Looks like a new oil field has been found in North Dakota that is comparable to Saudi Arabia. I think this is good news and we need to tap into it along with Anwr and the Gulf

Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US reserves by 10x

__________________
"Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few marines! God has a hard-on for marines because we kill everything we see! He plays His games, we play ours! To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls! God was here before the Marine Corps! So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! Do you ladies understand?"

Christ 200 billion? thats some serious oil............I want to read the report when it comes out, thats an astounding find...


ooppps....wait....hey ....you hear that???...NO?...I can hear it......its the enviro whackos gearing up right now trying to figure out how to stop us from pulling it out....watch......


oh and the latest..I had to go look, this situation and it appears true, could change things quite a bit here and abroad..

Bakken Oil Formation

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Read the fine print, folks. It's shale oil. It's not a new discovery, it's just that until the price of oil soared through the roof, it couldn't be extracted at a profit. Now it can. So what?

The problem is not that we're running out of oil, but that we're running out of cheap oil. Approximately 50% of the oil that was in the ground when we started pumping it is still there (that's what "oil peak" means -- not that all the oil is gone, but that half of it is, and what's left is harder and more expensive to pump). But what made oil such a wonderful energy source for so many years is that it was both plentiful and cheap, and it ain't no more.

Not a solution. We need to increase efficiency, and switch to non-fossil-fuel sources of energy. The time to start doing that was 30 years ago, but since we can't turn the clock back, we need to start now.

I cannot find anything that describes the oil as "shale oil". The area that the oil is at has shale rock but not all shale is "shale oil".

The article specifically mentions pumping oil. this is something you cannot do with shale oil. "Shale oil" must be mined as far as I know. I could be wrong.

__________________
"Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few marines! God has a hard-on for marines because we kill everything we see! He plays His games, we play ours! To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls! God was here before the Marine Corps! So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! Do you ladies understand?"

I agree, let start building nuke powerplants to start

__________________
"Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few marines! God has a hard-on for marines because we kill everything we see! He plays His games, we play ours! To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls! God was here before the Marine Corps! So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! Do you ladies understand?"

USMC, you're right, it's not shale oil, I misread your link. However, it's not cheap-to-extract oil, either, or anything that wasn't already known. The only reason anyone's taking a look at it now is because oil prices have risen to the point that it can now be extracted at a profit. That doesn't do us much good, though, because we're still out of cheap oil.

Nuclear power -- not to start, no. It may come to that eventually, but it's way down the list of the best ways to produce energy, because of the very high capital cost, long development time, and environmental concerns. It is better than fossil fuels, though, so if we exhaust other means, then we may have to turn to nuclear.

The place to start is with improved efficiency. We currently have an overall energy efficiency of approximately 10%. That means that of every 10 units of energy we produce, 9 are thrown away and only 1 actually used. It would not be that difficult to increase our efficiency rating to 40%, and if we did we would effectively quadruple the value of the energy we produce.

If we did that, we might well be able to supply all our needs without nuclear power. But as I said, if not, then as a last resort nuclear is still better than fossil-fuels.

Good point. There is plenty of oil out there that just cost much more to actually use. It will depend on prices staying high. It will allow us to use domestic sources rather than importing but it will not allow for prices to go down since it has a high cost.

I disagree, sure it wasn't cost efficiant to pump in the past do to tech. limmitations. Now it is a different story. there are bisusses that are starting to set up camp and invest capital in order to get to the black stuff.
Will it ever bring oil down to $10 a barrel...no oil will never be that cheap as long as we are using it as fuel.
Why not? High capital cost and long development times is a non issue. there will always be those out there willing to invest the time and money if there is a profit. Environmental concerns is also a non issue which is displayed by the Navy's ability to operate without incident since the first nuke power boat.


I agree in part, Advances in efficiency and a reduction in unneeded oil use (such as power plants) needs to be done at the same time. Nuke power can reduce the demand for oil while technology can find a way to improve the efficiency of other fuel sources.

__________________
"Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few marines! God has a hard-on for marines because we kill everything we see! He plays His games, we play ours! To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls! God was here before the Marine Corps! So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! Do you ladies understand?"

USGS Release: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate— (4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM)

Btw, 3-4.3 billion barrels equals about six weeks of world consumption.

You are going to need to find 50 fields that large every year in order to pretend we aren't running out of oil.

Six-months of US consumption after development. The US whining for more domestic oil to slow imports resembles a heroin addict looking for a fix in a fundamentalist church.

Btw, I find it interesting that, faced with the coming oil shortage, US policy makers appear to be only concerned about reducing US oil imports - as if reducing US imports is somehow going to save the day.

We are going to run out of oil fairly soon and it won't matter if it was US domestic or imported oil when it is all gone.

The focus on reducing imports contributes to the illusion favored by blind patriots who still believe the US can pull its own economic weight.

The only fun in the entire issue is trying to determine how high in cost a barrel will get before the party is over. I'm seeing over $200 this year and, dependent on USD policy, some are saying even higher as commodities become the only safe hedge against USD devaluation due to fiscal irresponsibility. A $500B+ deficit will be announced right before the presidential election and that's almost 4% of GDP in a declining economy, a sobering thought to anyone who likes statistics.

really?....should I pack an extra pair of sneakers or walking shoes?

define "soon"...

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

No, it wasn't cost-efficient in the past even WITH current technology, because the price of oil was too low. It has become cost-efficient now because the price of oil has risen.

We must also ask ourselves how quickly the oil can be pumped. Another problem with the end of cheap oil is that it can no longer be extracted at the same rate as before. There's still about 50% of the world's oil in the ground, so our current difficulties don't stem from not having enough left in total, but from a slowdown in how much can be produced per year.

Exactly, and that's why this oil deposit is not a solution. We are suffering not from the loss of oil, but from the loss of cheap and abundant oil. There's still lots of oil left, but it is going to become increasingly scarce and expensive. The only solution is to stop using it as a fuel, switching to something else instead.

Of course they're issues. High capital cost results in high cost of power. Long development times means delays in power availability. These things, plus environmental concerns, mean that nuclear power is not the ideal solution. We are much better off using wind, solar, biomass, tidal, and geothermal, if we can meet our needs that way, because they are cheaper and more ecologically friendly than nuclear and we can produce them more quickly. I agree that we shouldn't reject nuclear power entirely and absolutely, but it should not be our first choice. If we have to use nuclear to meet demand that would otherwise require coal plants, then we should. If we don't, we shouldn't.

The Navy's operation is NOT without incident. Without meltdown, possibly. But not without environmentally-significant impact.

There are issues with nuclear waste disposal, hazards from mining and processing nuclear fuels, and leakage of radioactive materials from plant operation, even in the absence of a meltdown. There are steps that can be taken to minimize all of these, but all such steps increase the cost of production. For all these reasons, nuclear power should not be our first option, although I agree it should be on our list.

I'm not at all sure why you are so enamored of it, frankly. Can you explain that?

Good news, although we still dont have the refining capacity, so its moot. Had we started with nuclear power and efficient domestic oil production 10 or 20 years ago, we might have a different story today. Unfortunately, even if we start today, we are a long way away from cheap energy. People just need to accept that energy is in high demand and so high expense.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson