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.

(Minot Daily News)   You remember how North Dakota was supposed to have 3.6 billion barrels of recoverable oil? About that   (minotdailynews.com) divider line 159
    More: Cool, North Dakota, oil resources, U.S. Geological Survey, paid survey, Bakken formation, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar  
•       •       •

26721 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2013 at 2:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-01 12:03:17 AM
This state was a lot more fun before Big Oil showed up with their right-wing lobby friends and turned it into a social conservative playground. This all but guarantees more of the same.

On the bright side, they might actually get around to fixing the damn roads.
 
2013-05-01 12:12:15 AM

Charlie Freak: This state was a lot more fun before Big Oil showed up with their right-wing lobby friends and turned it into a social conservative playground. This all but guarantees more of the same.

On the bright side, they might actually get around to fixing the damn roads.


You mean I won't see gas prices of $.99/gal again?  Dammit Obama!
 
2013-05-01 12:19:20 AM
FTFA: "This is clearly great news for North Dakota and great news for the nation," Hoeven said. "It will further serve to enhance our state's role as an energy powerhouse for the nation. More than two years ago I persuaded former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to initiate a new USGS study of the Williston Basin to stimulate more private-sector investment in infrastructure like housing, hotels, retail stores and other services to meet the needs of a rapidly growing western North Dakota. This new USGS study further confirms and reinforces the fact that the Williston Basin is a sustainable, long-term play warranting strong private-sector investment for decades into the future."

In the meantime, gasoline will go up to $7.50 per gallon, and natural gas will be so expensive that only rich people will be able to afford to heat their homes with it. The rest of the world will move away from natural gas and oil to other fuel sources. Fifty years from now, our grandchildren will be wanting to know WTF we were thinking.
 
2013-05-01 12:22:16 AM
Praise Obama! We all knew he'd come through and put more oil in the ground!!

RedPhoenix122: Charlie Freak: This state was a lot more fun before Big Oil showed up with their right-wing lobby friends and turned it into a social conservative playground. This all but guarantees more of the same.

On the bright side, they might actually get around to fixing the damn roads.

You mean I won't see gas prices of $.99/gal again?  Dammit Obama!


It will slow down the price creep and keep most of that money in America at least. The cost of recovering shale oil has a price floor. Just like how they're building a plant here to turn LNG into diesel. The cost would be about $1.30 per gallon of diesel but that's not going to be the price they sell it for.
 
2013-05-01 12:31:27 AM
The good news: we have accessible reserves
The bad news: our zeal to be "energy independent" doesn't change the price of gas

/personally I think it's a better strategy to keep burning imported oil while it's cheap and plentiful
//then if things do get tight we don't need to import as much, if any at all, to meet our national interests
///YMMV
 
2013-05-01 12:32:59 AM
It IS an estimate so don't get too excited.
 
2013-05-01 12:39:04 AM

Bucky Katt: It IS an estimate so don't get too excited.


Uh oh... are we talking potential oil-cop math here?
 
2013-05-01 12:58:24 AM
FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.
 
2013-05-01 01:04:35 AM
Once again the USGS shows how government does things right.
 
2013-05-01 01:16:14 AM

Mrbogey: Praise Obama! We all knew he'd come through and put more oil in the ground!!

RedPhoenix122: Charlie Freak: This state was a lot more fun before Big Oil showed up with their right-wing lobby friends and turned it into a social conservative playground. This all but guarantees more of the same.

On the bright side, they might actually get around to fixing the damn roads.

You mean I won't see gas prices of $.99/gal again?  Dammit Obama!

It will slow down the price creep and keep most of that money in America at least. The cost of recovering shale oil has a price floor. Just like how they're building a plant here to turn LNG into diesel. The cost would be about $1.30 per gallon of diesel but that's not going to be the price they sell it for.


In all seriousness, I doubt the price at the pump will change.  They'll just make some backroom agreements on how much to put out per day to keep supply low enough to drive up prices.
 
