Oil Reserves in the U.S. Upped

[Buffalo Roam]

I don't think the sentence actually STATES anything, I even started a new thread about it:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1853044#post1853044

We never really learn what's the deal with China and India...

Lets make it simple for you, I will point it out, if you can't comprehend it.

their emerging demand for oil on the world market

Now since you rsuch a grammar nazi how about a thread on Asguard?

Asguard[/COLOR];1831871]bells we have to do SOMETHING about tassi waiting for contenental drift takes to long

in all seriousness we dont want or need them, actually we are in a better position WITHOUT them. For instance say china was that desprate for resorces that they invaded us, well NZ maybe the US (if they could be bothered) and england would help us and we would be imune from chiness nukes as a signtory to the non perliferation treaty. If china DID use nukes on us then EVERY signitory would be legally bound to destroy them.

Now if we had nukes and were nuked then thats just fair game and wouldnt be a reason for eroup to get involved.

HOWEVER the idea of us being atacked is ludicrious so why would we want to get involved in that? the only benifit would be a chance to become a permident member of the world dictatorship (otherwise known as the UN security council)

Or is it because he is on your side of the debate?

 

[The Devil Inside]

buffalo, dont make me dress you down over grammar and spelling........again.
i did it a year ago, and you were sidetracked with insane vendetta over it. what makes you think you wont be similarly distracted again, should i turn my attention on you?

lets see some hard facts on what you assert, from independant (read: not influenced by the oil companies) sources.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Have you dressed down Syzygys?

Originally Posted by Syzygys
I don't think the sentence actually STATES anything, I even started a new thread about it:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?...44#post1853044

We never really learn what's the deal with China and India...

I was not the one who had the snit fit over grammar and spelling, and I was just showing that Syzygys is selective in his application of standards, just as you seem to be.

 

[Syzygys]

Now since you rsuch a grammar nazi how about a thread on Asguard?

I am not a grammar nazi, but after rereading that sentence about 5 times, I still wasn't sure what you were trying to say, and again, it had nothing to do with the topic anyway....

But feel free to visit the other thread where this subject is the topic...

 

[Syzygys]

Take some classes in comprehension, Dude.

Yes, Sir! In the maintime, the conclusion about your sentence was (by Fraggle):

"Anyway you look at it, this is a pretty poor piece of writing. As an editor I'd think twice about retaining this writer on my staff, since there are good writers out there willing to work at home for $25 an hour or less. Editing his writing is almost more work than writing it myself."

Anyway, it is offtopic here so I won't address it anymore...

And why is there very little extra capacity left?

Oh my lord, because of peak oil. The world's oilproduction is peaking as we speak...

there is no shortage of oil or oil finds,

There is. There hasn't been any giant finds in the last 2 decades. And we need to find giant fields not a little here or there...
Saudi Arabia used to have 4 mbpd extra capacity, and it looks like right now they are pumping with full intensity right now. Even Bush acknowledged after his visit, that you can not ask for more, when there isn't any extra left...

Crunch the numbers. I know it is hard for you, but do the math and you will see...

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Yes, Sir! In the maintime, the conclusion about your sentence was (by Fraggle):

"Anyway you look at it, this is a pretty poor piece of writing. As an editor I'd think twice about retaining this writer on my staff, since there are good writers out there willing to work at home for $25 an hour or less. Editing his writing is almost more work than writing it myself."

Anyway, it is offtopic here so I won't address it anymore...

How could you not understand that? Are you serious?

Oh my lord, because of peak oil. The world's oilproduction is peaking as we speak...



There is. There hasn't been any giant finds in the last 2 decades. And we need to find giant fields not a little here or there...
Saudi Arabia used to have 4 mbpd extra capacity, and it looks like right now they are pumping with full intensity right now. Even Bush acknowledged after his visit, that you can not ask for more, when there isn't any extra left...

Crunch the numbers. I know it is hard for you, but do the math and you will see...

I see you don't read the news, or maybe you lack reading comprehension, but what do you call a 15 billion barrel find, the oil industry calls it a Elephant;

World Business

Big Oil Find Is Reported Deep in Gulf

The New York Times

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: September 6, 2006
An announcement yesterday by three oil companies of a successful production test in the Gulf of Mexico — potentially the largest American oil find in a generation — was seen by experts as ushering in a new era in ultra-deepwater offshore drilling.

Chevron, Devon Energy and Statoil ASA, the Norwegian oil giant, reported that they had found 3 billion to 15 billion barrels in several fields 175 miles offshore, 30,000 feet below the gulf’s surface, among formations of rock and salt hundreds of feet thick.

