, vice president for the Italian energy company ENI, argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995 [35], based on oil production data available at that time. Maugeri claims that nearly all of these estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is significant and the costs of extraction and processing, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue. The ratio between proven oil reserves and current production has constantly improved, passing from 20 years in 1948 to 35 years in 1972 and reaching about 40 years in 2003.[14] These improvements occurred even with low investment in new exploration and upgrading technology due to the low oil prices during the last 20 years. However, Maugeri feels that encouraging more exploration will require relatively high oil prices [36].

Edward Luttwak, an economist and historian, argues that peak oil is a myth. He claims that unrest in countries such as Russia, Iran and Iraq has led to a massive underestimate of oil reserves.[15] The ASPO response to Luttwak's article is here[37].

Cambridge Energy Research Associates authored a report [38] that is critical of Hubbert influenced predictions:

“ Despite his valuable contribution, M. King Hubbert's methodology falls down because it does not consider likely resource growth, application of new technology, basic commercial factors, or the impact of geopolitics on production. His approach does not work in all cases-including on the United States itself-and cannot reliably model a global production outlook. Put more simply, the case for the imminent peak is flawed. As it is, production in 2005 in the Lower 48 in the United States was 66 percent higher than Hubbert projected.
Click to expand...
 
Just the basic mistake that this oil shale is light, sweet crude is enough to dismiss Baron's report that peak oil has been cancelled. Sure, the high price of oil will drive feverish exploration, but it will only result in depleting the total volume of recoverable oil that much faster. Theoretically recoverable isn't the same as economically recoverable.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
Objective by who's standards?
Click to expand...

Oh, fuck, stupidity striked again!!! I know you won't get it, but even if it was true, it only means a small part of the world, so it is entirely possible that you find a little extra oil here, but the rest of the world still running out of oil.

Unfortunatelly you are not even right....

Peak oil happened you dumbo back in 2005 May, and even though prices tripled since, the world is not ABLE to produce more....
 
spidergoat said:
Just the basic mistake that this oil shale is light, sweet crude is enough to dismiss Baron's report that peak oil has been cancelled. Sure, the high price of oil will drive feverish exploration, but it will only result in depleting the total volume of recoverable oil that much faster. Theoretically recoverable isn't the same as economically recoverable.
Click to expand...

yes i know but since was a geologist involved with the find and extracting of oil i could get a very detailed reasoning on just how unfeasible it is
 
spidergoat said:
Just the basic mistake that this oil shale is light, sweet crude is enough to dismiss Baron's report that peak oil has been cancelled. Sure, the high price of oil will drive feverish exploration, but it will only result in depleting the total volume of recoverable oil that much faster. Theoretically recoverable isn't the same as economically recoverable.
Click to expand...

And your expertise is what? Now as to your knowledge or recovery techniques? how many can you name? and how they work? there have been steady advances in drilling technology, and it has made it safer and easier to recover crude oil when and where it is found.

In an interview provided by USGS, scientist Brenda Pierce put the North Dakota oil in context.

"Of the current USGS estimates, this is the largest oil accumulation in the lower 48," Pierce says. "It is also the largest continuous type of oil accumulation that we have ever assessed."

By comparison, the 4 billion barrels in North Dakota represent less than half the oil in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge which has an estimated 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Click to expand...

But Sen. Byron Dorgan (ND-D) says the 4 billion barrels in the Bakken Shale is only the beginning.

Oil Refinery"We know there's a lot more oil in the Bakken Shale, so does the USGS," Dorgan says. "Under todays technology that cannot be recovered. With tomorrows technology it likely could."
Click to expand...


Economist Michael Lynch [32] argues that the theory behind the Hubbert curve is overly simplistic, and that available evidence contradicts some of the more specific predictions. [33] He analyzed the timing of the global peak as predicted by Colin Campbell: initially predicted to occur in 2000, it was later pushed back to 2010. Lynch claims that Campbell's predictions for world oil production are strongly biased towards underestimates.[34] Throughout 2001-2003, in his monthly newsletters, Campbell maintained that his 1996 prediction of a peak in 2000 was unchallenged, but in 2004 he shifted the peak to 2010. Later, he brought the predicted peak forward to 2006, but in 2005, he again published a 2010 peak date.[13]

Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri, vice president for the Italian energy company ENI, argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995 [35], based on oil production data available at that time. Maugeri claims that nearly all of these estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is significant and the costs of extraction and processing, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue. The ratio between proven oil reserves and current production has constantly improved, passing from 20 years in 1948 to 35 years in 1972 and reaching about 40 years in 2003.[14] These improvements occurred even with low investment in new exploration and upgrading technology due to the low oil prices during the last 20 years. However, Maugeri feels that encouraging more exploration will require relatively high oil prices [36].