2013-05-01 02:47:31 AM
Which is enough to get us through 1 whole year.  Whoopee.
 
2013-05-01 02:49:45 AM
Citation for my reply:  http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6">http://www.eia.gov/t ools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6
 
2013-05-01 02:50:41 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Bucky Katt: It IS an estimate so don't get too excited.

Uh oh... are we talking potential oil-cop math here?


Please.  Cop math would be 7.4 trillion barrels.

www.netbooknews.com
 
2013-05-01 02:53:43 AM
I don't know why we don't have price controls on gas.

Fer Christ's sakes; we have controls on grains and dairy, but not on gas.

/ it just seems to me that, for now, the American public is a captive market to gas prices.

// at the very least; we shouldn't be trading gas futures. That screws with the price.
 
2013-05-01 02:56:25 AM
This is still high sulfur hard to refine and doesn't make a profit unless prices are high oil, right?

At least it's not tar sands...
 
2013-05-01 02:57:20 AM
Hopefully none of it is on any Indian reservations, or the Freedom-Loving conservatives in ND might have to displace a few people and ignore a treaty or two.
 
2013-05-01 02:57:34 AM

iheartscotch: I don't know why we don't have price controls on gas.

Fer Christ's sakes; we have controls on grains and dairy, but not on gas.

/ it just seems to me that, for now, the American public is a captive market to gas prices.

// at the very least; we shouldn't be trading gas futures. That screws with the price.


Seriously?  You honestly can't figure that out?

/Hint: Congress would have to vote that
 
2013-05-01 02:57:55 AM
Alright! I'll do my part for the oil companies! I'm off to the dealer! What gets crappier gas mileage? The Ford Explorer or the Hummer?
 
2013-05-01 03:04:03 AM

Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.


That's so sad. I hope they are at least collecting the helium, if the concentrations are high enough.
 
2013-05-01 03:04:48 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: iheartscotch: I don't know why we don't have price controls on gas.

Fer Christ's sakes; we have controls on grains and dairy, but not on gas.

/ it just seems to me that, for now, the American public is a captive market to gas prices.

// at the very least; we shouldn't be trading gas futures. That screws with the price.

Seriously?  You honestly can't figure that out?

/Hint: Congress would have to vote that


I know, I know;

it would eat into the profits of oil companies. But, the agriculture lobby is comparable in power to the oil lobby.

/ You'd think that we'd have price controls on gas, regardless.

// that's probably another reason why I don't hold a public office
 
2013-05-01 03:05:04 AM

Pointy Tail of Satan: Alright! I'll do my part for the oil companies! I'm off to the dealer! What gets crappier gas mileage? The Ford Explorer or the Hummer?


The Lambo.
 
2013-05-01 03:08:47 AM
Eh, another billion tons of CO2 up into the air, no biggie.

/Goes to cry thinking of where we'd be if we'd blown a trillion dollars on renewable energy instead of Iraq
 
2013-05-01 03:10:02 AM

erik-k: Eh, another billion tons of CO2 up into the air, no biggie.

/Goes to cry thinking of where we'd be if we'd blown a trillion dollars on renewable energy instead of Iraq


Study it out!
 
2013-05-01 03:10:34 AM
FRAKING COMING TO A HOOD NEAR YOU
 
2013-05-01 03:14:02 AM

Pointy Tail of Satan: Alright! I'll do my part for the oil companies! I'm off to the dealer! What gets crappier gas mileage? The Ford Explorer or the Hummer?


Get the Explorer because otherwise the Jeep owners will laugh at you.
 
2013-05-01 03:14:56 AM

iheartscotch: Benevolent Misanthrope: iheartscotch: I don't know why we don't have price controls on gas.

Fer Christ's sakes; we have controls on grains and dairy, but not on gas.

/ it just seems to me that, for now, the American public is a captive market to gas prices.

// at the very least; we shouldn't be trading gas futures. That screws with the price.

Seriously?  You honestly can't figure that out?

/Hint: Congress would have to vote that

I know, I know;

it would eat into the profits of oil companies. But, the agriculture lobby is comparable in power to the oil lobby.