What do you call Brazils oil finds, one field 33 billion Barrels? the Oil INdustry calls that a Elephant.

Brazil official cites giant oil-field discovery
The Associated PressPublished: April 14, 2008


SÃO PAULO: The head of Brazil's National Petroleum Agency said Monday that a deep-water exploration area in the Atlantic Ocean could contain as much as 33 billion barrels of oil.

What do you call a 200 billion barrel of oil find? the Oil industry calls it a Elephant. The INdustry also has the technology to recover that field.

Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US reserves by 10x
America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.

ps: for the comprehension impaired Elephant in Oil speak is Giant find.



New oil find in Iraq gives hope to Sunni areas of Iraq at 15 billion barrels, and the they aren't done with the survey, what do you call that?

The Oil Industry calls that a Elephant.

By James Glanz
Published: February 19, 2007

KARABILA, Iraq: In a remote patch of the Anbar desert just 30 kilometers from the Syrian border, a single blue pillar of flanges and valves sits atop an enormous deposit of oil and natural gas that would be routine in this petroleum-rich country except for one fact — this is Sunni territory.


Now what don't you comprehend about the fact that the new survey technology is finding new Giant Oil Fields, and that new technology is making the exploitation of those fields a reality.

79 new giants, 33 more projected, John Mann PH.D developed the new search technology, and it is proving to be accurate in locating new field, and they are mega fields, giants, Elephants.

 

[Enmos]

Whats the point in arguing? Just agree.

Yes, yes, there is no peak oil. Oil reserves will last forever.

Sometimes I just can't believe the stupidity of people.. (I know you were being sarcastic, it's not directed at you).

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Sometimes I just can't believe the stupidity of people.. (I know you were being sarcastic, it's not directed at you).

Yes so true.

 

[Enmos]

Yes so true.

Obviously you feel addressed.. :shrug:

So you think oil will never get used up ?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Obviously you feel addressed.. :shrug:

So you think oil will never get used up ?

Why should I feel addressed? I was just agreeing with your statement about the stupidity of people, obviously you feel some paranoia over my agreement with your statement.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

So you think oil will never get used up ?

Not in our life time.

 

[Enmos]

Why should I feel addressed? I was just agreeing with your statement about the stupidity of people, obviously you feel some paranoia over my agreement with your statement.

Well, you didn't agree for the same reason. But never mind.

 

[Enmos]

Not in our life time.

And ? As long as it happens after we die we have no responsibility ?
Besides, it may not by used up entirely in our lifetime but we will definitely feel the shortage.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

And ? As long as it happens after we die we have no responsibility ?
Besides, it may not by used up entirely in our lifetime but we will definitely feel the shortage.

Prove that shortage?, capacity problems, yes, shortage no.

Now its you who seem to not want to realize that the Technology will advance, and that new sources of energy will be discovered and developed, or do you think that the peoples of today and future generations don't have the ability or the intelligence to advance energy technologies, for use today, or in the future?

There are abundant energy sources, coal being one of them, and there is viable technology to burn it in a clean manner, it is done everyday in the U.S. and Europe, there is also Nuclear, and that is in massive use in Europe, and advancing around the rest of the world, except here in America, there is hydrogen, we are looking for a efficient way to generate it, and advance the technology as we speak.

Why do you has this prejudiced against the thought that technology can not advance beyond the development of today, that is what you insinuate.

If technology can't come up with new viable energy sources, it really doesn't matter when oil runs out because our prodigy will be screwed no matter what, conservation will only delay the inevitable a few decades.

 

[Syzygys]

what do you call a 15 billion barrel find

I call it 6 months. That's how long it lasts with current world usage...

We need to find such elephants in every 6 months just to push the inevitable away.

Look dude, you are arguing against a FACT which is stupid itself, and you believe in abiotic oil, which is fringe science at best, stupidity at worst.

So what does that tell about you?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I call it 6 months. That's how long it lasts with current world usage...

We need to find such elephants in every 6 months just to push the inevitable away.

Look dude, you are arguing against a FACT which is stupid itself, and you believe in abiotic oil, which is fringe science at best, stupidity at worst.

So what does that tell about you?

Now prove that.

 

[James R]

Buffalo Roam:

There are abundant energy sources, coal being one of them, and there is viable technology to burn it in a clean manner, it is done everyday in the U.S. and Europe...

