when conservatives rock out about oil

[JiggsCasey]

Now, where's the sourcing for that dippy Florida report?

I understand that Palin fans have reading comprehension problems, but it says it right in the Associated Press story:

"Collins Center for Public Policy, a Florida think tank, in conjunction with the state's Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida."

Here you are, pumpkin... Spin away:

http://collinscenter.site-ym.com/members/blog_view.asp?id=549166&post=92068&hhSearchTerms=negligible

Q: (14) Would the development of oil and gas resources in Florida waters (and/or areas in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico under federal moratorium) make us less dependent on foreign energy suppliers?

A: Aside from acknowledging the adage that every little bit helps, the development of oil and gas resources in both Florida’s state submerged lands and the federal waters in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico would have no discernible impact on the state’s or the country’s dependence on foreign oil.

As noted in the resource assessment discussion, the most optimistic amounts of potential oil production from Florida’s state submerged lands would have a negligible impact on the country or the state’s oil imports. Estimated oil reserves for the majority of Florida’s state waters are approximately 110 million barrels. Production derived from these reserves would boost U.S. supplies by a small fraction of 1 percent. To put that in context, the total estimated amount of oil reserves in Florida would satisfy the U.S. demand for oil (approximately 20 million barrels a day) for less than a week.

Estimated oil reserves in federal waters in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico are more substantial, about 4 billion barrels. Still, the production volumes to be derived from these reserves pale in comparison to those in the Central and Western regions of the Gulf of Mexico and would not boost U.S. production by more than 1 or 2 percent. To the extent that this amount displaced imports it could translate into less U.S. money being sent to foreign governments. Again, however, with respect to the volumes of oil and gas under consideration this wouldn’t have a discernible impact on the pattern of trade.

With respect to natural gas resources, robust development would largely displace coal as a preferred fuel source for electricity generation. Given that the country’s demand for coal is supplied domestically, the expansion of natural gas production capacity would have little if any impact on foreign fuel imports. The bulk of U.S. natural gas imports originate from Canada and serve regional markets in the North. ​

Mmm-kay? Thanks for playing.

 

[Oddball]

Right...The report was prepared by a bunch of lib political activists at the Collins Center.

Looks like my suspicions were dead on target.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Right...The report was prepared by a bunch of lib political activists at the Collins Center.

Looks like my suspicions were dead on target.

My gawd, do you ever suck at this... When all your smarmy challenges and claims go swirling down the toilet, rest assured you can just trump the entire argument with the loose, vague guesstimation that it's all some "liberal agenda." Nevermind that the Florida State senate that signed off on the findings is 2/3rds REPUBLICAN and has been for years

It's clear you're going to just keep moving the goal posts... It's what "drill baby drill" cons do.... The forum will note that I met your goofy challenge, and you still refused to meet mine.

Run along now, limited poster. Come back when you can do better.

 

[Oddball]

I can read the ads of who their supporters are. Also, the site is rife with all the goofy lib semantics and buzzwords like "sustainability" and "smart justice".

And I'm moving no goalposts. The report was prepared by an obviously biased lib political action group, in order to reach a political conclusion. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

If anyone isn't very good at this, it's you, Bubba.

 

[JiggsCasey]

I can read the ads of who their supporters are. Also, the site is rife with all the goofy lib semantics and buzzwords like "sustainability" and "smart justice".

And I'm moving no goalposts. The report was prepared by an obviously biased lib political action group, in order to reach a political conclusion. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

If anyone isn't very good at this, it's you, Bubba.

So then the predominantly Republican Florida Senate also has a "liberal political agenda." ... Ok toolbox.

Run along now. You've been sufficiently taken behind the proverbial woodshed on this topic. ... Horrifically bad effort. Stick to "I remember when...." tactics. Really does wonders for you.

Again, where is the oil? Show the data? Until then, you're irrelevant to this discussion. Sorry.

 

[Mr. H.]

What matters, and what has worked for over 100 years, is cumulative production - currently 7 to 8 million barrels of oil per day in the U.S. Every barrel contributes, even production from wells that make 1 barrel per day. And yes, a one barrel per day well can be profitable at $70/barrel.

As to infrastructure "all over the place" - the half million wells I mentioned may consist of groups of a few wells to a few hundred wells. The oil is pumped into storage tanks that are drained by tank trucks that take it to a central facility and from there via pipeline to a refinery or another larger receiving facility.

This "all or nothing" notion to energy policy has been killing us for decades. Do we honestly need to jump head first into a "green" renewable/sustainable economy at the risk of destroying our ability to continue finding and producing hydrocarbons?