And those caps were first voted in long ago, before they got that powerful.  If only they had done the same thing to oil in the last century.
 
2013-05-01 03:21:34 AM

Pointy Tail of Satan: Alright! I'll do my part for the oil companies! I'm off to the dealer! What gets crappier gas mileage? The Ford Explorer or the Hummer?


If you're getting a Hummer, I recommend trying to avoid having gas at all, otherwise the Hummerer may stop in the middle of your journey.
 
2013-05-01 03:26:04 AM
Cool. I own mineral rights up there.

Whoever fell for that one the first time.... 'Sure, I'll sell you this land, but if there is any oil I can do whatever I want, as long as it is at least 100ft from your buildings....'
 
2013-05-01 03:26:17 AM

Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.


you are visible from space...
 
2013-05-01 03:27:25 AM
Fark Me To Tears:

Fifty years from now, our grandchildren will be wanting to know WTF we were thinking when the hell you thought built your family home within 30 miles of the inundating coast was a good idea
 
2013-05-01 03:30:41 AM

Pointy Tail of Satan: Alright! I'll do my part for the oil companies! I'm off to the dealer! What gets crappier gas mileage? The Ford Explorer or the Hummer?


I'd recommend getting an old Land Rover Discovery.  They leaked oil and gas about as fast as they burned through them on the road.  Single digits on the interstate with premium gas for sure.
 
2013-05-01 03:33:24 AM

Pointy Tail of Satan: Alright! I'll do my part for the oil companies! I'm off to the dealer! What gets crappier gas mileage? The Ford Explorer or the Hummer?


If GM still puts that 8.1L engine in anything, I'd put my money on that.
 
2013-05-01 03:34:57 AM

filter: Cool. I own mineral rights up there.

Whoever fell for that one the first time.... 'Sure, I'll sell you this land, but if there is any oil I can do whatever I want, as long as it is at least 100ft from your buildings....'


LOL.

They've figured that out. You get nothing. Zilch. Nada.


scm-l3.technorati.com

 
2013-05-01 03:38:12 AM
Didn't half of Springfield want to shoot Mr. Burns over this kind of thing?
 
2013-05-01 03:38:44 AM
his new USGS study further confirms and reinforces the fact that the Williston Basin is a sustainable, long-term play warranting strong private-sector investment for decades into the future.

The fark?
Hooray. Let's destroy more of our land. We can't let China beat us to oblivion.
 
2013-05-01 03:43:12 AM
Every time you call for price controls, God kills an economist.
 
2013-05-01 03:47:24 AM

jtown: Pointy Tail of Satan: Alright! I'll do my part for the oil companies! I'm off to the dealer! What gets crappier gas mileage? The Ford Explorer or the Hummer?

If GM still puts that 8.1L engine in anything, I'd put my money on that.


Nuh-uh - Ford F-250 Super Duty Triton V-10.  The older the better.
 
2013-05-01 03:48:55 AM
So that's what? A week's worth of oil consumption?
 
2013-05-01 03:55:39 AM

tuna fingers: filter: Cool. I own mineral rights up there.

Whoever fell for that one the first time.... 'Sure, I'll sell you this land, but if there is any oil I can do whatever I want, as long as it is at least 100ft from your buildings....'

LOL.They've figured that out. You get nothing. Zilch. Nada.
[scm-l3.technorati.com image 400x265]


What?

i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-01 03:57:55 AM
Bullshiat. More conservative lies. Farking freaks should be rounded up.
 
2013-05-01 04:09:05 AM
FTFA: approximately 7.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil....

and it's sold on the global market. We are another country whose natura; resource wealth is not shared among its people.
 
2013-05-01 04:36:22 AM

UsikFark: Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

That's so sad. I hope they are at least collecting the helium, if the concentrations are high enough.