Depends what you mean by "clean". Generally, "clean coal" is taken to mean coal burnt without the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. There are currently no full-scale clean coal power plants anywhere in the world.

...there is also Nuclear, and that is in massive use in Europe, and advancing around the rest of the world, except here in America...

Nuclear energy is a viable energy source for electricity generation, but obviously not for things like transport (cars, trucks, etc.) There are concerns about the long-term implications of storing or dealing with the waste produced, too.

... there is hydrogen, we are looking for a efficient way to generate it, and advance the technology as we speak.

Hydrogen will never replace petroleum. It takes too much energy to produce, store and transport.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I call it 6 months. That's how long it lasts with current world usage...

We need to find such elephants in every 6 months just to push the inevitable away.

Look dude, you are arguing against a FACT which is stupid itself, and you believe in abiotic oil, which is fringe science at best, stupidity at worst.

So what does that tell about you?

Then explain how the North Slope is still producing oil?, it was opened in 1968, and has been in continuos production since then, and the new finds are bigger then Prudhoe Bay.

Prudhoe Bay has a remaining proven reserve of 81 billion barrels, is it going to run dry in 6 months? since 1968, 10 billion barrels of oil have been produced from Prudhoe Bay, that is 40 years, so again how did you come up with 6 months?6 month?

The U.S. Is Poised to Hit a New Oil Gusher
Oil drillers have their eye on a vast oil field in and around North Dakota, which promises a steady flow of domestic crude for years.
By Jim Ostroff, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

March 17, 2008RELATED FORECASTS HELPFUL LINKS Marathon Oil
EOG Resources
Brigham Exploration
Crescent Point Energy Trust

A new black gold rush is under way, this time in North Dakota. The potential payoff is huge -- up to 100 billion barrels of oil. That’s twice the size of Alaska’s reserves and potentially enough to meet all U.S. oil needs for two decades.


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.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

World not running out of oil, say experts - Times Online
Jan 18, 2008 ... Doom-laden forecasts that world oil supplies are poised to fall off ... Now it's about time we have some mention of the 'Gull Island Myth' ...
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece


From The TimesJanuary 18, 2008

World not running out of oil, say experts

Carl Mortished, World Business Editor

Doom-laden forecasts that world oil supplies are poised to fall off the edge of a cliff are wide of the mark, according to leading oil industry experts who gave warning that human factors, not geology, will drive the oil market.

A landmark study of more than 800 oilfields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade.

Cera analysed the output of 811 oilfields, which produce 19 billion barrels a year, out of total world output of 32 billion. These included many of the giants, including Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, the largest known oilfield, which has been at the centre of the debate between peak oil analysts and their detractors.

In his book Twilight in the Desert, Matthew Simmons of Simmons & Co, the consultancy, said the big Saudi fields reached their peak output in 1981 but Cera yesterday said that Ghawar was not failing. “There is no technical evidence that Ghawar is about to decline,” said Mr Jackson.

The Cera analysis targeted oilfields producing more than 10,000 barrels a day of conventional oil and concluded that overall output was declining at a rate of 4.5 per cent a year and that field decline rates were not increasing.

This is much lower than the 7 to 8percent average rate that is generally assumed in the industry. Typically, Peak Oil theorists believe that the output of oil reserves can be plotted on a graph as a bell curve, rising to a peak and then falling rapidly.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Buffalo Roam:
Depends what you mean by "clean". Generally, "clean coal" is taken to mean coal burnt without the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. There are currently no full-scale clean coal power plants anywhere in the world.

But there are coal fired plants all over the U.S. that are using the latest technology to burn coal cleanly.

I live just 2 miles from Weston 1-2-3 and 4, all coal fired, all well with in air quality standards, I watch them remove tons of particulate matter from the stack scrubbers, and in all the years I have live in the area there has never been a air alert because of Weston.

But still the technology doesn't stand still, they are scheduled to up grade their Technology in the next 5 years, new cleaning systems, removing even more particulate and gasses.

Nuclear energy is a viable energy source for electricity generation, but obviously not for things like transport (cars, trucks, etc.) There are concerns about the long-term implications of storing or dealing with the waste produced, too.

That is exactly what I was pointing out.

Hydrogen will never replace petroleum. It takes too much energy to produce, store and transport.

Yes, today it is still not a viable energy source, I though my statement made that clear,

... there is hydrogen, we are looking for a efficient way to generate it, and advance the technology as we speak.

I agree as of today we don't have a efficient way to generate Hydrogen, but that is where technology come in, and eventually someone will find the right technology to do so.