Go Back  The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum > BOATING FORUMS > Dockside Chat
Reload this Page >

Drill, Drill, Drill, LOTS of oil right here in U.S.A.

Notices

Drill, Drill, Drill, LOTS of oil right here in U.S.A.

Old 04-06-2009, 04:43 PM
  #1  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: MA
Posts: 16,306
Likes: 0
Received 84 Likes on 45 Posts
Default Drill, Drill, Drill, LOTS of oil right here in U.S.A.

If you don't believe what you read below, simply GOOGLE it or follow this link.
It
will blow your mind.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists
and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report
(hadn't
been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3
of North Dakota; westernSouth Dakota; and extreme eastern Montana .... check
THIS
out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay,
and
has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The
Energy


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—
Released: 4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM
Contact Information:
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communication
119 National Center
Reston, VA 20192
Phone: N/A

Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.
A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.

The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A "continuous" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest "continuous" oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil.
"It is clear that the Bakken formation contains a significant amount of oil - the question is how much of that oil is recoverable using today's technology?" said Senator Byron Dorgan, of North Dakota. "To get an answer to this important question, I requested that the U.S. Geological Survey complete this study, which will provide an up-to-date estimate on the amount of technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken Shale formation."
The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. Scientists conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their findings with historical exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates.
USGS worked with the North Dakota Geological Survey, a number of petroleum industry companies and independents, universities and other experts to develop a geological understanding of the Bakken Formation. These groups provided critical information and feedback on geological and engineering concepts important to building the geologic and production models used in the assessment.
Five continuous assessment units (AU) were identified and assessed in the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana - the Elm Coulee-Billings Nose AU, the Central Basin-Poplar Dome AU, the Nesson-Little Knife Structural AU, the Eastern Expulsion Threshold AU, and the Northwest Expulsion Threshold AU.
At the time of the assessment, a limited number of wells have produced oil from three of the assessments units in Central Basin-Poplar Dome, Eastern Expulsion Threshold, and Northwest Expulsion Threshold.
The Elm Coulee oil field in Montana, discovered in 2000, has produced about 65 million barrels of the 105 million barrels of oil recovered from the Bakken Formation.
Results of the assessment can be found at http://energy.usgs.gov.
For a podcast interview with scientists about the Bakken Formation, listen to episode 38 of CoreCast at http://www.usgs.gov/corecast/.
USGS provides science for a changing world. For more information, visit www.usgs.gov.
Subscribe to USGS News Releases via our electronic mailing list or RSS feed.
**** www.usgs.gov ****
Old 04-06-2009, 04:57 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, US
Posts: 14,527
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

What does "technically recoverable" mean?
Old 04-06-2009, 04:58 PM
  #3  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Raleigh, NC usa
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I'm all for it. We need to find ways to stop burning so much petroleum at the same time.
Old 04-06-2009, 05:00 PM
  #4  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,029
Received 792 Likes on 366 Posts
Default

To the Oboma administration, the availability of domestic oil isn't the real issue. The issue are the bi-products of oil usage and the release of (alleged) "greenhouses gases" thereby exasperating the warming of the Earth's cliamte (if you actually believe in all of this science).
Old 04-06-2009, 05:01 PM
  #5  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,029
Received 792 Likes on 366 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Menzies View Post
What does "technically recoverable" mean?
It means that it is economically feasible to remove the oil from the ground and the refinaries want it.
Old 04-06-2009, 05:09 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sunny florida
Posts: 25,531
Received 5,510 Likes on 3,523 Posts
Default

We will be petroleum dependent for a long time. There are no viable options for transportation. Power generation will be oil, coal and nuclear dependent..everything else is just a toy.

Alcohol you say? Makes a lousy everyday motor fuel.

Solar? Yawn..

Electric cars? Just WHERE is that electricity coming from?

Wind? Only if they harness the hot air from the lobbyists.

We WASTE alot of energy in inefficient housing and inefficient vehicles. Surprise! Clean running, safe vehicles are not fuel efficient! Why? All that safety crap weighs a ton, and an engine that runs at its' optimum cleanliness is neither fuel efficient or at its' optimum performance.
Old 04-06-2009, 05:25 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, US
Posts: 14,527
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by chrisrack View Post
It means that it is economically feasible to remove the oil from the ground and the refinaries want it.
Thanks.

It's just when I hear a contractor tell me "well it's technically feasible," I know to start running!
Old 04-06-2009, 05:25 PM
  #8  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Not in Texas
Posts: 10,213
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bobb View Post


Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil




We are going to go ahead and quantify what we don't know ...







A couple days ago I heard on the radio there is more oil in the Rocky Mt shale than in Saudi Arabia -- and even more than that in Canada.
Old 04-06-2009, 06:03 PM
  #9  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

From what I remember seeing is that the refining of shale oil is very expensive and leaves much more waste.
Old 04-06-2009, 06:14 PM
  #10  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SE LA
Posts: 5,708
Received 610 Likes on 296 Posts
Default

Here's a link to a similar story on rigzone: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=60085

Problem is oil prices are low AND Obama's energy bill and tax repeals on drilling will cause independents to sit on the side line. This does not boost domestic reserves/producton, the opposite. The next year or two will be TOUGH times for all in the oil patch. We (the company I work for) are doing well right now, but we see a tough times all around us.