Gas goes to flare all the time.  When wells or gas plants are serviced, the output is frequently sent to flare.  That happens far less frequently than it used to.  These days, it's common for gas-fired electrical cogen stations to be built near gas plants to benefit from production or fuel gas that would have previously gone up the stack.  But flaring will never be zero- it's how lines are purged prior to servicing.

/worked in a number of gas plants
 
2013-05-01 04:49:01 AM
Yay! More oil for China! They're going to be so happy with us.
 
2013-05-01 04:50:36 AM

Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.


No citation... told by customers in the industry that the main problem until recently was technology--they were unable to contain it, package it, and make it into something they could sell.  Now, the main problem is catching up.  They have the problem of storage--to keep up production of liquid petroleum they have to let the gas blow by, because you can't exactly let it puddle on the ground or flow it into an above-ground pool. It is either burn it or vent it (venting not allowed for obvious reasons) for want of storage or transport, and they are busting ass to get the gas into production everywhere.  Liquid is easy to store and transport, compared to vapor.

Not that they haven't had this problem from the very start and should have foreseen the polite request that they knock it off with all the burning.  Surely it is a contributor to global [INSERT CAUSE].  They are stupid for not being on the ball.  The development of recovery technology has been too slow.  They missed out, we missed out--but it *is* happening.

My company sells starters, alternators and automotive electronics to industrial and municipal fleets as well as to the general public and businesses.  We have seen a large increase in customers running vapor fuel, especially on the last 2-5 years.  One of our oldest customers now specializes in conversions.  My unscientific appraisal of fleets and equipment that have converted to natural gas is that their under-hood components have longer service lives.  The only factor that has changed is the removal of gasoline or diesel from the system--run it on literal gas and the fiddly bits last significantly longer.  Starter and alternator cores from vapor based systems tend to be less greasy and longer lived then their liquid fuel cousins.  Components like relays, sensors and lowly harnesses have longer service lives as a result of reduced under-hood grime--an effect which must be cutting into our consumption of steel, copper and brass.  This effect is hard to measure, but it definitely exists.

When you talk to fleet supervisors about reduced maintenance costs, you have to duck to avoid being concussed by the resultant erections.  These are the people that will demand nation wide vapor fuel stations and elicit an actual result, something that electric vehicle proponents can only wish for.  Change will come incrementally as over-the-road fleets create demand for vapor fuel at truck stops.

Any exhaust guys out there?  Any reduction in corrosion on your vapor fuel equipment?  I know the mechanics like it.  Of course, the lubricant has to be liquid, but who knows if that will be the case in the long run?

The amusing thing is that the *GREEN* transition to vapor fuel is relatively spontaneous.  No celebrities flailing their egos in distress, no silly hippie histrionics, no coalition against this or that; Companies are choosing to use vapor fuel because it is better, not because it is popular. Z O M G
 
2013-05-01 05:07:34 AM
Resource curse! Resource curse! Resource curse!
 
2013-05-01 05:14:06 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Bucky Katt: It IS an estimate so don't get too excited.

Uh oh... are we talking potential oil-cop math here?


Yep.  Oil execs have been caught overstating their reserves in the past...oddly, tying stock prices to executive compensation made some of them greedy...who could have expected THAT?

Here, it's a Republican senator...while they're generally a stalwart, trustworthy bunch...

has anyone seen the actual USGS report?

/loss of credibility is a hard thing to overcome
 
2013-05-01 05:15:13 AM

meat0918: This is still high sulfur hard to refine and doesn't make a profit unless prices are high oil, right?

At least it's not tar sands...


The report is quoted as saying "technically recoverable", so that would be my guess.
 
2013-05-01 05:16:01 AM

Pointy Tail of Satan: Alright! I'll do my part for the oil companies! I'm off to the dealer! What gets crappier gas mileage? The Ford Explorer or the Hummer?


A REAL American would buy both, and use one to tow the other around.
 
2013-05-01 05:17:47 AM

Captain Dan: Every time you call for price controls, God kills an economist.


Well, now I'm all conflicted...I mean, price controls are generally bad, but now that there's a huge upside...
 
