2 trillion barrels of untapped oil

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: altonb1
The US has a lot of untapped oil reserves. Is it expensive to extract? Depends on what you include in your calculations. If you simp,ly include the costs associated with taking the oil from the ground, it would be a very worth-while exercise. The real costs, however, come from having to fight the tree-hugging liberals and lobbyists that oppose the drilling for oil on quasi-ecological terms.

Personally, I believe global warming is a myth. I think the warming of the planet is a natural occurrence just as the tides shift. In the 70s, many of these same global warming enthusiasts were proclaiming we were on the verge of an impending ice age. I think it is just a natural progression of the Earth and it will self-correct again.

Alaska, for example, has a wealth of oil available. However, we can't tap into it's resources because too many oppose drilling in a bunch of rock and ice for ecological reasons. (Umm...it's rock, okay?)

I wouldn't say that around here...

Yeah, considering he's a dumb-ass, and all.

 

[Analog]

Please spell Trillion correctly...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
It's easy to see why it's not tapped yet...

Cost

and

Use up the rest of the worlds' supply, then charge 500x that for our oil.

:thumbsup:

Yep. Control/own the resources.

Food, land, fuel. Own them and control them.

 

[Maleficus]

Originally posted by: Analog
Please spell Trillion correctly...

Listen to this man.

 

[zephyrprime]

Oil shale has been known about for more than a hundred years. The guy that discovered it built a fireplace out of oil shale and then burned his house to the ground the first time he used his new fireplace.

 

[dsity]

Originally posted by: Maleficus

Originally posted by: Analog
Please spell Trillion correctly...

Listen to this man.

Bleh.



That would be something. Buy oil till it runs low world wide. In the mean time research new ways to tap into this oil. When the time comes, everyone depends on the U.S. for oil. Complete 360.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
It's easy to see why it's not tapped yet...

Cost

and

Use up the rest of the worlds' supply, then charge 500x that for our oil.

:thumbsup:

Yep. Control/own the resources.

Food, land, fuel. Own them and control them.

Revenge will be oh so sweet.

 

[altonb1]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: altonb1
The US has a lot of untapped oil reserves. Is it expensive to extract? Depends on what you include in your calculations. If you simp,ly include the costs associated with taking the oil from the ground, it would be a very worth-while exercise. The real costs, however, come from having to fight the tree-hugging liberals and lobbyists that oppose the drilling for oil on quasi-ecological terms.

Personally, I believe global warming is a myth. I think the warming of the planet is a natural occurrence just as the tides shift. In the 70s, many of these same global warming enthusiasts were proclaiming we were on the verge of an impending ice age. I think it is just a natural progression of the Earth and it will self-correct again.

Alaska, for example, has a wealth of oil available. However, we can't tap into it's resources because too many oppose drilling in a bunch of rock and ice for ecological reasons. (Umm...it's rock, okay?)

I wouldn't say that around here...

Yeah, considering he's a dumb-ass, and all.

Why? Because I'm not a liberal environmentalist?

 

[Xylitol]

The US has an insane amount of oil. The thing is that it's VERY VERY crude which is why we use middle-eastern oil which
is cheap to refine.
Just to throw this out, I want Alaska to be the last place to get oil out of it since it's such a beautiful place and I don't want it to be ruined.

 

[0roo0roo]

its true.
but it depends on oil prices going up to make it viable. so its a future resource.
the us is also the saudi arabia of coal.

canada right now is getting rich off alberta oil sands which only became viable relatively recently.

another untapped source are gas hydrates from the bottom of the ocean.

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its true.
but it depends on oil prices going up to make it viable. so its a future resource.
the us is also the saudi arabia of coal.

canada right now is getting rich off alberta oil sands which only became viable relatively recently.

another untapped source are gas hydrates from the bottom of the ocean.

alberta oil sands have been operating since 1967. if that's recent, you're right.

but you didnt know that. so you're wrong. fail.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: altonb1

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: altonb1
The US has a lot of untapped oil reserves. Is it expensive to extract? Depends on what you include in your calculations. If you simp,ly include the costs associated with taking the oil from the ground, it would be a very worth-while exercise. The real costs, however, come from having to fight the tree-hugging liberals and lobbyists that oppose the drilling for oil on quasi-ecological terms.

Personally, I believe global warming is a myth. I think the warming of the planet is a natural occurrence just as the tides shift. In the 70s, many of these same global warming enthusiasts were proclaiming we were on the verge of an impending ice age. I think it is just a natural progression of the Earth and it will self-correct again.

Alaska, for example, has a wealth of oil available. However, we can't tap into it's resources because too many oppose drilling in a bunch of rock and ice for ecological reasons. (Umm...it's rock, okay?)

I wouldn't say that around here...

Yeah, considering he's a dumb-ass, and all.

Why? Because I'm not a liberal environmentalist?

Well, because you think being liberal or an environmentalist is a bad thing, or that the two have anything to do with each-other (other than the fact that they both require some level of intellect). Because you cannot seem to get it through your head that global warming is real, and is not associated with MAN MADE global warming. Lastly, because you still seem to think that drilling into the rock in Alaska is a good idea, even though we're supposed to be waning ourselves OFF of oil and petroleum, not finding more invasive ways of obtaining it.

