U.S.A. Sitting on 2 Trillion Barrels of Oil

The Cypress Times ^ | 07/05/2009 | Charles Lingerfelt

[Patriot1259]

Thirty thousand scientists and NASA say Global warming is a farce! So, why are we not drilling for our own oil here in the USA? Why are we shutting down the coal mining, putting people out of jobs? Who wants to drive one of those little cars around all the BIG trucks on the roads? Not me. It won’t happen...been there, done that, and lived to tell about it.

Americans are being scammed!

[Patriot1259]

Charles Lingerfelt has writen an Op/Ed in today's The Cypress Times exposing a 2 Trillion barrel oil reserve in the U.S., the lies about Cap and Trade, and the reasons we need to drill here, drill now.

[Jagman]

The continue “gentrification” of America’s natural resources.

[ripley]

“Americans are being scammed!”

Yup. But they sure like it. (Especially when evil energy company profits are going to be re-distributed.)

IMHO

[ripley]

“The U.S.A. is sitting on 2 trillion barrels of oil!”

So what! Oil is dirty, oil companies are evil, there is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the polar bears need to be protected!

/S/

IMHO

[broken_arrow1]

WOW! Somebody gets it!

[wbones8765]

We need to drill our own reserves. We do not have to be dependent on foreign oil. We could drill our own, but a very small percentage of the population will not allow it. Who is the domestic terrorist?

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

“Americans are being scammed!”

It's far worse than that. We're being taken over.

[rodguy911]

The rats hide behind you can drill on the leases they have already given us,but the real truth is Zero has mounted an all out attack on free market capitalism and coal,nuclear and oil are key. He must keep as much true energy off the market as possible making us even more dependent on big govt. which has always been the plan.

[dangus]

2 Trillion; 2 Billion. What’s a 1000-fold inaccuracy when reporting news.

The Bakken oil field is a big story, and worthy of serious discussion, which is precisely why this kind of misinformation is poisonous; it makes those who cite it come off as idiots.

[RKV]

Suggest you compare this article to Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp

I’m all for drilling here and drilling now. That said, we need to encourage all sorts of energy production and let the market work things out.

[kickonly88]

‘Suggest you compare this article to Snopes.’

And Snopes wouldn’t have any interest in furthering leftist energy policy,would it?

[rodguy911]

I just read five different links to Bakken and none of the numbers are the same. Does anyone actually know how much oil is up there?

[aft_lizard]

Well I don’t, but it seems to me he accurately described Bakken to a T and then he went on to describe the green river formation which holds an estimated 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. However what he failed to describe is that it’s not really oil but oil shale and it is not easily recoverable and it takes a lot of water to extract, a resource not exactly plenty in that part of the US. So adding the 503 billion from Bakken and the 1.5 trillion from the Green River Formation he gets 2 trillion. Of course likely only 10-20% of Bakken is recoverable and until we find a better way to extract the oil shale it will just sit there.

[RKV]

Snopes is only quoting the US Geological Survey, which has quite a different number when it comes to sizing this oil reserve. Time and technology will change that, as will drilling experience. I don’t much care for AGWers and I’m all for producing our own energy, but let’s not go conspiratorial. There are plenty of bad reasons behind our current energy situation. Let’s deal with them. Like locking down drilling in large fractions of our country. Like subsidizing ethanol to buy Iowa votes (among others). And so on.

[RKV]

Yep. Orders of magnitude errors do not help us.

[penowa]

We need to drill our own reserves.

We can't. The coal, oil and energy reserves we have will go to the Chinese when the dollar collapses, collateral for gov't debt.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

I was about to mercilessly attack you until I saw this: /S/

[kickonly88]

I hear you.It’s getting tough to find out who you can trust. I’m against ethanol subsidies,too. If it’s so great ,let it compete heads up on the open market. Don’t tell that to a lot of farmers here in Illannoy, though,it seems they don’t mind being led what to plant by big gubmint.

[Morgan in Denver]

The total is illusive because there’s a difference between recoverable oil and not plus not all of Bakken has been surveyed yet, as far as I understand it. New techniques were coming out during the Bush presidency but today O&G companies are cutting back on R&D as well as exploration because of the Democrats attack on their industry. Same thing is true off-shore. California has a ton of oil off-shore but refuses to allow drilling.

The Colorado O&G Commission has new rules too (Democrats, of course) and drilling here has dropped to reflect that.