Gary
Old 04-06-2009, 06:15 PM
  #11  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Saltwater Nomad
Posts: 1,104
Received 43 Likes on 20 Posts
Default

We need to use all of "their" oil then we can start using ours. Hope they learn to farm in the sand....
Old 04-06-2009, 06:48 PM
  #12  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Boston, Bass River & Stuart
Posts: 3,011
Received 147 Likes on 88 Posts
Default

yea shale oil technolgy is going to be the next frontier. I still say we peg a price of wheat with oil...teach em reallll quick....
Old 04-06-2009, 07:07 PM
  #13  
Joe
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Libertalia
Posts: 17,430
Received 1,407 Likes on 795 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Tbrodes View Post
yea shale oil technolgy is going to be the next frontier. I still say we peg a price of wheat with oil...teach em reallll quick....
Maybe we'll be able to start paying back out mountainous debt.

Nah..that will never happen.
Old 04-06-2009, 09:39 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,224
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cave man View Post
We need to use all of "their" oil then we can start using ours. Hope they learn to farm in the sand....

First one here that's got it right! Give that man a Cigar!
Old 04-07-2009, 07:14 AM
  #15  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Garett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 24,905
Likes: 0
Received 1,165 Likes on 661 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cave man View Post
We need to use all of "their" oil then we can start using ours. Hope they learn to farm in the sand....
See now I don't agree with that, all we are doing is lining their pockets so they can do bad things to the rest of the world. Stop the cash flow today and they have less money for doing things tomorrow.


The oil fields in North Dakota, western South Dakota and extreme eastern Montana I read about several years ago, so it's nothing new. And if I read it several years ago then the people in the know would have known about years earlier.

Here's the part that kicks my butt. Canada has more oil then the world could ever use, but we still buy some of our oil from across the pond....it must have to do with politics? ;? Even though we have our own oil supplies we still pay for our oil at world market prices, so there is no saving to us the consumer. ;? So just because the States has a very large region with oil reserves doesn't mean your oil/ fuel/ gas prices will be any lower.
Old 04-07-2009, 07:15 AM
  #16  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: North Florida
Posts: 11,253
Likes: 0
Received 1,039 Likes on 498 Posts
Default

With this bunch in power, there will be no new drilling, period. Obama would prefer gas at $10 a gallon coming from overseas because that will sure punish all those rich people making $50K a year. No problem for the poor(worthless, multi-generational welfare recipients) because we will give them free gas...heck, give a free car to burn that gas in.
Old 04-07-2009, 07:41 AM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 9,755
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Pickens has the plan and it needs to start with the trucking industry.
Old 04-07-2009, 10:05 AM
  #18  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Chapel Hill and PKS, North Carolina
Posts: 7,322
Received 441 Likes on 260 Posts
Default

Here is a pretty good explanation of :technically feasible".

Published Dec 17 2005 by Denver Post
Archived Dec 18 2005
Oil shale may be fool's gold