This is what gets me about the green crowd- total commitment to a singular agenda without regard to the contribution of an industry that has contributed so much to our economy, security, and quality of life for over 100 years.

Within 5-10 years, you're not gonna have much of a choice. So you'd better start investment in renewables now, while there is (fiat) money to invest.

As for EROEI, which you summarily ignored, I'll put it to you this way, and hopefully you'll understand how it relates to growth:

You have a continent, and I have a continent. Exploration reveals that your continent "might contain as much as" a trillion barrels of sweet, light crude, while mine has proven reserves of 250 billion. My find is centrally located in 2 or 3 big pools, not far from the shore and distribution points. Your finds are sprinkled over hundreds of locations, from deep under water to far, far inland, requiring infrastructure and permits for each and every location. Worse, your finds are so far under bedrock and salt formations, that the recoverable total with any semblance of a slightly positive EROEI is somewhere around 10-15%. Worse still, your supply routes are hindered by civil unrest and sabotage. Now then, who's oil industry (and, thus, who's economy) is going to prosper? Yours or mine?​

I don't believe some people have a solid grasp of just how much the exploration models, infrastructure, extraction and refinery and distribution costs affect EROEI. Your "cumulative" factor is moot if it costs 1:1 to get the stuff to market. Even 2:1 or 3:1 is NOT SUSTAINING GROWTH for our economic paradigm predicated upon 7% expansion each year.

The fact of the matter is, they have not found a significant pool of light crude anywhere on God's green Earth in over 30 years. A lot of kiddie pools, but nothing abundant so as to keep up with skyrocketing demand. That shortfall is going to be 10 million barrels per day for our species, as confirmed by the IEA, the EIA, the Joint Chiefs, Total Oil, and our own Dept. of Energy.

5-10 years? LOL. The world petroleum/natural gas/petrochemical industries will be vibrant and viable for decades to come. As for investment- the company for which I work plows a quarter of a million dollars into the oil business each year. And we get "the stuff" to market with impressive profit margins. And we are but one of thousands of small independents spread across the U.S. You know- the guys whose wells make 1-3 barrels per day.

I didn't mean to ignore your point re: EROEI, but this is an industry of dollars invested vs dollars returned. I'm not sure what you mean by "energy" invested. As for the scenario you presented, my bet would be with the company that chooses to take whatever risk is necessary to complete a project and get "the stuff" to market regardless of physical or political obsticals.

Visit this link frequently: RIGZONE - Your Gateway to the Oil & Gas Industry
It highlights - on a weekly basis - significant discoveries that take place around the globe. There is sustained growth in oil production, albeit for the time being.

And as an industry "insider" I'll grant you this- we should reduce hydrocarbon consumption through conservation and efficiencies BUT we must also continue our search for reserves, be they mega deposits or "kiddie pools", all the while transitioning our economies toward yet more efficient and scientifically proficient sources of clean renewable energy based not upon artificial government-mandated markets but free markets that are self created due to economically rewarding conditions.

 

[JiggsCasey]

5-10 years? LOL. The world petroleum/natural gas/petrochemical industries will be vibrant and viable for decades to come.

Gosh... So, then, there's plenty of oil for decades, and the Joint Chiefs, the International Energy Agency, the EIA, Lloyds of London, ASPO and the U.S. Department of Energy are all lying when they predict 10 million bpd shortfall by 2015? Why would they do such a thing?

IEA chief economist: ... 'Era Of Cheap Energy Is Over'

The chief economist of the International Energy Agency said predicted Tuesday that the "era of cheap energy is over," with oil supply unlikely to keep up with demand.​

Oxford report: World oil reserves at tipping point
by Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment

The Status of Conventional Oil Reserves – Hype or Cause for Concern? published in the journal Energy Policy concludes that the age of cheap oil has now ended as demand starts to outstrip supply as we head towards the middle of the decade. The report also suggests that the current oil reserve estimates should be downgraded from between 1150-1350 billion barrels to between 850-900 billion barrels, based on recent research.​

World oil reserves 'exaggerated by one third'

The world's oil reserves have been exaggerated by up to a third, according to Sir David King, the Government's former chief scientist, who has warned of shortages and price spikes within years.​

Pentagon admits Peak Oil scenario likely in their J.O.E.