It’s just a fact. Democrats oppose US energy independence while chasing the windmills in their fantasy world.

[lilylangtree]

This is where Sarah Palin as Governor of Alaska could have opened areas to drilling.

[rodguy911]

Sad commentary on where we are today. I am hoping Sarah can point out just how destructive the rats have become. She does have credibility on the energy front as well.

[ripley]

“I was about to mercilessly attack you until I saw this: /S/”

Stay frosty!

Best Regards.

[nathanbedford]

I am confused. I hope someone can answer these basic questions for me so I can call my Senator and tell him how I want him to vote on Cap and Trade.

Cap And Trade legislation does not even purport to eliminate the consumption of oil in America, why do the proponents of the legislative seek to prohibit or at least severely curtail the production of oil in America? Why do they seek to severely curtail the refining of petroleum in America? If we are going to continue to consume oil but we are not going to be able to produce it, does that mean we must import it? If we must imported, does that means we must export dollars? Same questions for coal?

Accepting as gospel the promises made by the proponents of the legislation including the chimerical notion that pouring billions of dollars into windmills and solar panels will somehow make them economically competitive with oil (and coal) and further that this can be so economically attractive that we can transition away from oil, how long will it take? How much oil will we have to import during this transition period? Why must the oil be imported? Why don't we expand domestic production during this transition period? If the proponents of the legislation are wrong, would it not be better to have producing fields to compensate for the failure of the transition to windmills and solar? If the transition succeeds, would it not be economically advantageous to have surplus oil to export?

Let us assume that we all run around in battery operated cars charged by windmills and solar panels, what will the Chinese be driving? Will the Chinese observe the protocols of the Kyoto treaty? Is it not obvious that the Chinese will not do so for they have already rejected it? Are not the Chinese building a coal burning power plant at the rate of about one week? So even though America eliminates the consumption of oil, is there any reason to believe that the Third World will do so? Have not the Chinese and the Indians already made it plain that they will not do so? What contribution does it make in solving the alleged problem of climate change if only America and Western Europe are reducing CO2 emissions? Is not Western Europe reneging on its pledges to reduce CO2 emissions to Kyoto standards?

Assuming that the provisions which were originally in the bill to put tariffs on goods imported from countries which do not operate on windmills and solar panels becomes part of the legislation, what is to prevent the world from cascading into the deepest recession in history caused by a replay of the calamitous Smoot-Hawley tariffs which plunged the world into the Great Depression?

If our legislation does not contain provisions for imposing tariffs, what will we do about global warming if the majority of the people on this earth do not comply and decline to live on windmills and solar panels? Will the provisions of the Cap and Trade law avail anything? Will we have paid massive taxes for nothing?

If the idea is to eliminate CO2 emissions, why are the proponents of the bill opposed to nuclear power?

Will the taxes imposed by Cap and Trade on the consumption of energy be offset by the creation of jobs in green industry, that is, will enough people be put to work making windmills and solar panels to compensate for the massive loss of growth and jobs caused by the energy tax? How do we know? If the calculations, or assumptions, of the proponents of the bill are wrong and the effect of Cap and Trade is to eliminate millions of jobs without replacing green jobs, and the country afford such a mistake at these difficult economic times?

Will the government not have to impose arbitrary quotas on CO2 emissions? Will the government not have to monitor those emissions for virtually every business in America? Will not virtually every business and perhaps every family in America be required to file annual compliance statements, much like federal income tax returns? Will these statements have to be audited? Will this process generate a massive set of regulations and experts to interpret those regulations, prosecute and defend violators, and negotiate the regulators? Will this not generate huge expenses for private industry and for the government? Is it likely that such a complicated system will generate corruption?

When the president said during the campaign that he would bankrupt the coal industry, is Cap and Trade the way he intends to do it?

Is the science of global climate change well enough established to risk increasing taxes, increasing dependence on foreign oil, job losses, worsening economic situation, potential trade wars, energy shortages, widespread corruption, and loss of individual liberties?

[GregoTX]

C’Mon Patriot1259... you know its only ethical if the middle east countries (and China) drill for oil, and a threat to the planet if we do it. Everybody knows that.

[1ofmanyfree]

For more information, without environMENTAList (Wiki) spin see this link...

http://oilshalegas.com/bakkenshale.html

I was drilling wells in the Williston Basin that led to this discovery back in the 80’s.

[Quix]

INDEED.

[Quix]

. . . CORRECTED AS BELOW . . .

