Oil Reserves in the U.S. Upped

nirakar said:
Oil deep under the sea will be expensive to get at, but shouldn't there be more oil below sea level than there was above sea level?
Click to expand...

I am not an expert on that, but I think it is a good argument at least statistically speaking. There could be a negative answer though, if oil was made by the dinos and other lifeforms dying and decomposing, the seas were mostly water for most of the times, thus there were no dinos dying there....
 
Oh God, why do you punish me with this? :confused:

Buffalo Roam said:
Your own statement is that there are 12.5 barrels of oil missing from the market, right?

Well, the U.S. consumes 19.6 million barrels per day, of oil, the shortage of oil in the world is 12.5, if we drilled and produced our own reserves we could drop off the world oil market, and there would be no short fall, and we could be energy independent.
Click to expand...

Man, you can not be THIS dull. First, the missing barrels were for the year 2015 I think, not now and they were worldwide, not just for US. So you have to work with future US demand which would grow, unless policy changes or price skyrockets.

But did you notice what you just have done? You compared future worldwide demand with current US usage!! 2 completely different fruits.

But to play along with you, let's say US demand would grow to 22 million barrel per day by 2015. The current US production is about 6 million, so you are saying we should/could produce the missing 14 million barrels in just 7 short years!! It is a nice dream, unfortunately nothing backs it up. We would be lucky if were able to add 2 million barrels from local sources....
 
Buffalo Roam said:
The oil is there, all we need to do is build the capacity, and for that Congress and the Environmentalist have to get out of the way.
Click to expand...

Again, why try to get a resource that is eventually limited, dirty, hard to get and not aviable fast anymore??? Why not try to convert to something cleaner, more resourceful, more economic, unlimited? Eventually we have to switch anyway, so why not start the process NOW when still is not too late instead of trying to suck the last drop out and wasting valuable TIME on the mitigation process?

You are like someone 100 years ago who is still trying to stick to the coaldriven steammachines, when its time had come to a pass...

Oil's time has passed, time to switch...
 
Last edited:
Syzygys said:
Again, why try to get a resource that is eventually limited, dirty, hard to get and not aviable fast anymore??? Why not try to convert to something cleaner, more resourceful, more economic, unlimited? Eventually we have to switch anyway, so why not start the process NOW when still is not too late instead of trying to suck the last drop out and wasting valuable TIME on the mitigation process?

You are like someone 100 years ago who is still trying to stick to the coaldriven steammachines, when its time had come to a pass...

Oil's time has passed, time to switch...
Click to expand...

Now your exhibiting the fault of youth, not planning in logical steps, and not listening to what I have said.

I have never said that we shouldn't switch to alternative energy sources, and I have not said that we shouldn't be developing it now.

Thing are done in logical steps to have a chance to success, the alternative energy has to be matured so it can replace oil energy, and the infrastructure has to be built to deliver and use that energy.

With out a viable alternative source of energy, and a compatible infrastructure, you accomplish nothing.

As of today we have neither, we have a lot of developing sources, but none of them are capable of delivering the amount of energy needed to replace oil.

The second point is that there isn't a infrastructure to deliver that new energy.

What I have said is that we need to have a viable economy for today.

That Economy depends on oil as of today.

There are no mature alternative energy sources as of today that can replace oil.

There is not enough infrastructure to deliver that alternative energy source to the market.

The fact is that there is enough oil available for todays need, and for 50 to 100 years in the future, based on known sources, which gives us the lead time to build the delivery infrastructure, and develop the alternative energy sources to the point that they can replace Oil as the power source for the economy.

The other fact is that we are finding new oil field as of today.

The short fall as you have posted is 12.5 million barrels a day, there is enough oil available in the U.S. if we drill for it, to more than make up the short fall.


And “recoverable reserves” — known oil resources capable of recovery, but with more cost and technical difficulty than proven reserves — hold several thousand times more. These resources include: light oil in place (293 bbo); heavy oil (81 bbo); oil sands (80 bbo); and the mother lode, oil shale (2,118 bbo). Add the 21.8 bbo proven reserves and 30 bbo off-limits, and the total 2.6 trillion barrel endowment of American oil resources would support U.S. demand for thousands of years.
Click to expand...
 
niraker said:
Anybody know a reason why their should not be as much oil under the sea per square mile of surface as there is above sea level per square mile of surface?
Click to expand...
Much of the current sea floor has been created since the time of oil formation.
 
Petroleum is infinite and renewable. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe.

The reason why oil reserves always stay the same and even grow no matter how many millions of barrels we pump is because oil is constantly and continually generated abiotically in the Earth's mantle.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Petroleum is infinite and renewable. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe.

The reason why Middle East oil reserves always stay the same and even grow is because oil is constantly and continually generated abiotically in the Earth's mantle.
Click to expand...

Commones does not dictate price. For example hydrogen is really common, but not on earth, on earth is always bound to something, making it expensive to extract.

Wow, and do you have any proof of abiotic synthesis of that level of production? I could come up with other theories why ME reserves don't go down, like say they lie because low reserves mean they have th cut production under OPEC bylaws.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Petroleum is infinite and renewable. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe.

The reason why oil reserves always stay the same and even grow no matter how many millions of barrels we pump is because oil is constantly and continually generated abiotically in the Earth's mantle.
Click to expand...

You're funny. Reserves do not stay the same or grow, except in the books of oil company executives.
 
ElectricFetus said:
Commones does not dictate price. For example hydrogen is really common, but not on earth, on earth is always bound to something, making it expensive to extract.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what Commones are. I assume you meant commonness?

And the last time I checked commonness does indeed determine price, hence the notion of supply and demand.

"Oil is the creature of common Earth forces on common Earth materials." -- Wallace E. Pratt, Oil In The Earth, 1942

According to Dott (Sourcebook For Petroleum Geology, AAPG Memoir 5, 1969), "The eternal truth of the statement by Wallace E. Pratt in 1942 is being substantiated continuously."

Your claim that hydrogen is uncommon on the Earth is absurd and contradicted by scientific fact.

Hydrogen is the ninth most common element in the Earth's crust.

And within the mantle it is likely infinite: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2002/04/16/ecnhyd16.xml
 
It's not even science for the most part, it's merely objective statistical analysis of the data.
 
That site doesn't do science, but they do analyze data from the only sources they can get. Even assuming the oil companies aren't distorting data about the oil they already pumped (estimations of reserves and predictions of future production are notoriously unreliable), your notion is not supported.

US oil production peaked in the 1970's so explain that.



By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth

in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a

three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That

means by 2010 we will need an additional 50 million barrels per day.


Dick Cheney​

Yeah. That Dick Cheney.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
That site doesn't do science
Click to expand...
You can say that again.

but they do analyze data from the only sources they can get.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what everyone on the planet does?

Even assuming the oil companies aren't distorting data about the oil they already pumped (estimations of reserves and predictions of future production are notoriously unreliable), your notion is not supported.

US oil production peaked in the 1970's so explain that.
Click to expand...
Very easily. In order to increase production in a given geographical location it is necessary to drill. That should be obvious. The United States has over 10,000 miles of undrilled coastline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top