Edward Luttwak, an economist and historian, argues that peak oil is a myth. He claims that unrest in countries such as Russia, Iran and Iraq has led to a massive underestimate of oil reserves.[15] The ASPO response to Luttwak's article is here[37].
Click to expand...

Julian Simon's Ghost Haunting Peak Oil

Peak Oilers love to say that "there just aren't any big finds left out there." The logical conclusion then is that oil production will decline. Well, you can't produce oil if you don't look for oil. Exploration has been declining for decades, so why should we not expect declining production? If we actually looked for oil and did so aggressively on a sustained basis, we wouldn't be facing declining production. Technology plays a huge role. The state of the art allows us to look only so many places and only so deep into the earth. Peak Oilers may have a point about our steady state existence, akin to saying we are pedaling as fast as we can on the bicycle. But what if somebody invents a motorcycle? The critical flaw in the Peak Oil theory is that it doesn't account for getting off the bicycle and mounting the motorcycle. As the state of the art in exploration and extraction technology advances, we can drill in more places and look deeper into the earth. If we've previously been constrained at, say, 8000 feet, who's to say what moving that constraint to 20,000 feet will yield us? Maybe nothing or maybe previously unimaginable availability of resource. Very likely it will be somewhere in between.

Well, today comes news about that motorcycle and what it may mean for us. Chevron, Statoil, and Devon have tapped what looks like a monster reservoir at an astounding depth. The implications are enormous, and I'll leave it at that, but suffice to say that the Peak Oil theory has two strikes and human ingenuity seems to still be throwing 95 mph heaters.
Click to expand...
 
Syzygys said:
Oh, fuck, stupidity striked again!!! I know you won't get it, but even if it was true, it only means a small part of the world, so it is entirely possible that you find a little extra oil here, but the rest of the world still running out of oil.

Unfortunatelly you are not even right....

Peak oil happened you dumbo back in 2005 May, and even though prices tripled since, the world is not ABLE to produce more....
Click to expand...


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47738

In August 2004, a group of scientists, including Nobel prize winner Dr. Dudley R. Herschbach of Harvard University's Department of Chemistry, published results of an experiment at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories in which they synthesized methane inorganically in a diamond-anvil experiment, utilizing iron oxide, calcite and water in a Fisher-Tropsch reaction under temperatures and pressures designed to resemble relevant conditions in the Earth's mantle. Again, the scientists left no doubt regarding their conclusions:

The study demonstrates the existence of abiogenic pathways for the formation of hydrocarbons in the Earth's interior and suggests that the hydrocarbon budget of the bulk Earth may be larger than conventionally assumed.

Supporters of the biological theory of the origin of oil now have no basis for insisting that natural gas can only be produced from biological content, whether the biological debris specified is dead dinosaurs, ancient forests, or plankton resident in alluvial type sedimentary deposits on the continental shelf.
Click to expand...

What is occurring scientifically is strong validation for the abiotic theories advanced by Russian and Ukranian scientists since the end of World War II, a theory articulated in the United States by oil experts such as J.F. Kenney of the Houston-based Gas Resources Corporation and Cornell's astronomer Thomas Gold who wrote the 1998 book titled, "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels."