2013-05-01 05:20:05 AM

erik-k: Eh, another billion tons of CO2 up into the air, no biggie.

/Goes to cry thinking of where we'd be if we'd blown a trillion dollars on renewable energy instead of Iraq


We can only afford so many Solyndras and A123's.
 
2013-05-01 05:22:31 AM

sporkme: Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

No citation... told by customers in the industry that the main problem until recently was technology--they were unable to contain it, package it, and make it into something they could sell.  Now, the main problem is catching up.  They have the problem of storage--to keep up production of liquid petroleum they have to let the gas blow by, because you can't exactly let it puddle on the ground or flow it into an above-ground pool. It is either burn it or vent it (venting not allowed for obvious reasons) for want of storage or transport, and they are busting ass to get the gas into production everywhere.  Liquid is easy to store and transport, compared to vapor.

Not that they haven't had this problem from the very start and should have foreseen the polite request that they knock it off with all the burning.  Surely it is a contributor to global [INSERT CAUSE].  They are stupid for not being on the ball.  The development of recovery technology has been too slow.  They missed out, we missed out--but it *is* happening.

My company sells starters, alternators and automotive electronics to industrial and municipal fleets as well as to the general public and businesses.  We have seen a large increase in customers running vapor fuel, especially on the last 2-5 years.  One of our oldest customers now specializes in conversions.  My unscientific appraisal of fleets and equipment that have converted to natural gas is that their under-hood components have longer service lives.  The only factor that has changed is the removal of gasoline or diesel from the system--run it on literal gas and the fiddly bits last significantly longer.  Starter and alternator cores from vapor based systems tend to be less greas ...


Very interesting.  Jibes with my thinking, that "green" tech really has to be green, as in money-green, to take off.
 
2013-05-01 05:27:42 AM

jaybeezey: erik-k: Eh, another billion tons of CO2 up into the air, no biggie.

/Goes to cry thinking of where we'd be if we'd blown a trillion dollars on renewable energy instead of Iraq

We can only afford so many Solyndras and A123's.


Yeah, wouldn't want to cut into our subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.

/free market my ass
 
2013-05-01 06:05:46 AM

Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: "This is clearly great news for North Dakota and great news for the nation," Hoeven said. "It will further serve to enhance our state's role as an energy powerhouse for the nation. More than two years ago I persuaded former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to initiate a new USGS study of the Williston Basin to stimulate more private-sector investment in infrastructure like housing, hotels, retail stores and other services to meet the needs of a rapidly growing western North Dakota. This new USGS study further confirms and reinforces the fact that the Williston Basin is a sustainable, long-term play warranting strong private-sector investment for decades into the future."

In the meantime, gasoline will go up to $7.50 per gallon, and natural gas will be so expensive that only rich people will be able to afford to heat their homes with it. The rest of the world will move away from natural gas and oil to other fuel sources. Fifty years from now, our grandchildren will be wanting to know WTF we were thinking.


I lived through the 1970s oil crises, and I've been wondering what we've been thinking since the
Reagan administration.
 
2013-05-01 06:10:17 AM
www.global-air.com

The local Motel 6 rents rooms for $129.95 a night. The Williston General Motors dealership has become the number one seller of Corvettes in the upper Midwest. Strip clubs are sending "babe buses", complete with live entertainment, out into the area to pick up customers.   More . (new window)
 
2013-05-01 06:29:56 AM

PunGent: jaybeezey: erik-k: Eh, another billion tons of CO2 up into the air, no biggie.

/Goes to cry thinking of where we'd be if we'd blown a trillion dollars on renewable energy instead of Iraq

We can only afford so many Solyndras and A123's.

Yeah, wouldn't want to cut into our subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.

/free market my ass


Not for the subsidy but it is cheaper and a better return that what we got with the whole green energy jobs thing when you look at taxes paid and jobs.
 
2013-05-01 06:34:22 AM
"..rapidly growing western North Dakota." So 100 people live there now?
 
