Town Square

Post a New Topic

Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US reserves by 10x

Original post made by Jane on Mar 28, 2008



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, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC's short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.

In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana.

With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951.


The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel. Web Link



Comments (40)

Posted by sue, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Mar 28, 2008 at 1:35 pm





This is great news!! I look forward to seeing the full report from USGS

This could boost our economy and set us free from entanglements in the Mid East.

It would also help us cripple China




Posted by Former Oil Worker, a resident of another community
on Mar 28, 2008 at 2:05 pm

We should be so lucky. I'll believe it after the drill heads have produced some in situ data.


Posted by so, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 28, 2008 at 3:12 pm

thats dated Feb 13th 2008, where the report?


Posted by sue, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Mar 28, 2008 at 4:05 pm



so


you can purchase such reports from the USGS its in Menlo Park by SRI






Posted by Peter, a resident of another community
on Mar 28, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Before everybody gets really excited about this, some questions need to be answered, such as:
What percentage of the oil could actually be extracted? Conservative estimates put the range at from 1 to 3 percent or between 4.1 and 12.4 billion barrels of oil. Divide that by the 20.7 million bbls/day the U.S. consumes, and see how long that would satisfy our thirst for the stuff.
How soon could the field be in production? Ten years?
How hard is the oil to refine?
How fast can it be refined and at what cost?


Posted by Tree Hugger, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Mar 29, 2008 at 9:40 am

To Bad. This will only slow the advancement of alternative NRG sources. Remember People Driving your car is the single worst thing we all do to the environment. And Dear Sue "Cripple China" What a bellicose remark from out of nowhere


Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 29, 2008 at 9:47 am

Yes, indeed. The last thing LibLudds want is plentiful, affordable energy. Affordable energy makes the peasants uppity, aspiring above their station, disrespectful of their betters. Get them out of their SUVs and leave them doffing their hats at the side of the road.


Posted by Tree Hugger, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Mar 29, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Hey walter-  Plentiful, affordable energy would be great but to repeat the mistakes of the past and keep us on the Petrol roller coaster is just plain wrong. Plus your post dose not make sense grammatically


Posted by women's libber, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 29, 2008 at 3:43 pm


Tree hugger, your reasoning is precisely why we are so dependent on foreign oil, and therefore more prone to wars. I am presuming a lot, but I am sure you are against the Iraq war, but we know that it was done in part to assure that Saddam wouldn't follow through on his threat to take over Kuwaiti oil, add it to Iraq's, then sit on 15% of the world's oil production, sending us and the world into a depression the likes of which would starve millions to death.

If we are not worried about our economic health as it relates to oil, we are less likely to go to war.

Therefore, it is the tree huggers, who have prevented nuclear energy and oil production in our own country, who can be at least partly to blame for Iraq.

On the other hand, since I am delighted that my Iraqi sisters are the first Muslim country women in the Middle East to have voted for their constitution, their parliament, and their president, and no longer worry about government sponsored rape and torture rooms, and go to bed at night knowing that their daughters have a much better chance at a CHOSEN life, instead of a predestined life...I am delighted with the results of the tree huggers.

10,000,000 more free women in the world.




Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 29, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Tree, my sentence runs on, but it makes more sense than LibLudd policies that would deny to the future the idleness that makes possible fatuous socialism. Mistakes of tha past are under coontinuous correction. Everything is better except education and other liberal controlled fields.


Posted by Tree Hugger, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Mar 29, 2008 at 4:48 pm

You are off topic Walter. The more you talk the easier it is to see you do not understand anything about out the world oil situation. Further more if you think the elections in Iraq were not just staged events for the US; you are worse off than I thought.
"Everything is better except education and other liberal controlled fields."
What the heck are you trying to say? This is not English or not even some cool take on English it is truly incomprehensible dribble.


Posted by Former Oil Worker, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 29, 2008 at 5:08 pm

It's seem extremely unlikely that a 200 Billion Barrel Oil Field sits in an already exploited area of the country. Most of the oil left is there for an economic reason. It's expensive to recover.

It is much likely to find large oil reservoirs in inaccessible locations, like deep-water or near the poles where seismic surveys are incomplete or difficult to obtain. It's very hard to know what is really recoverable without exploratory drilling.


