Untapped US Oil Reserves....Truth?

As someone who lives in North Dakota and has spent a reasonable amount of time now in the direct contact with the people who work on the oil rigs and oil industry as a whole the Bakken numbers are a bit low from what I have been told. Also there are several other lesser sized oil reserves here as well, not just the Bakken!

Rough estimates rumbling around here are that all of the presently accessible oil reserves here are pushing well past 1 trillion barrels now not 500 billion! but then us locals knew the Bakken was here 30+ years ago so when it went main stream news it was no surprise to us rather a disappointment that it took 30 years for the industry to decide to tap it.

For what its worth there is a lot of speculation in the rigs and geological survey workers about an odd geological formation that seems to constantly register as an oil reserve about 7 miles down that if it is oil would make the Bakken look like a puddle that got left behind in the driveway by a leaky car!

Presently the theories about oil formation don't suggest that it could form that far down or in the estimated quantities suggested by seismic mapping and present drilling techniques don't support doing a 7 mile deep test bore at this time but then thoerys about how deep and where oil can be formed at have been proven wrong more than a few times in the past.

Anyone got a billion dollars or so they would lend me so I can buy a custom built super deep bore drilling rig and see what is really down there at the 7 mile level? The 'TCM oil formation' sounds like a nice name to me!

I'm not sure all of those numbers are correct, but yeah, when you consider the Bakken formation, the oil in the Alaska ANWR region, the Athabasca oil sands, the oil in the outer continental shelf, plus shale oil, coal, and the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale and other formations, North America could easily be energy independent (and we could stop wasting food and driving up the cost of food due to stupid ethanol schemes -- and pouring money in scandalous 'green energy' operations like Solyndra).

Wikipedia is not to be heavily trusted when it comes to geopolitics and related subjects, but here is a link to Wikipedia's info on world oil reserves. The numbers quoted differ quite a bit from the ones mentioned in your links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

From the USGS article at the bottom of your post 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.

Didn't follow up with the others but this is far from the 500 billion. Is the bulk of the remaining deemed to be technically UNrecoverable oil?

How many of the possible drill sites are on Reservations?

Many are on the reservations just the same as our first new oil refinery is going to be as well now after how many years!?!

Has the fact that they are on reservations be one of the hold-ups? Or, is it just the greenies?

Its the greenies holding it up...them and the Global warming believers.

I have friends in ND...and according to them its everything its claimed top be....in fact they are having a VERY hard time housing all the current oil field workers so they can't even bring more in....that doesn't sould like its all that minor an oil field.

Very true. Our state wide infrastructure is not presently set up to handle the influx of people and business. We need far more people to build housing and support business far worse than we need oil field workers at this time.

As far as the reservations go they are the best thing that ever happened around here. The affiliated tribes of the native American nation is its own sovereign sub nation onto itself that is largely exempt from a lot of the political BS that the greenies, tree huggers, environmentalists, and other related political groups demands and wants.

On the reservation they can pretty much do as they please and with far greater freedoms than the rest of us have regarding much our political policies which is just some of the reasons as to how and why they can have a new oil refinery or a bunch of them built there if they want.

So... now I am wondering what the hold-up is since they have known about it since 2006. Does it just take this long logistically or is there something else holding up tapping this local resource? Seems to me if they are being held up by the government they would be yelling about it every chance they could. Or, do they want to just sit on it since they are making a good profit without it?

The short answer would be local politics and self interests along with far too many people in key areas that have near zero forward looking ability when it comes to change.

The long answer would probably take a books worth of words to explain properly but mostly its that we have had far too many cheap and clueless hyper conservative old farts in positions of local power and influence for too long.

Those who could did and those who couldn't lived here and ran things.

Just trying out a different one. But yea I liked the Megamind one better now that I see this one.

Actually I a not pro business I am pro stagnation and apathy in business which is what I have come to see far too much of around here.

A few years ago we had a super Walmart come to Minot. It just bewildered me as to how many businesses and even the main hospital had fits about Walmart coming to town and paying considerably higher wages than them which could mean them losing their work force to the super store.

Yep a big name chain store paying just over high school dropout wages was considered a serious threat to their skilled workforce numbers. Even the local fuel suppliers threatened lawsuits against Walmart for unfair business practice because they had initially planned to have a gas station along with the super store and being Walmart is a big national chain they would not be buying the fuel they would sell from the local crooks but instead getting it from their own sources.