My views on the environment and science have nothing to do with politics, yours do. That's why I think that you're kind of an idiot. Keep sucking down that partisan semen, though.

 

[alkemyst]

There is tons of oil in the US...the problem is no one wants oil rigs in their backyards nor refineries.

This isn't P&N but there has been quite a bit of stockpiling going on by our government.

I truly think the wars over there are more about fuking up the oil supply than solving any problems.

It's about time we all bite the bullet and switch to better sources of energy though. It's going to not be so fun at the front of it...but in a few generations we should be back to fun vehicles again.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: altonb1

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: altonb1
The US has a lot of untapped oil reserves. Is it expensive to extract? Depends on what you include in your calculations. If you simp,ly include the costs associated with taking the oil from the ground, it would be a very worth-while exercise. The real costs, however, come from having to fight the tree-hugging liberals and lobbyists that oppose the drilling for oil on quasi-ecological terms.

Personally, I believe global warming is a myth. I think the warming of the planet is a natural occurrence just as the tides shift. In the 70s, many of these same global warming enthusiasts were proclaiming we were on the verge of an impending ice age. I think it is just a natural progression of the Earth and it will self-correct again.

Alaska, for example, has a wealth of oil available. However, we can't tap into it's resources because too many oppose drilling in a bunch of rock and ice for ecological reasons. (Umm...it's rock, okay?)

I wouldn't say that around here...

Yeah, considering he's a dumb-ass, and all.

Why? Because I'm not a liberal environmentalist?

Well, because you think being liberal or an environmentalist is a bad thing, or that the two have anything to do with each-other (other than the fact that they both require some level of intellect). Because you cannot seem to get it through your head that global warming is real, and is not associated with MAN MADE global warming. Lastly, because you still seem to think that drilling into the rock in Alaska is a good idea, even though we're supposed to be waning ourselves OFF of oil and petroleum, not finding more invasive ways of obtaining it.

My views on the environment and science have nothing to do with politics, yours do. That's why I think that you're kind of an idiot. Keep sucking down that partisan semen, though.

Burn.

 

[railer]

My views on the environment and science have nothing to do with politics, yours do. That's why I think that you're kind of an idiot. Keep sucking down that partisan semen, though.

I saved that one. Very nice.....

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: manowar821
My views on the environment and science have nothing to do with politics, yours do. That's why I think that you're kind of an idiot. Keep sucking down that partisan semen, though.

Burn.

That's no burn. That's pure political regurgitations from liberal/econazi fundamentalists.

Quite simply we are holding onto our oil reserves because we should.

Would you give away your resources to everybody else? No. You would hold onto them until they have none and then charge them a premium. Supply/demand. live it, learn it, love it.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: manowar821
My views on the environment and science have nothing to do with politics, yours do. That's why I think that you're kind of an idiot. Keep sucking down that partisan semen, though.

Burn.

That's no burn. That's pure political regurgitations from liberal/econazi fundamentalists.

Quite simply we are holding onto our oil reserves because we should.

Would you give away your resources to everybody else? No. You would hold onto them until they have none and then charge them a premium. Supply/demand. live it, learn it, love it.

Not using the oil reserves is a good thing. It baffles me when I read this stuff about saving people money on gas prices. The money will have to be paid, either now or later.

Everyone wins when we leave the oil in there for future use, or even better, NOT EVER use.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its true.
but it depends on oil prices going up to make it viable. so its a future resource.
the us is also the saudi arabia of coal.

canada right now is getting rich off alberta oil sands which only became viable relatively recently.

another untapped source are gas hydrates from the bottom of the ocean.

alberta oil sands have been operating since 1967. if that's recent, you're right.

but you didnt know that. so you're wrong. fail.

oh man.. epic fail indeed.
they tried to exploit it back then sure, but they failed because it was too EXPENSIVE. only with massive investment in new techniques and higher oil prices did it become viable.

idiot. did you really think canada just held back on its saudi arabia dwarfing oil supply just to be cute all these decades?

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its true.
but it depends on oil prices going up to make it viable. so its a future resource.
the us is also the saudi arabia of coal.

canada right now is getting rich off alberta oil sands which only became viable relatively recently.

another untapped source are gas hydrates from the bottom of the ocean.

alberta oil sands have been operating since 1967. if that's recent, you're right.

but you didnt know that. so you're wrong. fail.

oh man.. epic fail indeed.
they tried to exploit it back then sure, but they failed because it was too EXPENSIVE. only with massive investment in new techniques and higher oil prices did it become viable.

idiot. did you really think canada just held back on its saudi arabia dwarfing oil supply just to be cute all these decades?

😀isgust;

it's been profitable since $25/barrel. explain that then.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Xylitol
The US has an insane amount of oil. The thing is that it's VERY VERY crude which is why we use middle-eastern oil which
is cheap to refine.
Just to throw this out, I want Alaska to be the last place to get oil out of it since it's such a beautiful place and I don't want it to be ruined.