Posted by Tree Hugger, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Mar 29, 2008 at 5:24 pm

.Wow! F.O W.(friend not foe)
Somebody  actually knows what they are talking about.
We must find better ways to power our cars and light our houses. We are a brilliant species and will solve all problems facing us. If we Try


Posted by RealityCheckPlease, a resident of Monroe Park
on Mar 29, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Don't believe everything you read on Fox News and DEFINITELY don't believe some posting off a no-name Internet site!


Posted by I trust the masses, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 30, 2008 at 7:11 am

Reality Check:

you are saying that all the viewers of the MOST WATCHED, therefore trusted, news network, with more viewers than EVERY OTHER NEWS STATION, are too stupid to know reality when they see it?

That is a democrat for ya..don't trust the masses, they don't know what is good for them!


Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 30, 2008 at 8:28 am

Oil recovery has made some changes since Old Spindletop. Can you say Atabasca? Can you comprehend two mile long drill strings? In gold mining we used terms like twenty dollar rock, meaning that there was twenty dollars of recoverable gold in a ton of ore. Another mining adage was you can't put more money in the mine than you take out. As the price of oil goes up, the use of more complex, expensive recovery processes becomes more viable. We might ever try a petroleum version of Operation Gasbuggy. Ultimately, the cost/yield curve will be crossed and other energy forms will take over, but not if we cripple today's economy with unnecessary expense.
Former Oil Worker, what is a kelly or a preventer?


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 30, 2008 at 8:57 am

walter, even if the person really is a former oil worker, it doesn't make him someone who understands that drilling for oil at 10-20 bucks per barrel is a lot less palatable than at 80-90 bucks/barrel.

That seems to be the difference.


Posted by Hubbert, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 30, 2008 at 10:07 am

See or read Deffeyes

Web Link


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 30, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Hubbert, your point is that the world, according to Deffeyes, peaked Dec 16th a few years ago ( I think he said 2005).

Even if this is true ( how the heck could he know??), it doesn't mean that the USA has retrieved all the oil out of our OWN land.


Posted by Hubbert, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 30, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Oil production has peaked.
The peak could be temporary if we are willing to spend more money to extract the more difficult oil. The price of production of this "difficult oil" could always go down with the right technological improvements. Of course the real question is where to you want to invest your limited research funds. Improved oil extraction? Nuclear power? Renewable sources? Conservation? Oil exploration seems to be big looser, oil companies have drilled enough holes to know there can't be any more Saudi-style large fields out there.

If you aren't going to read, at least watch the video link I posted.


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 30, 2008 at 3:00 pm

actually Hubbert, I don't know how you think I didn't read it. The peak clearly refers to WORLD oil production peak, not USA peak. But, I read the sourced authors to which your link referred.

And, clearly extraction is related to costs versus benefits. This is basic.

However, it isn't really up to any of us to decide if the risk is worth the benefit of extracting the oil. It is up to the Oil companies and their shareholders ( ie about 40% of USA citizens who own various types of shares in various oil companies).

I completely trust greedy captitalismm to come up with the most effecient and effective energy solutions. I am guessing it will be a combination of all the solutions you posted, plus ones not yet dreamed.


Posted by Peter, a resident of another community
on Mar 30, 2008 at 5:28 pm

perspective, I too trust greedy capitalism; why look at how the greedy capitalists got us into the sub-prime mortgage mess. And, oh, look, the socialist government is going to use taxpayer money to bail them out...to protect them from further failure.

For the record, capitalism is a pretty good system, but it needs regulation to protect the rest of us from its excesses.


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 30, 2008 at 7:16 pm

For the record, the richest poor folks in the world are here, in the most capitalist nation of the world..what excesses?

Where would you rather be poor? Where the biggest health issue of the poor is obesity, where 69% of the "poor" own their own homes, and even more their own cars, TVs and microwaves? Where 80% ( I am actually a little unsure if it is 80%, or 75% or 85%, but you get the drift) of those who are living "below the poverty line" move up and out of that category within 2 years. ( By the way, I was "worth" millions of dollars in assets, living off of money borrowed against the assets, but officially qualified as "living below the poverty line" for 5 of the last 10 years because of the absurd system set up in the 60s that counted ONLY INCOME to classify if someone was below a poverty line..what a joke!! )

Or would you rather live where the poor worry about getting enough food to eat?

The sub-prime "mess" occured because of political tinkering with mortgage rules in the 90s that brought regulations in order to stop the "inherent racism" of more minoritie being denied mortgages ( because a higher percent of minorities were high risk). VOILA, forced high risk lending practices to bring up the "low income" numbers!

