Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator
thank you Andrew you know sometimes it is a real joy having you here.....
thax for that perfect example....because this is exactly what I am speaking too. because there ya go, ten years ago they were saying we couldn’t drill any further in anwar because we wouldn't see a benefit for 10 years and it probably would not have much of an impact if we did have it…yea well its all cumulative, all those no’s nukes, off shore, and BS about it never being close enough has been a very effective game to get us right where we are, and where they wanted us to be, thinking that the higher expense would create less use……......the old rope a dope. My hats off.
|
bakken has been in production for 50 years, production of current wells has peaked, and at best it was a minute fraction of US oil consumption.
My point is that for bakken to be significant you would have to seriously ramp up production which would be terrible in terms of environmental impact. Yes, if you start now it could probably produce soemthing that americans could consume in significant amounts, but by that time, all other existing sources will have declined by more than that amount.....
Instead of going after more oil, its better to figure out how to function with less oil.
Andrew