This is why I am thrilled to finally see the oil industry show up here! They do not care about who is who here. They need good workers so they pay well and don't care where they come from which means that if they can get someone from someplace else to do something better than what the local contractors and businesses are willing to provide they will bring that in from elsewhere too.

FWIW I like that our local skilled workers are now getting mid $20's an hour or more opposed to low teens. Granted most of them are no longer with the companies they where with 5 years ago but oh well its just business.

Could be a masterful bluff, for OPEC to note, and reduce their crude price before it becomes economically imperative for USA to develop this oil and screw up the future of the middle east....

Yes, I believe that there are massive untapped reserves up that way.

I know many were untappable years ago due to technology.

Things are moving forward though. I am currently playing a small part in a gigantic expansion project at a major (global player) refinery.

The project is "compartmentalized" to maintain secrecy. The few confidential documents I have been privied to as part of my scope of work all boldly show "OPERATION XXXX CRUDE" and "DO NOT COPY/DISTRIBUTE" across the top.

They are obviously expanding for increased throughput.

Will this surplus energy be widely advertised to the public in the future, I doubt it.

Will we see a price drop at the pump, I doubt it.

Will we see $16 a barrel in the future, ya sure, perhaps when pigs fly

Why risk multi BILLION dollar quarterly profits.

While working many years ago in the oil fields of West Texas. I was once told by an oil man that oil in the ground was more secure then gold in Fort Knox. And just like that gold in Knox sooner or later the price will go up. So why pump more then you need to survive out.

So as long as those sitting on these reserves think like that don't expect the price to do anything but go up.

Even then they played the system. Most the wells being drilled were what they called stripper wells. Laws had been passed to appease ranchers and farmers whom land was being destroyed by drilling. They were limited to one well to 40 acres. In old established fields they went back divided the land to get 40 acres per well. If they could get more wells on it they did. Those new wells called stripper wells got them import prices for that oil up to so many barrels a day. It seems like the other pump jacks on those field turned slower then those on stripper wells.

Even back in the seventy with lines at the pumps the nations oil reserve tanks set full.

So no matter how much oil is in the ground in the US it no longer about making a buck but making billions.

"no longer about making a buck but making billions" - how true

Great story about your past days in the oil fields - thanks for sharing.

robin, you may be on the right track with that assessment.

Let the Camel Jockeys run out of oil and burn.......OPEC has been a thorn in our backside since the '73 Oil Embargo and bled this nation and others dry. Not that we are not in fault in many ways for not conserving all along; the writing has been on the wall way too long and we Americans (esp. the politicians) tend to have short attention spans when comes to being energy wise.

Glad to see that I was not misreading the email and it's links! Thanks guys & gals for the info!

So, why hasn't the flaming liberal US media picked up on all of this, and why is Washington not bringing this information to the forefront of every American's conscienceness? I'm beginning to wonder if the PACs in the Capital are shutting the big mouths of elected officials with their Petroleum Dollars???????

Capt Moosie,

I am not an oil expert but have worked in the telecoms field for the Oilers since the early 1970s.

You're note with it's attachment re the bakken field refers.

All the references refer to bakkenshale.

If that is correct splittting the oil out of the shale is not cheap - the process is, I believe, known as fracking? Economies of production change dramatically, you cnnot just pump it out if I undestand correctly.

You may be correct in the numbers of available or unavailable oil I cannot tell. But you need an expert to look at this.

Look at the Canadian experience, for one.

Good Luck America, if you find lots of oil - don't forget - us Brits would like some too!!

Sleepy

Yes, 'fracking' is the term if these are shale deposits. There may be huge implications for the affected land, and it's population.

Everyone needs to act responsibly, and with caution. eg see this link for a little-known problem...

http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/home.php

It's not just a matter of fracking ahead joyfully, as you may get fracked-up in the process.

I did read that the Bakken was oil-rich rock (not quite shale, more solid blocks with oil-veining of some sort, but I'm neither a petro- nor a geo-engineer, so don't ask me for the details) and that Fracking was the necessary extraction process. Some of the opponents of Fracking fear that it will allow currently locked-up contaminants into the water table. Others, somewhat less supported by what is currently known, but still having legitimate concerns, are worried that Fracking, which involves Fracturing/Cracking the bedrock layers that hold the oil, might result in large-scale siesmic events in places where no fault-lines currently exist. Who know how bad that could get?

