T Nation

The U.S. Oil Supply

Oh my… what was Obama saying about having only 2% of the world’s recoverable oil?

CS

Yeah, I heard about this. The Green River formation in Colorado alone has the largest shale oil deposits in the world. However the goal of the EPA and the Obama administration is to shutdown domestic production and raise the price of oil. They have actually stated this publically - Obama, Steven Chu etc.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yeah, I heard about this. The Green River formation in Colorado alone has the largest shale oil deposits in the world. However the goal of the EPA and the Obama administration is to shutdown domestic production and raise the price of oil. They have actually stated this publically - Obama, Steven Chu etc.[/quote]

Seriously, fuck the EPA. They’re the reason why more people don’t have jobs.

CS

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yeah, I heard about this. The Green River formation in Colorado alone has the largest shale oil deposits in the world. However the goal of the EPA and the Obama administration is to shutdown domestic production and raise the price of oil. They have actually stated this publically - Obama, Steven Chu etc.[/quote]

Seriously, fuck the EPA. They’re the reason why more people don’t have jobs.

CS[/quote]

lol, you’d rather we just have awesome air quality like China?

We need to control on this type of stuff, sure the EPA isn’t the best but its better then not having it at all. Even China is having programs to limit the amount of pollution, air quality in major city’s is atrocious there.

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yeah, I heard about this. The Green River formation in Colorado alone has the largest shale oil deposits in the world. However the goal of the EPA and the Obama administration is to shutdown domestic production and raise the price of oil. They have actually stated this publically - Obama, Steven Chu etc.[/quote]

Seriously, fuck the EPA. They’re the reason why more people don’t have jobs.

CS[/quote]

lol, you’d rather we just have awesome air quality like China?

We need to control on this type of stuff, sure the EPA isn’t the best but its better then not having it at all. Even China is having programs to limit the amount of pollution, air quality in major city’s is atrocious there.[/quote]

I’m not saying there’s no need for it, but some of their regulations are hurting business.

CS

Unconventional forms of fossil fuels have their problems. The unconventional mining methods have inherent dangers specific to them in addition to the issues traditional mining has. Also, many estimates of these types of fossil fuels are probably grossly exaggerated. As far as gas from unconventional mining methods, almost all of it mined in 2 years and most operations end in 5-10 to get what’s left. Not to mention, these types of methods require more fuel to get the goods from these types of rock formations.

Not saying it shouldn’t be done, just that the limitations of unconventional mining should be kept in mind. Also, keep in mind that most research done on unconventional mining is done by those who would directly benefit from it because they’re the ones with the money so of course those reports and research will be biased.

So much more research has to be done before conclusions on how much is actually available before drawing any firm conclusions and this is just one report of many and depending on the source they all have different projections.

We really need more investment in green(er) alternatives and nuclear energy and work in green chemistry and other techniques that can help clean up fossil fuels. As I see it, it will help national security (economically and otherwise) and the environment.

I did glance at that pdf. Interesting report. If you haven’t read the pdf, I recommend doing so. There, some of the points I made will be elaborated on.

[quote]optheta wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yeah, I heard about this. The Green River formation in Colorado alone has the largest shale oil deposits in the world. However the goal of the EPA and the Obama administration is to shutdown domestic production and raise the price of oil. They have actually stated this publically - Obama, Steven Chu etc.[/quote]

Seriously, fuck the EPA. They’re the reason why more people don’t have jobs.

CS[/quote]

lol, you’d rather we just have awesome air quality like China?

We need to control on this type of stuff, sure the EPA isn’t the best but its better then not having it at all. Even China is having programs to limit the amount of pollution, air quality in major city’s is atrocious there.[/quote]

Listen to me very carefully…

If you don’t have China or India on board with some kind of Global Warming law, there is no point.

We here in California passed our own statewide Global Warming act, passed by Schwarzen-failure, a guy who drove Hummers and flew private jets, only to have our state lose jobs by the droves.

This place has become a wasteland, due to taxation, regulation, massive overspend, and mismanagement of funds.

7 Billion people on the planet, California has 38 million, and these tree-hugging hippies think that we will make a dent in that.

The average American puts out 3-4 times as pollution as the average Chinese person. So those 38 million in California are more like up to 152 million (using 4x) Chinese. Almost 300 million Indians (1/3 of the Indian pop.)

You have to keep in mind the global footprint, not just sheer amount of people so it did have an impact. Most of the world’s population is more like China in their global footprint than American. So regulating the most industrialized nations despite their lower populations makes perfect sense. Even in total amount of pollution, the less populated industrialized nations put out far more pollution than other more populated nations like India. The average American puts out about 8x more pollution than the average Indian.

And I don’t know particulars, but some of those incentives I’m sure led to local and regional positive environmental impacts like some of the massive smog problems in Southern California.

I’m not familiar with Californian politics or economics, but to say that regulating 38 million Americans and the industries in that state is a moot point just doesn’t make sense.

Nearly forgot the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

We really need more investment in green(er) alternatives and nuclear energy and work in green chemistry and other techniques that can help clean up fossil fuels. As I see it, it will help national security (economically and otherwise) and the environment. [/quote]

I thought the rest of this post was a very good take on the subject, but I really love this last paragraph. Nuclear energy needs to be providing the overwhelming majority of electricity in this country, but people are too dumb to realize their opinions on the matter are based on a goddamned movie and not reality. France gets 75% of its power from nuclear sources, and they subsequently have the cheapest electricity in Europe and are even able to export it.