“It’s far worse than that. We’ve been taken over.

[Quix]

Talk to folks on the North Slope . . .

[1ofmanyfree]

The Democrat party as a whole has blocked the drilling of oil and gas reserves since the 80's. First by banning offshore drilling of the continental shelf off the East coast and then by locking up millions of acres by designating them as wilderness, parks, cultural heritage sites and any other excuses they can dream up.

Now the same Democrat leaders want to cram this Cap and Trade scam down our children's throats to further their control of our future.

[1ofmanyfree]

The Democrat party as a whole has blocked the drilling of oil and gas reserves since the 80's. First by banning offshore drilling of the continental shelf off the East coast and then by locking up millions of acres by designating them as wilderness, parks, cultural heritage sites and any other excuses they can dream up.

Now the same Democrat leaders want to cram this Cap and Trade scam down our children's throats to further their control of our future.

[Sundog]

In a word, Al. Gore has made a hundred million dollars doing it.

T. Boone Pickens has made a similar fortune.

They have no reason to stop.

[wbones8765]

Yes, they use it as an excuse. They say they are trying to save the enviroment. Do you accomplish this by stopping progress? We move forward in little spurts. Taking away our predominate form of fuel is a giant step backwards. Going green means going broke!!!

[papasmurf]

Wrong argument, wrong time. (not to mention the inaccuracies in it)

The facts are:
We are running out of oil. (Not out of oil, but running out)
Oil is bad for the environment and humans.
Oil is controlled by our enemies.
Oil is a wealth transferring mechanism.
Oil controls US, we do not control oil.
And, oil is so 70’s.

We need a Manhattan Project style effort to domestically create and produce a clean, efficient, economical, readily reproducible, easily distributable, synthetic fuel.

Until then, we should be powering our automobiles and trucks, and, to the extent possible, our homes and industry, using Natural Gas as a “bridge” fuel.

[1ofmanyfree]

"Going green means going broke!!!"

Yes, and I believe it is intentional too.

Years ago we were warned that a "New World Order" was coming, and that would give us a world currency. In order to impose this plan, the US economy would have to be ruined, the dollar devalued, and our standard of living lowered to the level of the rest of the (third) world. I couldn't (or didn't want to) believe it then, but now we have the Zer0 doing everything possible to ensure this happens in one four year term. I think he wants a revolution. He seems to be pushing for it with all his policies. Our enemies in the UN will help him to put it down, too. That will get rid of the conservatives (and their guns) once and for all (or so they believe). America (and freedom) will have to fight these globalists on our soil, and win, to survive. It will not be pretty and with horrific cost in lives. They will use food as a weapon too. I see no alternative to this Red Dawn scenario. It's coming.

[calex59]

The Bakken oil field is a big story, and worthy of serious discussion, which is precisely why this kind of misinformation is poisonous; it makes those who cite it come off as idiots.

Oh, really, you mean like the leftards who constantly cite phony statistics to support global warming? Do they come off as idiot? OTH would it be more like someone who is just misinformed. The fact remains, with the coal we have, the oil we have off shore and in other areas, we could do away with foreign oil. Add Nukes in there and we could use all of our natural gas for heating homes instead of for energy production. Give the guy a break, educate him without criticizing the he** out of him, he may not know he is citing wrong data.

[mysterio]

While I’m all for drilling, I’m not for exaggeration. How much of the two trillion is recoverable, and at what price?

[calex59]

Boy have you been brain washed. We don't need to use Natural gas as a "bridge" fuel. We need to use our own oil and work at finding some synthetic fuel(maybe). Let's think this through. Synthetic fuel sounds great, but sooner or later the raw materials to make synthetic fuel, and oil(have to have lubricants), are going to run out also.

Plus the fact that we have VAST coal reserves and huge oil reserves(just not the ones this guy is touting)in the country and can get along for hundreds of years. Oil is not bad for the environment, it has been in the ground for years and it seeps up out of the ocean faster than any artificial spills have ever managed. The environment survived and will continue to survive our using oil.

What won't survive if we don't use oil and coal is us, the USA, and eventually the rest of the world. All of your list is simply BS and part of the leftard talking points.