My answer to both is that if we don't do some serious testing, instead of just hand-wringing and crying about our worries, we are likely to starve, or collapse, just as the Obama-philes would love us to do.

But those who espouse these worries always insist it's not THEIR responsibility to do the testing. It is the the Oil-mongers (My choice of words, to emphasize THEIR point, but not the terms I'd choose to use) responsibility to PROVE that they WON'T harm the environment.

And we, as well as all of the nay-sayers, know that it is impossible to prove a negative, so no amount of testing will ever satisfy them.

Canadian shale oil is extracted @ $40/barrel,--I expect Bakken costing to be similar. I DO agree you & I will not see $16/barrel oil. I'd rather pay more to be free of Arab/other oil. I blame the Saudis for 911, because our monies for their/other's oil paid them to later pay the Terrorists of Ben Laden/Al Qaida/Hamas/Pallastinians/Islamic Brotherhood.

As you say, the price of the oil must be high enough to make it reasonable to recover it, and the technology must exist to do it. It is economics, not politics. Environmental regulation does add to the cost, but as I spent several years in the SE Kansas area where the strip miners could just make their money in the good old days and walk away from the mess, I tend to want the regs!

Thanks for this, Randy. Snopes was a great help to me, on the Bakken question, also.I tell a lot of my friends who ask "is this one for real?" to go check Snopes. Most don't seem to do so, but keep asking me.

Me? I keep asking Snopes.

Snopes has been caught being wrong before.....it may be a good source for stuff, but its not an infallible source.

When?

I've found a couple examples myself over the years......but no...I don't remember the specifics or I would have mentioned them. I've had for more important things to remember.

Snopes has corrected and updated entries based on new information. Perhaps your examples eventually fell into this category.

Its possible...but since I don't remember which instances they were, I can't check them to see it that happened. But I do rememeber some of them were not recent events...

Well, if you can't be bothered to back up your statements, why do you make them?

Because what I said was completely true, I was there to witness the events in question, they weren't....claiming they are infallible, unbiased and the most accurate source on the Internet can't be backed up with any proof either.

They can't prove impartiality......because they aren't. And that makes everything subject to being skewed....because how many people are in a position to say....that didn't happen because I was there? Right, not too damned many.

And incidently.....can you prove my statements weren't truthful?

I don't have to...you are the one who made them.

Now back 'em up.

Heck, I'm not even disagreeing with you. Just want to see proof, otherwise your statements are suspect. And if this one is suspect, are ALL of them suspect? Your credibility is on the line here.

I back up MY statments when called upon to do so.

Can you remember specifically everything that you did in the last 25 years.....and found out roughly 5 year ago Snopes was inaccurate in its entirety on several of them by chance....and time passes because your life doesn't revolve around it....and you don't remember the details....because they were never a point of discussion since then, and you've had a lot on your plate since then. That doesn't change any facts or any reality of the events, snopes has HOW many on its site?

All I claimed is Snopes is not 100% accurate. And I don't need proof to back that up. Nothing is 100% accurate, Not Snopes, Not even NASA with their resources. Snopes themselves would admit to mistakes being made from time to time. Or simply being the victim of false information to start with.

So... you cannot...or will not back up your statements. Thats fine. I'll keep that in mind.

They are usually true enough, I suppose, and I imagine if I really hunted I could find a spelling mistake or two in a Snopes article, as you said, nobody is perfect. I personally have never found Snopes to be wrong, misguided, or deliberately misleading. If they don't know, they say so. Clearly you have (though I only have the unsupported word of an anonomous poster on an internet forum for it), and as a result, to me, it looks as though you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. I still think that Snopes is the best "go to" reference when somebody sends me some "breaking news" by email.

Anyway....this really has nothing to do with the con artistry involved in getting people to buy into difficult access oil fields in North Dakota. So I shall not be crushed if this post is marked "off topic".

Regards.