To generate the energy required worldwide by the 2030s would require us to find an additional 1.4 MBD every year until then. During the next twenty-five years, coal, oil, and natural gas will remain indispensable to meet energy requirements. The discovery rate for new petroleum and gas fields over the past two decades (with the possible exception of Brazil) provides little reason for optimism that future efforts will find major new fields. By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD.​

Wait, there's more... even the Dept. of Energy:

Washington considers a decline of world oil production as of 2011

The DoE April 2009 round-table, untitled “Meeting the Growing Demand for Liquid (fuels)“, was semi-public. Yet it remained unnoticed and unjustly, as it put forward forecasts that are far more pessimistic than any analysis the DoE has ever delivered.

Page 8 of the presentation document of the round-table, a graph shows that the DoE is expecting a decline of the total of all known sources of liquid fuels supplies after 2011.

The graph labels as “unidentified” the additional supply projects needed to fill in a gap that is expected to grow after 2011 between rising demand and decline of known sources of supply that the DoE supposes will start that year. The declining production foreseen by the DoE concerns the total of existing sources of liquid fuels plus the new production projects that are supposed to come on-stream before 2012.​

All innocuous, or taken out of context, no doubt...

I didn't mean to ignore your point re: EROEI, but this is an industry of dollars invested vs dollars returned. I'm not sure what you mean by "energy" invested. As for the scenario you presented, my bet would be with the company that chooses to take whatever risk is necessary to complete a project and get "the stuff" to market regardless of physical or political obsticals.

It's astonishing, then, that you are not familiar with EROEI, which is the root measuring stick by which energy policy is conducted and analyzed.

Money only represents the ability to do work. Energy IS the ability to do that work. You can't eat a dollar bill, nor put it into your gas tank and hope to run on it.

You also can't sink billions of dollars into dry holes and expect God, nor the mantle of the Earth, to just magically put more of the stuff down there.

Visit this link frequently: RIGZONE - Your Gateway to the Oil & Gas Industry
It highlights - on a weekly basis - significant discoveries that take place around the globe. There is sustained growth in oil production, albeit for the time being.

I'm quite familiar with the monitoring of new discoveries, and none of them would be considered "significant" in over 30 years. Now, if some people want to pretend 1 billion barrels here or there is "significant," then I suppose that's a relative term. But for the cost of building the infrastructure, let alone exploration, permits and distribution, you're not going to convince me or anyone that 1 billion barrels scattered here there and anywhere is anything "significant" for a paradigm utterly dependent upon 85 million barrels each and every passing day (and growing).

And as an industry "insider" I'll grant you this- we should reduce hydrocarbon consumption through conservation and efficiencies BUT we must also continue our search for reserves, be they mega deposits or "kiddie pools", all the while transitioning our economies toward yet more efficient and scientifically proficient sources of clean renewable energy based not upon artificial government-mandated markets but free markets that are self created due to economically rewarding conditions.

Now there's a paragraph we can agree on.

The difference, I suppose, is just how much money some people are willing to sink into a dying dinosaur (people like Huckabee sheep, and the rockers who love them) vs. how much they're willing to invest in improving and streamlining alternatives. The more you advocate reliance on fossil fuels, the more it becomes accepted that we turn to heavier, more disgusting forms of the stuff, such as shale, sands and coal. That's going in the WRONG direction.

 

[Mr. H.]

5-10 years? LOL. The world petroleum/natural gas/petrochemical industries will be vibrant and viable for decades to come.

Gosh... So, then, there's plenty of oil for decades, and the Joint Chiefs, the International Energy Agency, the EIA, Lloyds of London, ASPO and the U.S. Department of Energy are all lying when they predict 10 million bpd shortfall by 2015? Why would they do such a thing?

IEA chief economist: ... 'Era Of Cheap Energy Is Over'

The chief economist of the International Energy Agency said predicted Tuesday that the "era of cheap energy is over," with oil supply unlikely to keep up with demand.​

Oxford report: World oil reserves at tipping point
by Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment

The Status of Conventional Oil Reserves – Hype or Cause for Concern? published in the journal Energy Policy concludes that the age of cheap oil has now ended as demand starts to outstrip supply as we head towards the middle of the decade. The report also suggests that the current oil reserve estimates should be downgraded from between 1150-1350 billion barrels to between 850-900 billion barrels, based on recent research.​

World oil reserves 'exaggerated by one third'

The world's oil reserves have been exaggerated by up to a third, according to Sir David King, the Government's former chief scientist, who has warned of shortages and price spikes within years.​

Pentagon admits Peak Oil scenario likely in their J.O.E.

