Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   In other news, a recent study shows that Colorado, Utah and Wyoming have more recoverable oil than the rest of the entire world. So we have that going for us, then   (cnsnews.com) divider line 31
    More: Cool, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, shale oil, Government Accountability Office, proven oil reserves, Rand Corporation, proven reserves  
•       •       •

5421 clicks; posted to Business » on 12 May 2012 at 5:29 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-05-12 08:20:54 PM  
5 votes:
Oil can be forced out of the ground with salt water but bitumen, which is solid, can not. To extract bitumen ("oil" sands, tar or "oil" shale, you have to boil water, which means fresh water because the salts would destroy the boilers and clog the pipes and other equipment.

Even with strip-mining, oil sands such as those in Alberta (which are behind claims that Canada has the second largest reserves in the world) aren't cheap: they take as much water as Calgary, use 0.7 barrels of oil equivalent (mostly 'clean' natural gas) to produce one barrel--a net gain of 0.3 barrels; and result in destruction of large areas of land and massive pollution--cancer rates are astronomical in some places downstream, hundreds of waterfowl have died on the ponds of waste after mistaking the toxic ponds for wetlands or lakes. Furthermor, the restoration of these sites is a joke--it usually consists of the landscaping around the "front" office, and I have put "front" in ironic quotation marks for a reason.

The price of oil needed to make tar shale profitable is even higher than the high prices that are needed to support tar sands. In short this oil isn't coming out of the rock without a lot of government money, a lot of protectionism (against Canadian and other competitors) and without a really high price for oil.

Until now it has been mostly conspiracy theorists and wacky-tune right wing websites that have been touting non-conventional shale oils. The economics and the environmental consequences aren't a real trade-off even as the oil of the Middle East declines and Central Asia becomes the play ground of the Great Game between China, India, Russia and the West.
2012-05-12 09:19:04 PM  
3 votes:
Nationalize it.

Saudi Arabia sells oil domestically for $4 per barrel.

Let's do that, instead of selling our resources to China in order to fatten Exxon's wallet.
2012-05-12 06:29:36 PM  
3 votes:

tomWright: Retractable Weeners: EnviroDude: Too bad democrats will oppose any and all efforts to produce these fields.

The article is as stupid as your comment. Like Rangely, Rock Springs and Vernal weren't already being drilled. They're farking oil/mining towns, its the only thing out there. Along with that, there is NO economic opportunity in bringing in temp workers to stay in campers in the middle of the desert. And the water there is important, it supplies the western US and I hope you live downstream.

tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources

incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.

Yup, all you gotta do is move the water to the high desert where they are drilling. I'm sure that's energy efficient.

Never said it was efficient, just not scarce. If gas and oil can be sent via pipeline, so can water. Or the shale can be mined and shipped to where the needed water is, if the method used even needs that much water.

As I said just above this. set the goals as to how clean the extraction needs to be, and let the engineers figure it out. The method they think they need to use today is not necessarily the method they end up with.

And then monitor, monitor, monitor. I trust Shell as much as I trust Congress.


you do realize you cannot drink most of the water on the planet.. it's salty.. and making it not salty is very energy intensive
2012-05-12 05:57:32 PM  
3 votes:

EnviroDude: Too bad democrats will oppose any and all efforts to produce these fields.


The article is as stupid as your comment. Like Rangely, Rock Springs and Vernal weren't already being drilled. They're farking oil/mining towns, its the only thing out there. Along with that, there is NO economic opportunity in bringing in temp workers to stay in campers in the middle of the desert. And the water there is important, it supplies the western US and I hope you live downstream.

tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources

incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.

Yup, all you gotta do is move the water to the high desert where they are drilling. I'm sure that's energy efficient.
2012-05-12 05:37:31 PM  
3 votes:

adamgreeney: Kazan: not clinking that link.. but i'm assuming since it came from CNS "news" it only requires destroying a bunch of national lands won't be profitable at 3x the current price of oil and will line the pockets of the Koch brothers

am i right?