I could have posted that as an anonymous user, I didn't. I could go through a thousand news stories over the last 25 years that were wholely or substantually inaccurate....many of them I could not "substantiate" because I don't hold orrigina documents for one...(but I did read them at the time) or via other means that I might not be able to publicly detail for a number of reasons. Think non-disclosure agreements as the main reason. The Specific events came up during a discussion such as this...arguements said publically circulated data was not vaild because snopes said so...Those happened to be one of those things I happened ot be involved in at the time so I know the facts of the case were not as claimed by snopes...or the media.

Now that could be a reult of snopes wanting to skew the facts...but I honestly think its because they were fed information that was inacurrate by design. End results being the same....wrong claims. But for very different reasons.

I'm willing to take the stance snopes got taken for a ride in those cases...and there was no intent on their part to mislead.

Like I said...I can not remember which specific events they were, I've dealt with so many during the course of my employment its not suprising...many covered under non-dislosures....some not. I seem to remember it was one of those NOT covered.

But the fact I can't remember the details, doesn't change the reality of their validity. We weren't talking spelling.....we are talkign about what was reported in the news which Snopes picked as reality...vs. what actually happened which wasn't what the news reported.

I agree this all drifted off topic. The point I was making is just because snopes says its so....doesn't mean it actually is 100% of the time. I don't know of ANY place you can rely on 100% of the time to be accurate. Not even your doctor.

Wow.

I don't make it a habit to get into slanging matches with people, but I resent being included in all you hold so villianous. I am not a liberal, I am not "minimizing reserves" and I take great offense at being called a "useful idiot" by someone who hasn't even taken the time to get to know me. GET OFF YOUR SOAPBOX and think!

I MERELY said that Snopes has been a useful resource to me, and thanked Randy for info he presented.

If you want a target for your ire, and particularly for your snarky bad manners, look elsewhere. I won't be unarmed any time in the near future, being a fully qualified shooter and gun-owner with a range of weapons at my personal disposal, and every member of my family not only taught to shoot, but qualified to carry concealed. That's ALL of them, all five of my kids, my three daughters-in-law, my wife, and, as soon as they are old enough, my 8 (soon to be 11) grandkids. I'm a hunter, and an unabashed harvester of my own food. I'd like nothing better than to see the US drill for, produce, and be self-sufficient in oil.

As anyone who knows much about me at all would already have known.

You owe me an apology.

YOU SAID your "info-base" is Snopes. Well & good...for YOU. If I don't know the funding source, because they don't CHOOSE to reveal it, if I...were YOU, I'd pick scripture to base your image on, because Snopes may disappoint you (--and scripture never will). If Snopes agrees with the Globalist-LIE of "peak oil", than you have been defrauded by them. I would NOT laugh at that, we ALL have been defrauded at times, especially ME(--I used to worry about Peak-oil being valid. I researched it further, and can now say I was wrong, twice. There IS NO "peak-oil", and, I shouldn't have worried. I...was before...a "useful idiot" to the Globalists, my sworn enemies). Direct your "sense of injury" to Snopes, who deserves it, not me or Smoothie. I commend you for arming your family, THAT is very wise, we ALL should be doing that in these "Times of Trouble", --something I recognize, because I have guns, also. I am a member of JPFO & the NRA. I LOVE snipers (--don't we all?), but some fights HAVE to be fought toe-toe, which can ruin your clothes. I also like swords & stuff, but I think the Battle-axe or the war hammer( but not a "morning star"), is best against plate/ceramic armour. I have "trouble" controlling a Morning Star. The Globalists WANT us to be at each other's throats, especially those Globalists that are also Satanists(--Satan LOVES spilled blood, you see). You seem like the kind of guy that would NOT apologise, if he's not incorrect. You'd be surprised how many people think bears are just big, cuddly "dogs". So I "owe" you an handshake, but NO apology. Snopes owes you that.

Have you checked Snopes regarding "peak oil"? I mean, before I go and call people names, I get some information, otherwise I sound like a nut bar. Which I am fairly certain you are NOT, though the satanist reference is telling. When you search Snopes for "peak oil" you get an article on how logic and clear thinking are thrown out the window when partisan politics raises its stupid head, the mixture of true and false information regarding the time that Hugo Chavez decided to meddle in petro politics, Mr. John Coleman's muchly debated and mostly refuted rant about global warming. None of those entries seem to be delusional or fraudulent (your words) or inspired by Satan (again, YOUR words.) In fact, none of them seem to be about peak oil as I understand the term.