You know I'm all for the environement and all but ANWR drilling is fully supported by the entire population of Alaska (live in fairbanks for 3 years). One big reason for this is because the region in question is tousands of miles from any populated areas and deep in the Tundra. Until the case is soundly made for catastrophic harm that drilling would cause the region then I think the decision of whether or not to allow drilling should be left to Alaskans.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: altonb1

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: altonb1
The US has a lot of untapped oil reserves. Is it expensive to extract? Depends on what you include in your calculations. If you simp,ly include the costs associated with taking the oil from the ground, it would be a very worth-while exercise. The real costs, however, come from having to fight the tree-hugging liberals and lobbyists that oppose the drilling for oil on quasi-ecological terms.

Personally, I believe global warming is a myth. I think the warming of the planet is a natural occurrence just as the tides shift. In the 70s, many of these same global warming enthusiasts were proclaiming we were on the verge of an impending ice age. I think it is just a natural progression of the Earth and it will self-correct again.

Alaska, for example, has a wealth of oil available. However, we can't tap into it's resources because too many oppose drilling in a bunch of rock and ice for ecological reasons. (Umm...it's rock, okay?)

I wouldn't say that around here...

Yeah, considering he's a dumb-ass, and all.

Why? Because I'm not a liberal environmentalist?

Well, because you think being liberal or an environmentalist is a bad thing, or that the two have anything to do with each-other (other than the fact that they both require some level of intellect). Because you cannot seem to get it through your head that global warming is real, and is not associated with MAN MADE global warming. Lastly, because you still seem to think that drilling into the rock in Alaska is a good idea, even though we're supposed to be waning ourselves OFF of oil and petroleum, not finding more invasive ways of obtaining it.

My views on the environment and science have nothing to do with politics, yours do. That's why I think that you're kind of an idiot. Keep sucking down that partisan semen, though.

Burn.

Yep, the truth indeed. Stupid people have a hard time keeping their political ideology separate from their other views, they let their political slant color their perception of reality. It's like with some rabid anti-Bush people, if he said 1+1=2, they'd rant and rave that he was lying, simply because of how they feel about him. altonb1 demonstrated his stupidity with "global warming is a myth". Bottom line, we need to start using less in the way of carbon fuel, not more, and going to new lengths to get it out of the ground in more difficult areas is a step in the wrong direction.

<-- not a tree hugger, but want to leave the environment for future generations to enjoy where possible.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Xylitol
The US has an insane amount of oil. The thing is that it's VERY VERY crude which is why we use middle-eastern oil which
is cheap to refine.
Just to throw this out, I want Alaska to be the last place to get oil out of it since it's such a beautiful place and I don't want it to be ruined.

You know I'm all for the environement and all but ANWR drilling is fully supported by the entire population of Alaska (live in fairbanks for 3 years). One big reason for this is because the region in question is tousands of miles from any populated areas and deep in the Tundra. Until the case is soundly made for catastrophic harm that drilling would cause the region then I think the decision of whether or not to allow drilling should be left to Alaskans.

Yes, because history is not full of examples where the local population chooses short term profit over long term welfare for all. The answer is not finding more oil and figuring out more places to drill for it (destroying the wildlife there of course), the answer is lets work toward reducing our need for oil.

 

[altonb1]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
[Yep, the truth indeed. Stupid people have a hard time keeping their political ideology separate from their other views, they let their political slant color their perception of reality. It's like with some rabid anti-Bush people, if he said 1+1=2, they'd rant and rave that he was lying, simply because of how they feel about him. altonb1 demonstrated his stupidity with "global warming is a myth". Bottom line, we need to start using less in the way of carbon fuel, not more, and going to new lengths to get it out of the ground in more difficult areas is a step in the wrong direction.

<-- not a tree hugger, but want to leave the environment for future generations to enjoy where possible.

I demonstrated stupidity by saying global warming is a myth? Hmm..interesting.

Here is an article refuting it.

Wiki article of scientists disputing it

I could add numerous links, but why? My argument on global warming is not political in itself, but the issue IS a political issue.

Regardless, OPEC can and does manipulate the global ecomony on a whim. While they are charging higher amounts for each barrel of oil by manipulating supply, the US is sitting on a large supply. Even aside from the amount of untapped oil we have in the ground, we have a larger issue of refining capability. "There hasn?t been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976, the result of extremely tight environmental restrictions, not-in-my-back-yard community opposition, and the high cost of new construction." We can't even refine the amount of oil we need.

So I demonstrated stupidity? Seems there must be quite a few "stupid" scientists that agree with me. But I digress.... :roll:

 

[BoomerD]

The oil shale deposits are well known and well documented. The oil companies have been doing exploration in the oil shale areas for decades. Union Oil built an operational plant outside the town of Parachute, Co. in the 80's. Exxon was building one at the same time, but the last I heard, it shut down because the price of oil didn't justify the costs of operation/extraction. That however may have changed in recent years. I don't know.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Fritzo
There's actually some credibility to this...

I would LOVE to see this developed. Then we could tell the middle east to go do whatever you want with yourselves. Can you imagine the implications of an energy independant US?

Be pretty freaking interesting, actually🙂

2000lbs of rock produces 1 barrel of oil...Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. Let's strip mine the west.