Yep. But trying to get anyone that supports this to understand the commodities market and the fact that clean water ISN'T infinite is impossible, so expect this to be turned against Obama


Case in point:

EnviroDude: Too bad democrats will oppose any and all efforts to produce these fields.


It helps the spin-makers for the oil industry when they have idiots this gullible.
2012-05-12 05:14:51 PM  
3 votes:

Kazan: not clinking that link.. but i'm assuming since it came from CNS "news" it only requires destroying a bunch of national lands won't be profitable at 3x the current price of oil and will line the pockets of the Koch brothers

am i right?


Yep. But trying to get anyone that supports this to understand the commodities market and the fact that clean water ISN'T infinite is impossible, so expect this to be turned against Obama
2012-05-12 05:07:30 PM  
3 votes:
not clinking that link.. but i'm assuming since it came from CNS "news" it only requires destroying a bunch of national lands won't be profitable at 3x the current price of oil and will line the pockets of the Koch brothers

am i right?
2012-05-12 11:12:51 PM  
2 votes:

aragonphx: Mining that much oil would be extremely profitable. Anywhere from $100 - $200 trillion or more depending where the price of oil goes. I would allow the mining with strict environmental rules. I would make the oil companies contribute like $10 for every barrel extracted to be held in a fund for the entire life time of the operation. This would go to fix any damage to the environment during or after they are done mining. Whatever is left in the fund the oil companies can have back once the environment is certified to be back the way it was.


Rules mean nothing when politicians can legally be bribed to change them. Also, what would stop dirty tricks like defunding the EPA?

Unless the rule were codified into something like a Constitutional amendment, they mean nothing.
2012-05-12 09:06:47 PM  
2 votes:
Yay, let's pollute the water, cause earthquakes, ruin drinking water for entire cities, and cause ecological destruction akin to open top coal mining.

GO BIG OIL!

GO BIG DERP
2012-05-12 07:26:47 PM  
2 votes:

tomWright: Farker Soze: RobertBruce: including up hill....UNpowered

Huh? Romans had antigravity?

siphon


Only if the original height was still higher than the destination would their inverted siphons work without power. Sea level to the rocky mountains is right out.
2012-05-12 07:11:04 PM  
2 votes:

AliceBToklasLives: namatad: /YES. I KNOW that it is shale and will require tons of water to process and will destroy the planet.

Kazan: not clinking that link.. but i'm assuming since it came from CNS "news" it only requires destroying a bunch of national lands won't be profitable at 3x the current price of oil and will line the pockets of the Koch brothers

Indeed - that why we need to keep the nuclear option on the table, lefties.


Are you kidding me? We need a massive investment in uranium and thorium reactors today.
Put the reactors in the middle of the country, far from big cities, with transmission lines going from coast to coast, Canada to the gulf. Tada. Energy independence.

Or we can do what we are currently doing instead.
/lol
2012-05-12 05:47:44 PM  
2 votes:

tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources


incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.

, and the poisoning of same when released.

Now that is a worry. I have no problem with mining and using water, so long as when you are done you leave the place at least as clean as you found it. As the saying goes, take what you need and leave the rest. And leave it in as good shape as you found it.

Fracking is a concern for many reasons, but using 'scarce' water is not one of them. Polluting that water is.


You go ahead and try to live off of water from the Pacific. Me, I'll keep trying to protect the very limited drinking water we have.
2012-05-12 05:43:58 PM  
2 votes:

Mrtraveler01: adamgreeney: Kazan: not clinking that link.. but i'm assuming since it came from CNS "news" it only requires destroying a bunch of national lands won't be profitable at 3x the current price of oil and will line the pockets of the Koch brothers

am i right?

Yep. But trying to get anyone that supports this to understand the commodities market and the fact that clean water ISN'T infinite is impossible, so expect this to be turned against Obama

Case in point:

EnviroDude: Too bad democrats will oppose any and all efforts to produce these fields.

It helps the spin-makers for the oil industry when they have idiots this gullible.


At least that troll picked an ironic moniker to go with the company line.
2012-05-12 05:15:53 PM  
2 votes:

Kazan: not clinking that link.. but i'm assuming since it came from CNS "news" it only requires destroying a bunch of national lands won't be profitable at 3x the current price of oil and will line the pockets of the Koch brothers

am i right?