Damn...I seem to becoming an apologist for Snopes! Lordy! (insert eye roll here) Hey, those guys can defend themselves, they don`t need me to do it! I just think that I see a lot more clear logic and thought with the Mikkelsons than I do here. My opinion is simply based on the fact that I have never actually found an incorrect entry. Ever. Easy for me to back it up...just go to a post and see if it is valid. What you want me to do of course is to prove a negative. You cannot prove a negative. All I need to do is to point to any entry and prove that it is valid. Ahh, you say, but the next one might not be. And I look at the next one, and it is valid and truthful also. Ahh, you say, the next one might not be. I heard from a friend of a friend that there was a false entry. Well, the next one is truthful and valid as well. Ahh, you say...and then finally in frustration I say...prove it. Then I will believe you. Until then, you are just shouting into the out house hole listening to the pleasing echo.

I think if the Mikkelsons found that they had been mislead (as smoothy rightly suggested could happen) that they would correct the postings as quick as they could.

(And a morning star is a just fine weapon. I have no trouble controlling it. Not like trying to control a kettenmorgenstern. Now that is a pain, but it WAS King John`s favorite weapon. He was blind you see, and used to go off on tangents on HIS forums and battlefields as well...)

Check-out the 50's film "Ivanhoe". The hero and one of the villains (both knights of the King John Era) are dueling. Our Hero has the battle-axe over the Morning-star and triumphs, finally. Now, you'll say, the Hero won because it was in the script. True, but I'd still take the Axe. Richard III slew Tudor's Champion, Sir Cheney (--related to our ex-Vice?...)--a larger, taller, probably more experienced man, and Dickon favored the Axe. It is said he got within 10 ft of Tudor(--later Henry VII), and Tudor never forgave the Traitorous Percys for it, plucking them from this world, one-by-one. The highest-degree Masons( 32nd Degree & up) and many Globalists USE Satanic practices & imagery to "control" their membership from defecting/revealing their agendas. You do not have to believe in Satan--the pictures they'll have of you will be "damning-enough." As to the reality of Satan, go see the film "The Rite.", based on fact. If Coleman supported global-warming from East Anglia manufactured-data, he IS a prevaricator!

I don't get my facts from movies.

Thanks for the sources though. Might be some rattling good FICTION there.

I meant a ball & chain. I once owned a ball & chain. Some of the Morning stars depicted were simply on a shaft which I COULD "handle"--it was the ball & chain that I found tricky. English royalty of the "Wars of the Roses" under Edward IV, used cheifly German-sets/suits of armour did they not? As he died in battle, I wonder if the Tower, Imperial War Museum or elsewhere has Dickon's breastplate,"ventilated", as it must have been, from Cheshire pike-men? And armour is all well & good, but a hundred years later, when breastplates were still in vogue, couldn't the match-lock/wheel-lock of the period still put a hole in a breastplate, or baring that, produce a 2-4" impression... in stopping the balls of the era, which would act like a crude knife, killing the wearer, even if the ball was stopped/contained? And the Japanese/oriental lacquered-plates weren't any better were they? I think there IS, still, a "tearing-need" for truly GREAT armour--due to the enormous fatalities from head-shots, does anyone pour a helmet-shaped bucket of Lexan, that could stop the assault-rifle rounds, yet be clear (until it stopped the round),so soldiers/police could use it? Maybe the round could be stopped, but the secondary injuries due to whip-lash, might cause a break near the cervicle vertebrae, Killing via respiratory-center-loss/shock?? Some ad on USA TV in the 50s, showed the announcer firing a 45 cal thompson at an jet airplane canopy(looked less than 20' away). Wasn't that lexan? Why not have one/two layers to stop an AK round/heavier, worn/made as a full-face helmet? There's a "million-dollar" idea for you Teddy!

Ballistic Clipboard holds papers, stops bullets

There are lots of shale oil and gas reserves but they are locked in the rock. You have to drill down, plant explosives and blow it up, then pump in tons of chemicals and water to extract the fossil fuel.

The regulation on the industry is lax, so we don't really know what chemicals, what quantities and where it is being used, let alone when and if it will surface in vegetation or water supplies etc. The new plans are huge and before we dig up enough fuel to create even more greenhouse gasses, we need to see full lifetime analysis

Here's a conspiracy theory straight out of left field and it begins with a question...