2013-05-01 06:44:25 AM

Pointy Tail of Satan: Alright! I'll do my part for the oil companies! I'm off to the dealer! What gets crappier gas mileage? The Ford Explorer or the Hummer?


get you one of those older high mileage badly tuned Suburbans that escaped Obamas 'american cash for you to buy foreign clunkers' program and you got a winnah!
 
2013-05-01 06:45:49 AM
More than 50 posts in, and no Fargo jokes?
 
2013-05-01 06:51:27 AM

cygnusx13: "..rapidly growing western North Dakota." So 100 people live there now?


I keep getting job offers for that area... I keep turning them down because it's North farking Dakota...
 
2013-05-01 06:52:24 AM

iheartscotch: I don't know why we don't have price controls on gas.

Fer Christ's sakes; we have controls on grains and dairy, but not on gas.

/ it just seems to me that, for now, the American public is a captive market to gas prices.

// at the very least; we shouldn't be trading gas futures. That screws with the price.


Hint:

Do the price controls on grain and dairy keep the price artificially higher or lower?
 
2013-05-01 06:57:22 AM

Elegy: Once again the USGS shows how government does things right.


You can always tell someone who has never had a job. They think only the Government makes mistakes.
 
2013-05-01 06:58:27 AM
If you want to make money in a booming area like that, open up a huge bar/BBQ restaurant.
 
2013-05-01 07:02:48 AM

hasty ambush: PunGent: jaybeezey: erik-k: Eh, another billion tons of CO2 up into the air, no biggie.

/Goes to cry thinking of where we'd be if we'd blown a trillion dollars on renewable energy instead of Iraq

We can only afford so many Solyndras and A123's.

Yeah, wouldn't want to cut into our subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.

/free market my ass

Not for the subsidy but it is cheaper and a better return that what we got with the whole green energy jobs thing when you look at taxes paid and jobs.


As long as you ignore externalities like pollution and dump those costs on the taxpayer, you're right
 
2013-05-01 07:02:54 AM

knifeyspoony: tuna fingers: filter: Cool. I own mineral rights up there.

Whoever fell for that one the first time.... 'Sure, I'll sell you this land, but if there is any oil I can do whatever I want, as long as it is at least 100ft from your buildings....'

LOL.They've figured that out. You get nothing. Zilch. Nada.
[scm-l3.technorati.com image 400x265]

What?

[i.imgur.com image 800x360]


Milkshake!!
 
2013-05-01 07:11:08 AM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: More than 50 posts in, and no Fargo jokes?



You're kinda funny lookin'.

/In a general kinda way.
 
2013-05-01 07:24:41 AM
Sir, people are worried about fracking and tar sands oil and don't think it's worth the risks.

Tell them we have twice as much.
 
2013-05-01 07:25:56 AM
I will trade you two wheat and a brick for your oil!
 
2013-05-01 07:30:01 AM
Charlie Freak: On the bright side, they might actually get around to fixing the damn roads.

You can expect to the roads get considerably worse from fracking operations.
 
2013-05-01 07:31:47 AM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: More than 50 posts in, and no Fargo jokes?


I'm just not feeling chippy today.
 
2013-05-01 07:32:33 AM

PunGent: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Bucky Katt: It IS an estimate so don't get too excited.

Uh oh... are we talking potential oil-cop math here?

Yep.  Oil execs have been caught overstating their reserves in the past...oddly, tying stock prices to executive compensation made some of them greedy...who could have expected THAT?

Here, it's a Republican senator...while they're generally a stalwart, trustworthy bunch...

has anyone seen the actual USGS report?

/loss of credibility is a hard thing to overcome


Came in to say something along these lines.  If it's an honest citation from the USGS then it's probably sound.  They're accurate, though a bit optimistic at times, from what I've read.  On the other hand, if it's coming from the oil companies themselves...well there are plenty of reasons to fudge those numbers.
 
2013-05-01 07:41:49 AM
Recoverable at what price/barrel? $50/barrel? $80/barrel? $180/barrel? $300/barrel?