by Randy Udall and Steve Andrews
Buried underground in western Colorado are a trillion tons of oil shale. For a century, men have tried and tried again to unlock this energy source. But the rocks have proved stubborn, promising much, delivering little.
Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy published a new report on oil shale. It claimed that the nation could wring "200,000 barrels a day from oil shale by 2011, 2 million barrels a day by 2020, and ultimately 10 million barrels a day" from fields in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. These predictions - both the production targets and their timing - are preposterous, as some industry experts admit.
But hyping oil shale is nothing new. As geologist Walter Youngquist once wrote, "Bankers won't invest a dime in 'organic marlstone,' the shale's proper name, but 'oil shale' is another matter."
California Rep. Richard Pombo and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch are spearheading efforts to jumpstart the industry. "I find it disturbing that Utah imports oil from Canadian tar sands, even though our oil shale resource remains undeveloped," says Hatch.
In truth, oil shale presents a paradox. If these rocks are, as some claim, the richest fossil fuel resource on Earth, why has it been so difficult to unlock them?
The primary explanation is that oil shale is a lousy fuel. Compared to the coal that launched the Industrial Revolution or the oil that sustains the world today, oil shale is the dregs. Coal seams a few feet thick are worth mining because coal contains lots of energy. If coal is good, oil is even better. And oil shale? Per pound, it contains one-tenth the energy of crude oil, one-sixth that of coal.
Searching for appropriate analogies, we enter the realm of Weight Watchers. Oil shale is said to be "rich" when a ton yields 30 gallons of oil. An equal weight of granola contains three times more energy. America's "vast," "immense" deposits of shale have the energy density of a baked potato. Oil shale has one-third the energy density of Cap'n Crunch, but no one is counting on the Quaker Oats Company to become a major energy producer soon.
Historically, oil shale has been mined, crushed and roasted in large kilns, or "retorts." The slag, swollen in volume and contaminated with arsenic, must then be disposed. The process is so costly, laborious and polluting that global output has never exceeded 25,000 barrels a day, compared to 84 million barrels of conventional oil production.
In the last 150 years, humans have used 1 trillion barrels of conventional oil. The second trillion will be consumed in the next 30 years. Given projected demand for fuel, Royal/ Dutch Shell has been experimenting with a new way to produce shale oil, a way that is, at first glance, more promising.
Humor columnist Dave Barry once demonstrated that if you put a "strawberry Pop-Tart in a toaster for five minutes and 50 seconds, it will turn into a snack-pastry blowtorch, shooting flames up to 30 inches high." Putting a chunk of oil shale into your toaster would not offer similar excitement, but in a strange way, Shell's fascinating experiments near Rangely resemble something Barry might attempt if he had the money to build the world's largest underground toaster oven.
The plan is audacious. Shell proposes to heat a 1,000-foot-thick section of shale to 700 degrees, then keep it that hot for three years. Beam me up, Scotty, but first share some details. Imagine a 100-acre production plot. Inside that area, the company would drill as many as 1,000 wells. Next, long electric heaters would be inserted in preparation for a multi-year bake. It's a high-stakes gamble, but if it works, a 6-mile-by- 6-mile area could, over the coming century, produce 20 billion barrels, roughly equal to remaining reserves in the lower 48 states.
Although Shell's method avoids the need to mine shale, it requires a mind-boggling amount of electricity. To produce 100,000 barrels per day, the company would need to construct the largest power plant in Colorado history. Costing about $3 billion, it would consume 5 million tons of coal each year, producing 10 million tons of greenhouse gases. (The company's annual electric bill would be about $500 million.) To double production, you'd need two power plants. One million barrels a day would require 10 new power plants, five new coal mines. And 10 million barrels a day, as proposed by some, would necessitate 100 power plants.
How soon will we know whether Shell's technology is economic? The company plans to do more experiments, before making a final decision by 2010. If it pulls the trigger, it would be at least three or four years before the first oil would flow, perhaps at a rate of 10,000 barrels a day. That's less than one-tenth of 1 percent of current U.S. consumption. But if it turns out that Shell needs more energy to produce a barrel of oil than a barrel contains, bets are off. That's the equivalent of burning the furniture to keep the house warm. Energy is the original currency; electricity its most valuable form. Using coal-fired electricity to wring oil out of rocks is like feeding steak to the dog and eating his Alpo.
In a ham-and-egg breakfast, the chicken is involved but the pig is committed. With half the world's oil shale resources located here, our region is committed. Another recent report by the RAND Corp. warned that if oil shale developers "overstress the environmental carrying capacity of the area, we may never see more than a few hundred thousand barrels per day of production." Amen.
Large-scale development of the kind proposed by the U.S. Department of Energy and Pombo would be a disaster. The DOE casually dedicates all of western Colorado's surplus water to oil shale, proposes enormous open-pit mines 2,000 feet deep, and advocates retorting up to 6 billion tons of shale each year. That's twice the tonnage of all coal mined in the U.S. and China. This is not a vision, it is a nightmare.
Americans love panaceas. We want thinner thighs in 30 days, a pill to cure baldness, an ultrasonic carburetor that will double our mileage. A magic wand would be nice, because the nation faces serious energy challenges. Since domestic oil production peaked 30 years ago, the need for energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy has been obvious. Instead, like an addict on a binge, we continue to pursue a policy of "strength through exhaustion." Drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge before improving our woeful vehicle efficiency is one example of this brain-dead approach.
What contribution can oil shale make to energy security? Producing 100,000 barrels per day of shale oil does not violate the laws of physics. But the nation currently consumes that much oil every seven minutes. Improving the efficiency of our automobiles by 2 miles per gallon would save 10 times as much fuel, saving consumers $100 billion at the pump. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that cars, trucks and SUVs that get 30, 40 or 50 miles per gallon are doable. An aggressive national commitment to fuel efficiency is not optional, it's inevitable. In time, a more efficient fleet could save 20 times as much petroleum as oil shale is likely to ever provide.
All hype aside, oil shale is the poorest of the fossil fuels, containing far less energy than crude oil, much less even than hog manure, peat moss or Cap'n Crunch. A meager amount of energy, tightly bound up in an enormous volume of rock, oil shale seems destined to remain an elusive bonanza, the petroleum equivalent of fool's gold.
Randy Udall directs the Community Office for Resource Efficiency, a nonprofit energy office in Carbondale. Steve Andrews is a Denver-based energy expert.
Old 04-07-2009, 11:59 AM
  #19  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vero Beach, FL
Posts: 2,021
Likes: 0
Received 378 Likes on 161 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by chrisrack View Post
It means that it is economically feasible to remove the oil from the ground and the refinaries want it.
I don't think that is correct. "technically feasible" means the technology exists that can recover the oil. "economically recoverable" I believe is the term for oil that can be profitably exploited at current prices.
Old 04-07-2009, 03:33 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location:
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

All we have to do is buy rights from Cuba to get to florida oil- China already bought most of rights to drill.... Aaaa-ha, paid cuba, to suck from Florida. Who is the smarter one? Yepper, not the greenspiss and libs.....

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.