Just about. And you forgot the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources, and the poisoning of same when released.
2012-05-13 04:16:16 PM  
1 votes:
Don't get high on your own supply.
2012-05-13 09:25:50 AM  
1 votes:
Morons. The whole point of the United States' national oil strategy the last 50 years has been:

1. Use up every other country's oil first, buying it up nice and cheap for our own uses.

2. When most of the rest of the world's oil has been used up, the oil sitting under the US will be worth X times more than it would have been worth had we sold it on the cheap like the Saudis have been doing.

3. Profit



Of the two options we have, we can:
A) Use up all our oil first and then have to buy everyone else's oil at an expensive price, OR
B) Use up everyone else's oil first and then be able to use/sell our oil at a really high price.

Take your pick, morans.

But apparently red state America still hasn't figured this out yet.

l2econ101
2012-05-13 08:51:36 AM  
1 votes:
We need to use it up as soon as possible.
2012-05-13 08:40:40 AM  
1 votes:
Hmm, let's see. We import over 4 billion barrels of oil a year, at a cost of about $400 billion a year.

Half of that money ($200 billion a year) goes to countries we hate - or in some cases should hate but are forced to cozy up to. Those countries get rich on imports, and build up their military. Then we have to build up ours to keep them in check. Let's say that we spend as much as we gave the countries we hate ($200 billion) on that; a third of our military budget, for a total cost of $600 billion a year.

I'd argue that that's a step backwards from a national security standpoint. It is safer for us to have a mid sized military and our enemies be poor and defenseless then for us to have a large military and our enemies be wealthy and armed with top of the line equipment.

So over ten years (the standard period for government accounting) those import are degrading our national security and costing us ~ $6 trillion by my back of the envelope approximation. That's 18 times more expensive than ACA (which will cost $340 billion according to CMS actuaries), and 4 times more expensive then the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan (which may not have happened if we had been energy independent!)

So here's the question... if we are going to spend $6 trillion over the next ten years anyway, could we spend it on replacing imports instead, as at the end of those ten years we'd be better off than we are today? $4 trillion of that will come from the proceeds of the energy produced, and $2 trillion will come from a reduction in our military budget (which remember, will INCREASE our national security, as our foes will be forced to reduce their military budgets due to us not buying their oil).

Just using nuclear plants as a baseline, the answer would seem to be yes.

Nuclear plants cost about $7,000 per kWh to construct.. A barrel of oil contains 40 kW. So to replace those 40 kW / barrel * 4 billion barrels / year would require 160 billion kW. We'd need about 250 billion kWh worth of plants to replace that, as unlike oil you can't choose when to burn it, so you need more to cover peak periods. That would cost us almost $2 trillion. Since our budget was $6 trillion, we've got plenty left over to enhance the electrical grid and roll out electric cars and still turn a nice profit on the proceeds from the sale of electricity.

Other options exist as well, such as exploiting shale oil, or manufacturing oil from biological sources. Some percent could be covered by renewable sources. The point though is that if we get serious about tackling our import issue, we could improve our national security AND our government finances, and probably lower the cost of energy at the same time, increasing quality of life for American citizens.

Energy independence is worth going after even if it is tremendously expensive, as we'll come out ahead on this in the long run. Heck, even in the medium run.
2012-05-13 12:26:01 AM  
1 votes:
If only this was in the politics tab. Or a weekday.

Do people who think making more oil in the U.S. brings down prices not understand OPEC and Global trade on purpose? I used to think "yes" until a co-worker went on a rant about selling his car.

Though, as a Wisconsinite, the only thing that brings joy to me about living here, is the hoopla over sand. Nothing but lulz. Watching the oil companies trip over themselves to screw over small towns for sand is like watching a 90's sitcom about women fighting for a sale at Penny's, or mom's rush the Toys R Us for cabbage patch kids and tickle me Elmo.
2012-05-12 11:27:36 PM  
1 votes:

tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources

[nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov image 533x533]
incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.