What I don’t think people understand is that reserves are only considered reserves if the “PV10” (present value 10 years) is positive, counting the cost to drill the well and produce the well, etc.

As the price of oil goes up, the recoverable oil that we count goes up.

To put this differently, the US has very little, if any, $40 oil. Not very much $70 oil. But a ton of $110 oil, probably more than anyone.

The Gulf States have a lot of $40 oil, but are running out.

It’s kind of weird, but on a “net” basis to the USA, expensive oil will be a good thing because we won’t import very much. Japan and Europe, however, will get hammered.

(Yes, I am a petroleum engineer and work in the oil field.)

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
What I don’t think people understand is that reserves are only considered reserves if the “PV10” (present value 10 years) is positive, counting the cost to drill the well and produce the well, etc.

As the price of oil goes up, the recoverable oil that we count goes up.

To put this differently, the US has very little, if any, $40 oil. Not very much $70 oil. But a ton of $110 oil, probably more than anyone.

The Gulf States have a lot of $40 oil, but are running out.

It’s kind of weird, but on a “net” basis to the USA, expensive oil will be a good thing because we won’t import very much. Japan and Europe, however, will get hammered.

(Yes, I am a petroleum engineer and work in the oil field.)[/quote]

I’m not very familiar with the economics of it all so I have a question. With oil that expensive, do you think that alternatives like hybrids, full electric, and H fuel cell cars will become economically more viable and that there will be more research incentives for this type of thing?

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

I’m not very familiar with the economics of it all so I have a question. With oil that expensive, do you think that alternatives like hybrids, full electric, and H fuel cell cars will become economically more viable and that there will be more research incentives for this type of thing? [/quote]

Research incentives (by which, I presume you mean taxpayer subsidies) seldom work. Look at Solyndra and all the other black holes where Obama spent money. Been more cost effective to send $20 bills in bundles for people to burn in their fireplaces. (Seriously.)

High price creating a market demand for alternative fuel will be all the incentive that will be needed, and is the only reliable method for incentizing this kind of product.

I didn’t mean only taxpayer subsidies. I’m not fond of Obama’s energy energy polices myself. Especially in this economy.

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
What I don’t think people understand is that reserves are only considered reserves if the “PV10” (present value 10 years) is positive, counting the cost to drill the well and produce the well, etc.

As the price of oil goes up, the recoverable oil that we count goes up.

To put this differently, the US has very little, if any, $40 oil. Not very much $70 oil. But a ton of $110 oil, probably more than anyone.

The Gulf States have a lot of $40 oil, but are running out.

It’s kind of weird, but on a “net” basis to the USA, expensive oil will be a good thing because we won’t import very much. Japan and Europe, however, will get hammered.

(Yes, I am a petroleum engineer and work in the oil field.)[/quote]

Britain has quite a bit of shale oil and gas according to recent reports.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The average American puts out 3-4 times as pollution as the average Chinese person. So those 38 million in California are more like up to 152 million (using 4x) Chinese. Almost 300 million Indians (1/3 of the Indian pop.)[/quote]

I’ve been to China, specifically Beijing. It’s terrible there. It smells awful, and everyday I was there I would blow my nose and black shit would come out of it. It kind of makes you appreciate the clean air here. I kind of find it hard to believe Americans cause more pollution than them. I know for sure the air is cleaner here than there.

Average Chinese. Not average Chinese in Beijing.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The average American puts out 3-4 times as pollution as the average Chinese person. So those 38 million in California are more like up to 152 million (using 4x) Chinese. Almost 300 million Indians (1/3 of the Indian pop.)

You have to keep in mind the global footprint, not just sheer amount of people so it did have an impact. Most of the world’s population is more like China in their global footprint than American. So regulating the most industrialized nations despite their lower populations makes perfect sense. Even in total amount of pollution, the less populated industrialized nations put out far more pollution than other more populated nations like India. The average American puts out about 8x more pollution than the average Indian.

And I don’t know particulars, but some of those incentives I’m sure led to local and regional positive environmental impacts like some of the massive smog problems in Southern California.

I’m not familiar with Californian politics or economics, but to say that regulating 38 million Americans and the industries in that state is a moot point just doesn’t make sense. [/quote]

You are equating energy use and pollution which are definitely not the same and therefore your argument would be invalid if it flowed from your (false) premises which it does not.

Yay!

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The average American puts out 3-4 times as pollution as the average Chinese person. So those 38 million in California are more like up to 152 million (using 4x) Chinese. Almost 300 million Indians (1/3 of the Indian pop.)

You have to keep in mind the global footprint, not just sheer amount of people so it did have an impact. Most of the world’s population is more like China in their global footprint than American. So regulating the most industrialized nations despite their lower populations makes perfect sense. Even in total amount of pollution, the less populated industrialized nations put out far more pollution than other more populated nations like India. The average American puts out about 8x more pollution than the average Indian.

And I don’t know particulars, but some of those incentives I’m sure led to local and regional positive environmental impacts like some of the massive smog problems in Southern California.

I’m not familiar with Californian politics or economics, but to say that regulating 38 million Americans and the industries in that state is a moot point just doesn’t make sense. [/quote]

You are equating energy use and pollution which are definitely not the same and therefore your argument would be invalid if it flowed from your (false) premises which it does not.

Yay![/quote]

FAIL

Read the link carefully next time.

The total ecological footprint (global hectares affected by humans) is measured as a total of six factors: cropland footprint, grazing footprint, forest footprint, fishing ground footprint, carbon footprint and built-up land.