To generate the energy required worldwide by the 2030s would require us to find an additional 1.4 MBD every year until then. During the next twenty-five years, coal, oil, and natural gas will remain indispensable to meet energy requirements. The discovery rate for new petroleum and gas fields over the past two decades (with the possible exception of Brazil) provides little reason for optimism that future efforts will find major new fields. By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD.​

Wait, there's more... even the Dept. of Energy:

Washington considers a decline of world oil production as of 2011

The DoE April 2009 round-table, untitled “Meeting the Growing Demand for Liquid (fuels)“, was semi-public. Yet it remained unnoticed and unjustly, as it put forward forecasts that are far more pessimistic than any analysis the DoE has ever delivered.

Page 8 of the presentation document of the round-table, a graph shows that the DoE is expecting a decline of the total of all known sources of liquid fuels supplies after 2011.

The graph labels as “unidentified” the additional supply projects needed to fill in a gap that is expected to grow after 2011 between rising demand and decline of known sources of supply that the DoE supposes will start that year. The declining production foreseen by the DoE concerns the total of existing sources of liquid fuels plus the new production projects that are supposed to come on-stream before 2012.​

All innocuous, or taken out of context, no doubt...

I didn't mean to ignore your point re: EROEI, but this is an industry of dollars invested vs dollars returned. I'm not sure what you mean by "energy" invested. As for the scenario you presented, my bet would be with the company that chooses to take whatever risk is necessary to complete a project and get "the stuff" to market regardless of physical or political obsticals.

It's astonishing, then, that you are not familiar with EROEI, which is the root measuring stick by which energy policy is conducted and analyzed.

Money only represents the ability to do work. Energy IS the ability to do that work. You can't eat a dollar bill, nor put it into your gas tank and hope to run on it.

You also can't sink billions of dollars into dry holes and expect God, nor the mantle of the Earth, to just magically put more of the stuff down there.

Visit this link frequently: RIGZONE - Your Gateway to the Oil & Gas Industry
It highlights - on a weekly basis - significant discoveries that take place around the globe. There is sustained growth in oil production, albeit for the time being.

I'm quite familiar with the monitoring of new discoveries, and none of them would be considered "significant" in over 30 years. Now, if some people want to pretend 1 billion barrels here or there is "significant," then I suppose that's a relative term. But for the cost of building the infrastructure, let alone exploration, permits and distribution, you're not going to convince me or anyone that 1 billion barrels scattered here there and anywhere is anything "significant" for a paradigm utterly dependent upon 85 million barrels each and every passing day (and growing).

And as an industry "insider" I'll grant you this- we should reduce hydrocarbon consumption through conservation and efficiencies BUT we must also continue our search for reserves, be they mega deposits or "kiddie pools", all the while transitioning our economies toward yet more efficient and scientifically proficient sources of clean renewable energy based not upon artificial government-mandated markets but free markets that are self created due to economically rewarding conditions.

Now there's a paragraph we can agree on.

The difference, I suppose, is just how much money some people are willing to sink into a dying dinosaur (people like Huckabee sheep, and the rockers who love them) vs. how much they're willing to invest in improving and streamlining alternatives. The more you advocate reliance on fossil fuels, the more it becomes accepted that we turn to heavier, more disgusting forms of the stuff, such as shale, sands and coal. That's going in the WRONG direction.

Just what, or who, determines that any form of hydrocarbons is "disgusting" or is a turn in the "wrong direction"? Whether it be a dollar, or a single erg, hydrocarbons are the most abundant and efficent form of energy on this planet. That has been proven.

You seem to propose that a unit of energy might result in yet additional units of energy output. This runs contrary to basic physics. Yet- if I would spend let's say $200,000 drilling a 10" hole in the ground to a depth of 4000' thereby yielding an overall net 250,000 barrels of oil that is transformed into any one of thousands of products from toothbrushes to bicycle tires to medical supplies to lipstick which would cumulitavely be worth 100 times the value of that crude oil- then we might just call that a good return on investment. Dollar-wise or energy-wise.

The petroleum industry doesn't "advocate reliance on fossil fuels". It just goes out there and finds the shit. Why? Because there is potential profit in the venture. And that's what folks in the oil business do- they do their business. Improving and streamlining alternatives? Come on now- show me the money. If you want to chase some pie-in-the sky government funded technology that might return a dollar (nevermind the touchy-feely vibes it gives you) then go right ahead. I'll take the Vegas tables over a game of Candyland any day.