Guess what? More minorities today own their own homes, the number one indicator of rising above poverty, than ever before. I am actually very glad to see how many ( 85% of all sub-prime mortgages) homes are being held onto by people who WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO BUY A HOME WITHOUT THE SUB-PRIME "MESS".

The sub-prime "mess" is a mess from media and democrat ( same thing) induced PANIC..95% of all mortgages are still being paid on time..85% of sub-primes, but 95% of all mortgages. That would not have become a mess without the panic, and now the socialist model ( where we agree) of bailing out companies for poor choices. Appalling.


Posted by RealityCheck, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 30, 2008 at 8:51 pm

Perspective,

Where'd you get that cockamany perspective of the sub-prime mess from - Fox News, Savage, Limberger, Dobbs?

Nah, so far out there it must be World Net Daily - your trusted source for crazy-a "news"!


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 31, 2008 at 3:31 pm

"The sub-prime "mess" occured [sic] because of political tinkering with mortgage rules in the 90s" - perspective

Since GW Bush left the tinkered-up rules intact, we must conclude that
1) The tinkering was done by Republican GHW Bush in the early nineties and/or by the Republican congress in the later nineties, and
2) The new rules were benefitting Bush 43's buddies, who are also now getting federal bailout money.

BTW: Does Arbusto Energy have a stake in this new find?


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 31, 2008 at 3:41 pm

I note that both posters would rather throw silly bait than touch the fact that the result of the sub-prime "mess" ( which wasn't until media hysteria took over) is the highest rate of minority home ownership..ever...under Republican rules ( you are right, it was a Repub controlled Congress that did the rules, I am proud to say) and a Republican President/House who left them in place since then ( again, I proudly say)

I am still waiting for why it is bad that more minorities/lower income folks own homes than EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA is a bad thing.

Oh, by the way, you will be hearing about, sometime this week or next, a bill that the Republicans started working on over a year ago, long before the hysteria began, on a plan to try to prevent in the future some of the problems that have come to light in the last few years with these rules.

Guess who is opposing them? And have no better plan at all?


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 31, 2008 at 4:29 pm

"95% of ALL mortgages are still being paid on time..85% of sub-primes, but 95% of ALL mortgages ... " - perspective [emphasis added]

"Figures don't lie but liars do figure" - countless anonymous

Cutting through the smoke and red herrings in your postings, you are proud to say that subprime mortgages enable minorities to buy homes, and you are very glad to see that subprime mortgages are being defaulted at triple the rate of all mortgages. That means minorities are losing their homes at three times the average rate under the Republican rules you are so proud of.


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 31, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Honestly, Paul, are you really saying that you think a better policy is to not take a risk on any low income folks so that no low income folks get a chance to own a home...thereby making sure no low-income folks default?

Do you actually believe that the 85%, ie millions ( I would have to look up precisely how many millions it is) of low income folks who are in their home now would agree with you, and think they should not have been given the chance to prove themselves?

You would really prefer they be forced to keep renting, throwing their money down the toilet while the landlord reaps the benefits of the tax breaks and rising value of his property?

wow...

I sure am glad you weren't in charge of approving my first mortgage!!


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 31, 2008 at 9:12 pm

Apparently perspective is a committee that doesn't talk to itself. Reading its posts can be a wild ride in tortured logic.

The subprime mortgage scam was a giant fleecing machine, offering the illusion [underline that] of home ownership to people who could not actually afford home ownership. They paid their money while they could and then lost their dream and their money when the loan terms changed and they couldn't pay any more. As perspective has documented in this thread, minorities were victimized at three times the general rate.

It is easy to say say they should have known better. But the lenders certainly knew better, and so did the Republican cabal, perspective's pride, that enabled the scam. The government will repay the perps' losses. The victims are on their own. As they said during Watergate, follow the money trail.

Now let's bring this back to oil. Who will bail out Arbusto Energy this time if it dives into this grand new opportunity?


Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2008 at 5:35 am

The trash heap of bankruptcy weeds out the inefficient business models. That is the secret of capitalism.