Here's what it looks like when it's not spread over the planet like butter over a piece of toast.
sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net

And that's almost all salt water, fresh water is just a fraction of that.
2012-05-12 10:31:43 PM  
1 votes:
places.designobserver.com

Who cares if America winds up looking like this so long as a few rich people are made a bit richer?
2012-05-12 09:34:22 PM  
1 votes:

RobertBruce: Even the romans could efficiently move water long distances, including up hill....UNpowered. We could do the same with sea water. No need to waste fresh water on this.


The Romans were able to do that because they used water sources that were above their final destinations. Pumping millions of gallons of seawater uphill a mile to the Eastern front of the rockies will be hugely energy intensive.

Aside from that, if these depsoits are on Federal land, that means they belong to ALL of us, in collective trust. When (and not if, because you know the Dept of the Interior will do it anyhow) these lands are leased out for production, I sincerely hope we as a nation get a good price for our resources. The Bullshiat where private entities lease our our federal lands for resource extraction for pennies on the dollar pisses me off no end. Those deposits belong to you and me and that guy over there, and we NEVER get asked about what price we should set for it. It just gets signed over for some pissant lease price and the mining companies shiat environmental devastation in their wake and take the money back to Australia or Brazil or South africa or wherever they are based.
2012-05-12 09:26:07 PM  
1 votes:
Since it's only a CNS News article instead of a real news source, I skimmed it. "An" auditor somehow becomes "GAO testimony" which is then backed up by testimony from "the Rand Corporation".

Let me know if any real evidence becomes available. Because it would be pretty cool if reasonably recoverable oil was available that allowed us more time in our inevitable switch to non-fossil fuel sources.

/ it's cute, however, how most of the "article" is really just enormous block quotes from a single auditor and the Rand Corporation
// guess it's easier to write an article if you just reprint the commentary from biased sources instead of doing real research
2012-05-12 08:44:59 PM  
1 votes:

namatad: 10-20 years from now? Either we will invest massively in oil shale and coal or we will be building fission reactors.
I predict oil shale and coal, because they require the least change in our existing infrastructure.


There's also the chance algal biodiesel might be gotten viable by then.
2012-05-12 08:14:05 PM  
1 votes:
I'm from Colorado, I don't buy it. Shale comes in about every twenty years or so when the gas prices get to the point where its "profitable" to try to extract it from the shale. When oil prices plummet, the oil companies ditch the area and leave the towns that supported their operations in severe economic downturn. There's plenty of reason for Western Coloradans not to trust oil companies after the oil left in the mid 80's.
2012-05-12 07:39:06 PM  
1 votes:
What about Thorium reactors? Will somebody please start building Thorium reactors? What's that? You can't make bombs out of Thorium? That's why we use Uranium? That's it, then. I guess we're totally f*#ked.
2012-05-12 06:57:07 PM  
1 votes:
Tell me how much it's going to reduce my price at the gas pump. Is it going to do that?

/Because I don't think it's going to do that
//and where you going to get the refining capacity?
2012-05-12 06:36:38 PM  
1 votes:

tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources


incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.


Water, water, every-where,
Nor any drop to drink!


/farking salt water, how does it work?
2012-05-12 06:35:43 PM  
1 votes:

tomWright: Never said it was efficient, just not scarce. If gas and oil can be sent via pipeline, so can water. Or the shale can be mined and shipped to where the needed water is, if the method used even needs that much water.


So we're gonna build one giant pipeline system to pump in millions (billions?) gallons of ocean water a thousand miles inland to enable efficient shale oil recovery. We'll then need to pipe all that water back out to the ocean as well, unless you want to just turn western Colorado into an inland ocean. And oh yea, we'll need to pipe the oil out of course to refineries.

But investing in solar or wind power infrastructure? Crazy talk.
2012-05-12 05:45:49 PM  
1 votes:

tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources

[nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov image 533x533]
incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.


Good thing Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are coastal states. Maybe we can move those shale deposits to WHERE THE DAMN WATER IS!

And leave it in as good shape as you found it.

[notsureifserious.jpg]
2012-05-12 05:41:32 PM  
1 votes:
this should bring gas prices down 0.01
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report