Your fixation with the cost of infrastructure is puzzling. Please understand this- before a hole is drilled in the ground (or the sea floor), these costs are calculated and pre-funded. By that I mean the money (or credit) is in the bank. The project would not move forward if it weren't understood that there was the potential to make a profit. Even the failure rate is calculated into the equation.

I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees. You speak of 1 billion reserve discoveries - I'm talking about drops that form an ocean. It's like ants busting their asses moving grains of sand- yet collectively they build magnificant things.

Anyhow- you addressed a lot more stuff but I'm tired for now.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Please understand this- before a hole is drilled in the ground (or the sea floor), these costs are calculated and pre-funded.

If nothing else in this blossoming exchange, let's both accept something straight away: I have a very solid understanding of both my own subject material, and your own, as-yet presented, subject material.

Unfortunately, there are no 10' holes in the ground that yield 250,000 barrels, are there? No, it's much more expensive and complicated than that.

I'm fully aware that the petroleum industry does what it does for profit. This fact highlights my argument far more than it does your own, you do realize?

The plain fact of the matter -- and one you don't seem willing to dispute -- is that global production of the stuff is waning. They're going to deeper and more expensive lengths to keep meeting quotas. Ghawar? In steep decline. Cantarell? In steep decline. The North Sea? Almost dead. Burgan? Past peak. These are each worth hundreds of your kiddie pool discoveries you allude to, and all have existing infrastructure in place. .... The industrialized world needs to find some 5-7 Ghawars just to maintain stasis! ... Where are they?

Back to my scenario, who's going to have the more prosperous oil industry? Your continent with tiny finds spread out all over the place, or my continent with half the totals, but consolidated in 1-2 centrally located mega-pools?

It costs money to get the stuff. It costs far more money to get the stuff under the sea. It costs far more money to get the stuff deep, deep under the sea. Throw in the inevitable environmental disaster that comes with such a violent extraction process? Oh yeah, more cost that affects EROEI.

You bet your azz we had better start getting serious about a Marshall Plan for renewables. In 10 years, we're gonna wish we never argued about it, and just did it. Unfortunately, there's just enough obfuscation, denial and deception to assure nothing ever gets done. And that blame will be on the Sarah Palin's and Aaron Tippin's of the world. Dumb as rocks.

 

[Mr. H.]

I'll get back to you tomorrow.

 

[KissMy]

Halliburtons new horizontal drill extraction enables us to recover many times more oil from all those old wells scattered about the USA that were previously considered tapped out. It also lets us tap oil shale that was previously off limits.

America’s oil shale reserves are enormous, totaling at least 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. That’s five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia!

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

15 Billion Barrels discovered Gulf of Mexico Lower Tertiary Trend Largest find since Prudhoe Bay.

BP made a "giant" find of 4 billion barrels at its Tiber Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico.

Canada has proven oil reserves of more than 178 billion barrels while Saudi Arabia which is number one has reserves topping 264.3 billion barrels and Canada is right next door which means a cheaper delivery.

Brazil's discovery of major offshore oil reserves in the subsalt -- an area under a thick layer of salt beneath the ocean floor that may hold up to 50 billion barrels of oil -- could help the nation become one of the four largest producers of the commodity this decade.

 

[JimH52]

I don't think anyone is saying we give up drilling for oil. But it needs to be done responsibly and safely. I am afraid oil companies are only looking at the bottom line in most of their drills. The Gulf is a good example of the mantra "DRILL BABY DRILL" going terribly wrong.

 

[edthecynic]

My memory of actual life experiences is a dam sight better than Wiki; a source that any whackjob can edit.

The Deepwater Horizon disaster happened, at least in part, because environmentalist bedwetters and their useful idiot lackeys in congress refuse to allow drilling in places that are far safer and have proven reserves, in shallow water and on dry land.

And I'm not a con, Malthus.

What a complete load of crapaganda. You CON$ blame your standard scapegoats for everything. You blame environmentalists and big government in that BS, how much longer before you blame the teacher's union and Hollywood?

In reality the oil companies have been actively lobbying for deepwater drilling because there is no more "easy oil" to be had and the largest deposits are in deepwater.

 

[Barb]

"How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read." -- Karl Krauss

That is exactly what happens. Not just diplomats, but all politicians. The press relies heavily on official sources for news content, and those sources then take their cues from the news in constructing or approving ploicy. Cute, no?

 

[topspin]

turbo-libs continue to shoot thier feet off with this issue. Thanks it's not like the republicans need your help tapping that ass in the midterms.