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2008 at 7:09 am

Paul, I have been close to bankruptcy and losing my home once...are you saying that if I had actually lost my home, that I would have been a victim of the Republican scam machine, those nasty beings, and should have never had the chance to own a home ( although, apparently, I guess my monthly mortgage is just an illusion)...

repeat... I prefer to be given the chance and fail than not given the chance at all. If I fail, I just go back to renting, as I was before.If I don't, ( which at least 85% of the low income have managed to do) I get the tax benefits and the appreciation build up of wealth.

You, apparently, prefer that only the rich, with a guaranteed ability to pay, get the chance to buy a home.

You are an amazing logician. I assume you already own a home?


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2008 at 9:50 am

I remember when the minimum down payment for a house was 20%


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 1, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Very well, perspective, I have no personal ill-will toward you, and I really do wish you the best of luck owing your home. But I won't let up on those who exploit the hopeful less fortunate who want to follow your example, and I invite you to join me. Do you think a life sentence of filling out mortgage apps would be unconstitutional?


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 1, 2008 at 5:29 pm

"The trash heap of bankruptcy weeds out the inefficient business models. That is the secret of capitalism." - Walter_E_Wallis

Well put, but not always true. The first time GW Bush's Arbusto Energy (Arbusto is Spanish for Bush, you know) went under it was bailed out by a gang of good ol' boys, purely out of the goodness of their capitalistic hearts. Persistent rumors are that a lot of the rescue money was put up by one Salem bin Laden, brother of the more famous bin Laden who also remains in business, more than 6 years after Senor Arbusto grandly put him at the head of the Wanted Dead or Alive list. Is that payback capitalism or what?


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2008 at 6:48 pm

I see no exploitation at all in the vast majority of sub-prime mortgages, even in the 15% who are failing to pay.

First: Either they were renting before and now they are renting again, no loss. If they also lost money in the process, that is simply the luck of the housing market, and the risk every single one of us takes when we assume a mortgage.

Second: About 1/2 of them are people who were trying to "flip" houses for profit, in which case I say "oh well, better luck next time", that's capitalism, you win some and you lose some.

For the very small minority who were POSSIBLY "conned" into unreasonable mortgages by way of not reading or understanding the terms of the mortgage, I have a hard time understanding how that is the responsibility of the mortgage lender, unless there were lies on the papers themselves. Yes, I feel bad for the ones who signed papers without reading them or without understanding them, but I honestly don't want to punish the future chances of the sub-prime folks because of a few sad people who did not practice due diligence. There have always been people who are not wise in investments, ( or are unlucky) and there always will be. I am unwilling to risk the very vast majority of people who are quite capable and responsible not having an opportunity because of a few foolish people, as sorry as I feel for them.

I look forward to, if it ever happens, an accounting of precisely how many people were lied to on paper in the mortgages. Any company who LIED to people deserves bankruptcy, fines and jailing for the directors. As for everyone else...caveat emptor.

I don't want to lose the right to take risks myself because a very few folks can't accept responsibility for their risk taking.


Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2008 at 7:40 pm

A government cannot give away what it does not have. When we placed our government in charge of the economy, we gave politicians a commodity they could sell to the highest bidder.
To paraphrase an old saying, government should be kept barefoot and pregnant.


Posted by Tree Hugger, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Apr 2, 2008 at 8:08 am

Walter are you a sexist too? If you have nothing to say on topic do not say anything. The topic is OIL! We need to use oil alot smarter no matter how much we find.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 2, 2008 at 10:42 am

Why not save this bonanza for the next generation? Oil is useful for much more than fuel, and future americans will need a hydrocarbon basis.


Posted by Former Oil Worker, a resident of another community
on Apr 3, 2008 at 12:05 pm

If you think this is such a great investment, put your own money in it. Money talks, bullshit walks.


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 3, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Tree Hugger, c'mon, you don't understand Walter's point? It is the anti-sexist point, meaning referring to something that WAS sexist, and is now only appropriately used in his context, which is barefoot and pregnant meaning powerless to do anything except be "pregnant" with ideas, not actually accomplish anthing. In other words, keep govt out of our lives.

Jeez, I am a woman, and "even" i get it.

context is critical.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Services, Dining and Shopping Downtown in Palo Alto
By Steve Levy | 16 comments | 2,256 views

Handmade truffle shop now open in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 2,002 views

It's the End of the World as We Know It: "Snowpiercer"
By Anita Felicelli | 1 comment | 1,504 views

Why is doing nothing so difficult?
By Sally Torbey | 7 comments | 976 views

Call it a novel: Dirty Love by Andre Dubus III
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 168 views