A key insight is the realization that the abiotic oil theorists have postulated that the biological oil theorists have mistaken abiotic oil for organically created oil. Simply because oil is found in sedimentary deposits does not mean that the oil is of organic nature, such is the force of the abiotic theory. Oil and natural gas created in the mantle of the Earth may well pick up biological debris as they pass through bedrock cracks to pool in the more porous sedimentary rock below the Earth's surface. In other words, abiotic oil theorists argue that petro-geologists may have been finding abiotic oil and natural gas all along, even if they confused the oil and natural gas they were finding as being biological in origin.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, the United States needs to move toward energy independence. But continued reliance on oil needs to be part of that plan. In just one deep-earth find, the Jack Field in the Gulf of Mexico, Chevron increased by 50% the estimated oil reserves of the United States. How much more oil is there offshore, in Alaska, or at deeper levels than we have yet drilled within the continental United States? The “Deep Trek” project of the U.S. Department of Energy documents that we still have abundant natural gas at deep levels within the continental United States


U.S. Oil Reserves Get a Big Boost
Chevron-Led Team Discovers Billions of Barrels in Gulf of Mexico's Deep Water

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 6, 2006; Page D01

An oil discovery by Chevron Corp. has bolstered prospects that petroleum companies will be able to tap giant reserves that lie far beneath the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

Oil analysts and company executives said newly released test results from a well 175 miles off the coast of Louisiana indicate that the oil industry will be able to recover well more than 3 billion barrels, and perhaps as much as 15 billion barrels, of oil from a geological area known as the lower tertiary trend, making it the biggest addition to U.S. petroleum reserves in decades. The upper end of the estimate could boost U.S. reserves by 50 percent.
Click to expand...
 
I know that new drilling techniques will be employed, but these are not large pools of oil like people found when they first looked for it. That means more time and energy is required to get at these, and the quality is such that it's more difficult to refine, with more impurities and a lower quality product in the end. This was not unexpected or discounted by the peak oil theory.

Also, demand is steadily increasing.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
Yes, the United States needs to move toward energy independence. But continued reliance on oil needs to be part of that plan. In just one deep-earth find, the Jack Field in the Gulf of Mexico, Chevron increased by 50% the estimated oil reserves of the United States. How much more oil is there offshore, in Alaska, or at deeper levels than we have yet drilled within the continental United States? The “Deep Trek” project of the U.S. Department of Energy documents that we still have abundant natural gas at deep levels within the continental United States


U.S. Oil Reserves Get a Big Boost
Chevron-Led Team Discovers Billions of Barrels in Gulf of Mexico's Deep Water

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 6, 2006; Page D01
Click to expand...

you do know it will be years before any of it is capable of hitting the market continuing to use oil and natrual gas for energy is stupid we should move on to cleaner and more renewable resources for energy
 
pjdude1219 said:
you do know it will be years before any of it is capable of hitting the market continuing to use oil and natrual gas for energy is stupid we should move on to cleaner and more renewable resources for energy
Click to expand...

And if we hadn't allowed the environmentalist to dictate our present energy policy's and built the refineries and drilled the reserves in our own country we wouldn't be in the problems we are in now.

And how many years will it be before the infrastructure can be changed and put in place to utilize these new renewable energy sources, that haven't matured to the level to be able to supply the energy need of today?

I find it interesting that new oil finds are announced monthly, major finds, month after month after month, the major problem in the U.S. is that we haven't built a new refinery since 1976, and have limited the drilling of new wells in known oil fields off the west cost, Florida, the Atlantic Cost, or in this country, we are now importing refined gas from overseas, if we would utilize the known reserves in the U.S. and from off shore sites we have a 160 year cushion to mature alternative energies, and to develop the infrastructure necessary to deliver and utilize those sources, and by switching to nuclear power for electricity we could save billions of gallons of oil used to run the generators that produce our electric power.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
And if we hadn't allowed the environmentalist to dictate our present energy policy's and built the refineries and drilled the reserves in our own country we wouldn't be in the problems we are in now.

And how many years will it be before the infrastructure can be changed and put in place to utilize these new renewable energy sources, that haven't matured to the level to be able to supply the energy need of today?

I find it interesting that new oil finds are announced monthly, major finds, month after month after month, the major problem in the U.S. is that we haven't built a new refinery since 1976, and have limited the drilling of new wells in known oil fields off the west cost, Florida, the Atlantic Cost, or in this country, we are now importing refined gas from overseas, if we would utilize the known reserves in the U.S. and from off shore sites we have a 160 year cushion to mature alternative energies, and to develop the infrastructure necessary to deliver and utilize those sources, and by switching to nuclear power for electricity we could save billions of gallons of oil used to run the generators that produce our electric power.
Click to expand...

yeah we would be in a bigger problem
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top