More fuel for thought

Private wrote:
I just found this on another forum, facts not verified,

Why not?
Got time to forward something without caring if it's true or not?
Interesting view of responsibility.
I'm just sayin'.

"P" == Private writes:

P I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no
P commentary made. Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy
P climate debate

Then let's get some facts. The USGS just released a new assessment of
the Bakken.

"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"

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation.

Apparently the Bakken formation has been known for decades, but its
potential usable oil estimates not so well known.

As for changing the climate debate, that will happen only among
republicans, religionists, and rednecks. Science continues without
regard to politics of greed and convenience.
--
I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with
my legs.
~ Frederick Douglass, escaped slave

"Jay Honeck" wrote

Both parties are to blame for the energy mess we're in. Neither party
offers any answers.

We *need* a third political party in the U.S.

I'm not so sure that would help, until you get rid of the special interest
group lobby on the politicians.
--
Jim in NC

Jay Honeck wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/54rp3x
Whoops! Another utopian idea reinforced....

;-)

My clues that it's nothing to pop champagne corks over just yet, from
the article referenced:

1. "may have discovered..."

2. "did not provide any details about... his information, except to say
it came from "nonofficial, non-confirmed sources."

3. "Oil prices were unaffected by the news."

It could be confirmed, but so far the leading indicators, as economists
like to say, don't look very fired up about the claim.

I'd applaud as warmly as any if we found a humongous source of new
energy, though it sure would be nice if we weren't arguing over cleaner
sources not being worth developing. That's just giving a free ride to
oil-baron press releases.

"Private" wrote in message
...
I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary made.

Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate

By Dennis T. Avery
web posted April 14, 2008


And an announcement today from Brazil.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/...NIYFQAZQSAsnsA

In article Stella Starr writes:

Eh. I lived around there, had friends who went off to work in the North
Dakota oil fields a time or two. Every time petroleum goes through the
roof in price, someone reopens the oil shale fields, which require an
astronomical amount of work and expenditure to wring oil from the rock.

Back when oil was getting close to $30/barrel, an article on cnn.com
commented that there was a huge amount of oil in oil shale, but it would
not be economical to extract unless oil got to $40/barrel. Well, at $100
per barrel, it seems that the oil companies are hoping for even more profit
when they finally decide to get it.

Alan

"Private" wrote in message
...

"Private" wrote in message
...
I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
made.

Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate

By Dennis T. Avery
web posted April 14, 2008


And an announcement today from Brazil.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/...NIYFQAZQSAsnsA

That is potentially a very good find. But keep in mind that only about 35%
of an oil reservoir can be economically extracted. (Less hope future
advances are made). So if the world uses 85M barrel a day ....... So about
135 days of world's supply.

On 2008-04-15, Jay Honeck wrote:
Whether it's 4 billion, or 400 billion barrels -- who cares? It's *ours*.

Well, actually, it's not; it belongs to the companies that extract it.
It will be therefore traded on the world market along with all the other
oil. Oil companies, like any other firm, want to maximise their profits
and so will sell the oil where it's most profitable to sell it.

So it'll barely change oil prices.

To make it "your" oil, you would have to take the socialist step of
making it a nationalised industry. To make it lower the cost of oil in
the United States, you'd also have to make it a nationalised industry
selling below market price.

The country 50 miles to the right of me is a net exporter of oil (the
UK). That's where Brent sweet crude comes from, one of the benchmark
prices. Their oil price goes up and down with the global market just
like everyone else's. Being an oil producing country does not get you a
price break from the global oil market.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On Apr 14, 11:00 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
If I am not mistaken, current world consumption is about 85 million
barrels per day. The 4 billion barrels will last 50 days. I don't
understand the reason for celebration.

When you're addicted to something, even a tiny amount is cause for
celebration.

Whether it's 4 billion, or 400 billion barrels -- who cares? It's *ours*.

Develop those fields now, and it's *that* much less oil we have to import
from the Arabs. This is what's called a "good thing" no matter how you cut
it.
--

There is 30 horsepower of solar radiation falling on a Cessna 172's
wing that we are simply throwing away.

The challenge is extracting the full solar spectrum and storing it.
But there are no fundamental scientific reasons why this is not
achievable.

Even if we discover some large oil reserve, it is only going to
prolong the eventual demise of oil.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:00 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
If I am not mistaken, current world consumption is about 85 million
barrels per day. The 4 billion barrels will last 50 days. I don't
understand the reason for celebration.
When you're addicted to something, even a tiny amount is cause for
celebration.
Whether it's 4 billion, or 400 billion barrels -- who cares? It's *ours*.

Develop those fields now, and it's *that* much less oil we have to import
from the Arabs. This is what's called a "good thing" no matter how you cut
it.
--

There is 30 horsepower of solar radiation falling on a Cessna 172's
wing that we are simply throwing away.

The challenge is extracting the full solar spectrum and storing it.
But there are no fundamental scientific reasons why this is not
achievable.

Even if we discover some large oil reserve, it is only going to
prolong the eventual demise of oil.

I'm FAR from being any kind of an expert on these matters, but I can't
help but wonder, considering the fact that the world's economies are so
completely dependent on oil for survival, that the world has waited WAY
too long on this issue and that we have already passed the point where
the changes necessary and either implemented or discovered, can no
longer be made in time to make any difference in the inevitable outcome;
.......a self made dooms day scenario so to speak.

--
Dudley Henriques