Yeah the oil is running out. LOFL that's why we just had a NEW field spewing millions of barrells out of a field that has billions. And there are hundreds more like it.
Yes, turbolibs drive. Yes, very few drive smug mobiles like the prius. Most drive SUV's to take the kids to soccor and stop at starbucks. And don't get me started on how much CO2 they burn on flying.

 

[KissMy]

US EIA Crude Oil Stocks increase again to 7.3M from 0.4M

Just look at the U.S. Crude Oil Stockpile Chart below. We are currently running far above the average stocks.

The last 40 years is littered with Countless predictions of "Peak Oil". Yet the world keeps breaking production records with ease & most of the planet is under the ocean & has not been explored yet. All the famous predictions & hype since 2005 stated we passed peak oil production of 85mbp/d yet in 2008 the world produced 87mbp/d.

The finding of new oil is continuous. Over the past 33 years mankind has consumed more than three times the world’s known oil reserves in 1976 and today proven oil reserves are nearly double what they were before we started. The story with natural gas is even better here and around the world enormous amounts of natural gas have been found. More will be found. But if you had asked in 1976 what the supply of oil would be like given the demand of 2010, you would have come up with the “Peak Oil” theory then, and we would have supposedly run out of oil decades ago; an ongoing impending crisis.

The key to the argument of Peak Oil, is that it not only ignores the huge amounts of oil yet to be found, but other hydrocarbon fuels as well. Even if the “theory” holds water, which I argue in your face, we will not be out of hydrocarbons and our cars stranded on the side of the road during this century.

Today: Crude futures in retreat after surprise inventory glut

Peak Oil Debunked

 

[JiggsCasey]

Topic=UnconventionalGas"]Halliburtons new horizontal drill extraction[/URL] enables us to recover many times more oil from all those old wells scattered about the USA that were previously considered tapped out. It also lets us tap oil shale that was previously off limits.

Yeah, watch a documentary called "Gas Land."

Learn a bit perspective regarding what horizontal fracturing entails. Then tell me if heavy "oil shale" is worth it in any expanded capacity.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8[/ame]

America’s oil shale reserves are enormous, totaling at least 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. That’s five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia!

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

15 Billion Barrels discovered Gulf of Mexico Lower Tertiary Trend Largest find since Prudhoe Bay.

BP made a "giant" find of 4 billion barrels at its Tiber Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico.

Canada has proven oil reserves of more than 178 billion barrels while Saudi Arabia which is number one has reserves topping 264.3 billion barrels and Canada is right next door which means a cheaper delivery.

Brazil's discovery of major offshore oil reserves in the subsalt -- an area under a thick layer of salt beneath the ocean floor that may hold up to 50 billion barrels of oil -- could help the nation become one of the four largest producers of the commodity this decade.

Ah yes... The false hope of ever heavier, dirtier oils. Trotted out time and time again as if it's some game changer. It's not.

Those last two are tar sands, not light crude. ... Extremely expensive to extract, frack and refine. ... Not the kind of EROEI that maintains growth for societies dependent upon growth. When do some people actually GET IT?

Also, the peakdebunked site is well known within the sustainability movement, mainly because his site has been all but abandoned as each layer of his "debunking" has gone swirling down the toilet. Regardless, the author of the site does not dispute peak oil, only the time frame and ramifications -- two aspects he has failed miserably on, as confirmed by the entities I listed.

Do better.

turbo-libs continue to shoot thier feet off with this issue. Thanks it's not like the republicans need your help tapping that ass in the midterms.

Yeah the oil is running out. LOFL that's why we just had a NEW field spewing millions of barrells out of a field that has billions. And there are hundreds more like it.
Yes, turbolibs drive. Yes, very few drive smug mobiles like the prius. Most drive SUV's to take the kids to soccor and stop at starbucks. And don't get me started on how much CO2 they burn on flying.

The Macondo Prospect, the pool from which the DH disaster occured, is estimated to have contained 55 million barrels, period. Or, about 16 hours of energy at current global rates of consumption. No where near a billion. Think it was worth it?

Research your claims before hitting send, thanks.

 

[topspin]

I seriously doubt it has only 55mm bbls those types of fields don't gush oil for 90 days like this one did.

 

[JiggsCasey]

I seriously doubt it has only 55mm bbls those types of fields don't gush oil for 90 days like this one did.

So the seismology reports are just wrong then? It's amazing that you know more than they do. Or did you just confuse gallons with barrels?

 

[topspin]

I did read the 50 mm barrels. It was an exploration well, we would likely call that not commercial based on development cost. That said their are billions of barrels out there discovered year after year.