Would the US benefit if the rest of the worlds oil supply runs out and they were the only oil producing country left?

I've heard "rumors" of alternative sources of energy that were "killed" because someone did not want "oil" to be replaced. America is heavily involved in oil in every facet of its process (Hell, wars have been fought over it). From the ground to its final combustion so many people, many companies, many industries and possibly the economy depend heavily on the oil industry not going the way of the dodo?

So the question is... are you sitting on a pile of black gold and making your citizens pay for it so when the crunch comes, the U.S. government is the only one holding all the aces?

If oil remains irreplaceable as a fuel source and your the only source, does that make OPEC look like a stupid puppy played to the max?

China looms large as the next threat to U.S. dominance but they're weakness may be dependence on oil to power they're ability to just do business, much less fight.

Anyway... its just a stupid conspiracy theory, the stuff novels are made of. I'm no expert and far from informed to make any claims but I'm sure this will spur a lot of arguments, discussions and rhetoric and I'm curious to see how readers will react to this.

Just playing devils advocate and I reiterate there is no fact or basis to this thread. Just a curious mind playing with wild ideas who would love to hear the comments from the many brilliant and not so brilliant minds here.

P.S. Please don't shoot the messenger =)

Oil shales, oil sands, tar sands are all buried deposits that hold oil. The tar sand in Canada are easy to mine - being on the surface, and the oil has to be washed from the sand with steam and solvents. Oil shale has to be broken into small particles and then solvents and steam can extract the oil. The cost to extract oil from shale is higher than from tar sands - some say $75 per barrel?

That said, these tar sands and oil shales that have a wide occurrence are indeed the source of future hydrocarbons. If oil went to $150, then tar and shale would save the day, but at the same time, alcohol from woodwaste, cellulose and corn etc, would all suddenly become far more economical and would mitigate oil use

The problem is not the quantity of oil we produce, it is the throughput of our refineries in the US. There hasn't been a refinery built since Jimmy Carter enacted the EPA. We ship our oil overseas, have it refined, and then ship it back. Where is the sense in that? The libs like it that way. Your money is sent overseas, instead of down the street. If we were allowed to build refineries in the US, the economy would turn around immediately. New jobs, sales of construction materials, cheaper gas, cheaper costs of materials. All of these things lead to more purchasing power for the average American. Where is the common sense in not allowing the construction of new refineries? Every other country in the world is doing this.

Wow, for a moment there I thought that was a Canadian rant...here we are digging our precious black legacy out of the ground, and instead of refining it here, we are sending it the entire width of the United States to the Gulf Coast! And presumably to buy it back in the form of plastics, and P.O.L. products.

So you say that in fact y'all are sending your oil off shore to be refined? Really? Not that I am disagreeing with you, but that is the first time I have ever heard of that proceedure. It seems remarkably un economical, and I would love to see your references. Not because I don't believe you, but because I figure if we are gonna be selling a billion barrels of petrochemicals via this nut bar pipeline to the states only to have it sent off shore to be refined, I thing we here in Canada should be refining it first.

I did some casual google searches, but came up empty. Any links please?

There is a lot of truth in that Yousef. The pollution from local refining in an integrated facility would be less, and the product will ship by pipeline more easily due to lower viscosity. The greens and other yahoos are paid excess attention.

We nee to invoice greens for the extra costs their policies invoke = accountability

Correct! Importing oil to be refined into gas overseas is insane(--as is our EPA-controlled govt). Remember...O'Bama & Hillary...in 2008, slipped their press entourages...went to Virgina to the Bilderberger meeting where they were TOLD (--they both are Globalists) to "crash the Economy, USING...the EPA!" What is the govt. doing? Allowing the EPA, to "call our oil-drilling/coal-mining 'shots'", rather than standing aside and letting us join the OPEC-nations! What did O'Bama JUST do, "We must support the EU(--Bilderbergers)" or words to that effect...@ the G-20, this week. The EPA and Eco-nazis SUE to PREVENT refinery construction. The Arabs are building a huge gasoline refinery in the middle East. Hm-m-m. PS. Carter IS a Globalist, and was over 30 years ago.

Still waiting for that link to how much US oil is being shipped off shore to be refined.