[al baby]

God does

[wbones8765]

The starvation will start as the cost of food increases dramatically. This will happen as energy increases, and the cost of producing food will increase. They do have a relationship, because the farmer can only lower his profit so much. Odumma, has bascially put a death sentence on the US.
True energy policy is an all of the above solution. It requires every type of energy available. Nuclear fission should also be utilized. Fusion is not ready for use, but will be in the future we hope. The problem with all these types of energy is still the enviromentalist. They cause problems everytime we try to build new facilties. Fission they go off the deep end.
They do not want us using any type of energy. If there is any species that might be remotely affected they sue. They more than anything are the problem. They prefer capitalism and the human race die.

[PhilDragoo]

From China Reform Monitor - No. 769 examples of Russia and China proceeding apace to monopolize and utilize available oil and gas reserves:

June 16:

In September Chinese state oil firms will begin construction on a 1,100 km long pipeline to import 20 million tons of oil and 12 billion cubic meters of gas per year through Myanmar. The pipeline – which is actually two parallel structures for gas and oil – will allow China to avoid the troublesome Straits of Malacca, cut transportation costs, and considerably shorten the sea journey from the Middle East and Africa. The pipelines will start in Kyaukryu on the west coast of Myanmar and enter China at the border city of Ruili in Yunnan province, the Times of India reports. The natural gas pipeline will be extended an additional 1,700 km from Yunnan to Guizhou and Guangxi provinces. China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) will build the pipelines in Myanmar and either CNPC or PetroChina will build the domestic section, the official China Securities Journal reports. The announcement came the day before Maung Aye, Myanmar’s second-in-command, landed in Beijing. Myanmar prime minister's General Thein Sein’s meeting with Premier Wen Jiabao last April laid the ground work for the pipeline deal.

[Editor’s Note: This deal has concerned India. New Delhi has watched the expansion of Beijing’s influence in Myanmar with anxiety. Most recently it’s firms lost a 30-year concession for the construction of Myanmar hydroelectric dams to Chinese firms.]

~~~

June 18:

While meeting in Moscow Russian President Medvedev told President Hu Jintao that China and Russia’s new oil deals are worth “roughly $100 billion, the largest of any agreement ever signed by our countries,” Russia’s Interfax News Agency reports. A year ago the two presidents established a mechanism to prioritize oil project approval that “allowed for signing off on new, extremely beneficial projects, " Medvedev said. The next step, continued the Russian president, is how to expand cooperation in oil to "other forms of energy cooperation, for example in the sphere of gas and coal production."

See also the cooperation between Russia and Iran et al, and that of China and Venezuela et al for further proof that this president destroys America and strengthens its enemies.

By design and intent, not by naivete or incompetence.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I thought the Bakken was mainly a Natural Gas play....?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Whoops...my error...:

The Barnett Shale Gas Boom

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

using Natural Gas as a “bridge” fuel.

Isn't that the Pickens position?

[rodguy911]

Wow thanks very interesting lots of companies lining up for future drilling there. I wonder why they hold out for higher prices why not drill and import less.

[Kozak]

[rodguy911]

I saw that post # 33 I thought it was a sarcasm post....

[AmericanVictory]

How much oil is offshore of Californy and what reason is there not to drill it to salvage the collapsed economy of the state?

[andy58-in-nh]

I think you are quite unconfused. The honest answers to your rhetorical questions all militate in a common direction: toward reality rather then obfuscation. The true object of Cap and Trade legislation is at variance with the one its proponents have advanced. Whereas the Warmists claim environmental defense as their goal, in truth they seek power as supplied by the control of resources properly belonging to others.

How do I know this to be so? Here are two a priori questions of my own: do human beings exercise effective control over a gas (CO2) which itself comprises a mere 0.038% of our atmosphere and further, does CO2 have a demonstrable correlation with global temperature?

I think an honest answer based on observable data will lead a dispassionate person to conclude that neither proposition has been verified by accepted scientific method (at least as it once existed when objectivity reigned). At the same time, the proposed legislation is so extensive in scope and draconian in effect that only certain and imminent catastrophe would begin to justify its infringements on human liberty.

But such is not the case, and even those who advance the cause of Climate Change-ology dare not offer such a preposterous notion, even as their legislative proposals would dramatically reduce freedom, restrict property rights and impose gargantuan costs.

Instead, a set of desired assumptions has been pronounced as a matter of faith by those willing to warp science in the service of politics. But you knew that - and expressed your doubts by your questions far more convincingly than those who substitute selective data for fact and demand absolute acquiescence based on their claim to good intention.

[devolve]

[dangus]

>> Give the guy a break, educate him without criticizing the he** out of him, he may not know he is citing wrong data. <<

It’s his JOB to know!!!