There is a new refinery scheduled to come online in 2012 (Arizona Clean Fuels):
(from http://www.eia.gov/state/state-energy-profiles-analysis.cfm?sid=AZ)

"A new refinery in Yuma County, Arizona, about 100 miles southwest of Phoenix, was initially proposed for completion by 2010. However, it was delayed because the Quechan tribe expressed concerns about disturbing cultural artifacts and the Mexican government refused to supply the refinery with crude oil. The refinery was reapproved in 2008 for a location in Mohawk Valley, 4 miles east of the proposed Yuma location, and is now expected to be fully operational by 2012. The refinery is planning to receive its crude supplies from Alberta oil sands that will be shipped by barge to Mexico and shipped by pipeline to Arizona. The facility will have a capacity to refine 163,000 barrels per day of crude oil and produce 6.3 million gallons per day of petroleum clean fuels such as CARB3 (California Air Resources Board fuel specification), Arizona Clean Burning Gasoline, ultra-low sulfur gasoline, as well as other petroleum products. This new facility will be Arizona's first refinery and could be the first refinery in the United States specifically designed to produce clean petroleum fuels."

There's another refinery project in South Dakota, the Hyperion Energy Center, which appears to be in the earlier stages of permitting and approval.

FYI, existing refineries in the US have upgraded and expanded facilities since 1976. My impression is that, bluster aside, the oil companies have decided for business reasons to keep refinery capacity in the US relatively low and to expand overseas. (It keeps domestic gas prices high, for example.) It may be a much more difficult and long-term project to complete a new refinery in the US now compared to the 1950s, but it's not impossible to build new refineries in the US.

Ok everyone here a link for ya'll to think about. Oil may not be a fossil based per say. And if its not, there could be more that thought.

Here another link.

last Google, "oil on other planets".

Methane and other chemicals have been found in other planets and atmospheres.

Just something to think about.

The EPA and Environazi's aren't going to be happy about that.

That relates to what I was referring to in post 1 about the geological anomaly that shows up about 7 miles down in my part of the world.

Something is there but for now its still just a 'something' that to deep to be cost effective or worth doing a test bore at this time to find out exactly what it is.

The oil they're talking about is not easy to get out of the ground. But you do have to wonder, with Iraq and Libya settled down and producing oil again, why is oil so expensive.

"WARNING! You are only allowed to edit your posts for 15 minutes from the time of original posting. You needed to be done by 11/15/2011 11:48:42 AM, which means YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED! Sorry!" -wow, is that stupid or what????

Try doing your proof reading in "preview"

IMHO the 15 minutes is reasonable. It's ample time to review a comment for dumb mistakes or to add or correct something that wasn't clear. CR4 gives a chance to preview a comment prior to submitting it.

The longer the window to edit is open the more of us read and comment on the mistaken comment prior to it being corrected. After the edit, our comments may seem out of place as they might be referring to text that is no longer there.

I think it's better to leave it and require the commenter who wants to change what they said submit another comment, so those coming in late can make sense out of what's being written.

In your case, how much time do you need to review a few sentences?

Well, things like this...

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/OilPipeline-Nebraska/2011/11/14/id/418011?s=al&promo_code=D832-1

Canada wants to sell us oil....but numbnuts in the Whitehouse is refusing to allow the pipeline to our refineries to be built....so its going to go to China.

Yeah that 15minute time to edit is a PITA at times....see things I wanted to edit after that passes way too often.

The price will rise to what the market will bear. I understand there is a big dirty patch on the Alberta Landscape which used to have oil sand on it. Be a good place to stick a refinery.

Wonder why Harper seems so keen to just ship it out of the country.

Its revenue for the country....and they are producing a LOT of it. Thats some pretty extreme climate around there....harsh enviroment to be running a refinery.

Harper stating that if the US won't or can't buy it, he will sell it to the Chinese is simple economics in action. I don't think the Chinese will refine it and sell it back to the US though. Either way, it WILL be sold.

Too bad if you put yourselves out of the loop.

Not MY problem.

Oh, and regarding it being too cold to refine oil in Alberta....this link does not think so.

It is a list of refineries that are already operating in Alberta just fine.

Any other objections? Oh right.... That pesky aquifer. Well, what about that? Don't you think that thousands of people's drinking water being at risk of contamination is worth being able to drive to the corner store for cigarettes?

Grin!