That's the question. Given that these are oil tar sands and are currently being recovered by either strip mining or fracking, and to refine them takes a lot more energy than the usual crude oil refining process, and getting it out of the ground is a LOT more environmentally damaging than drilling a well, I'd say just claiming "hey there's twice as much recoverable oil here" isn't fully covering the subject.
 
2013-05-01 07:53:55 AM
"...the U.S. Geological Survey has determined that there are approximately 7.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil"

Technically recoverable is the best kind of recoverable.
 
2013-05-01 07:54:56 AM
So when will the wild west gunfights start like in the gold rush?
 
2013-05-01 08:03:35 AM

unyon: UsikFark: Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

That's so sad. I hope they are at least collecting the helium, if the concentrations are high enough.

Gas goes to flare all the time.  When wells or gas plants are serviced, the output is frequently sent to flare.  That happens far less frequently than it used to.  These days, it's common for gas-fired electrical cogen stations to be built near gas plants to benefit from production or fuel gas that would have previously gone up the stack.  But flaring will never be zero- it's how lines are purged prior to servicing.

/worked in a number of gas plants


I don't think anyone would take issue with flaring being an operational necessity at times.  The policy should be that if you can't sell it or store it then you can't drill it.   30% of gas drilled in North Dakota is flared off.  That's ridiculous.  It's the same bull about costs being too high to drill the right way so they burden society at large instead.
 
2013-05-01 08:07:12 AM
Great news for the US.
 
2013-05-01 08:10:03 AM

UsikFark: Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

That's so sad. I hope they are at least collecting the helium, if the concentrations are high enough.


With helium prices what they are right now, they would be stupid not to take advantage. A lot of scientific research is done with LHe, and I know a lot of researchers who are hurting right now due to helium prices. Those few who spent the extra money for a closed cycle system are really seeing the benefits of the extra investment right now.
 
2013-05-01 08:10:53 AM

Mart Laar's beard shaver: More than 50 posts in, and no Fargo jokes?


It's the Godwin equivalent in a ND thread.
 
2013-05-01 08:22:52 AM
'technically recoverable' sounds so promising...
 
2013-05-01 08:23:35 AM
I like burning gas as much as the next guy, but where does this end? I don't have any doubt that human civilization is going to burn the Earths entire endowment of fossil fuels. Even if we know we shouldn't, we won't be able to stop. So what's the result of extracting every ounce of fossil fuel from the Earth and burning and exhausting it into the atmosphere?
 
2013-05-01 08:30:40 AM
by presidential decree, all government vehicles are using a fuel that costs more, gets worse mileage and frags out the engine far quicker
it's all about the money, NOW
So whatever we get out of the earth in the future will just get more expensive
even if it was actually cheaper to recover.
because you gotta cross a politicians palm with silver before you can ever get it near a consumer
 
2013-05-01 08:47:36 AM

Cubansaltyballs: Hopefully none of it is on any Indian reservations, or the Freedom-Loving conservatives in ND might have to displace a few people and ignore a treaty or two.


Hey... maybe you can open up your own gas station. I mean it worked for casinos.
 
2013-05-01 08:49:44 AM
PEAK OIL!!!
 
2013-05-01 08:54:08 AM

Crackpipe: I like burning gas as much as the next guy, but where does this end? I don't have any doubt that human civilization is going to burn the Earths entire endowment of fossil fuels. Even if we know we shouldn't, we won't be able to stop. So what's the result of extracting every ounce of fossil fuel from the Earth and burning and exhausting it into the atmosphere?


Well, if we manage to hang on to a capitalist economy, it will keep getting more expensive until the few people who still have some aren't willing to burn it for anything less than saving their own lives. If we switch to any kind of planned economy, we'll waste it all in an unfortunate bureaucratic mishap (Al Gore needs his helicopter rides downtown, comrade!), and won't even be able to get it to save lives any more.

The effect on the atmosphere? Negligible, the moon's tidal forces bleed off the extra anthropogenic outgas the same way it bleeds off the natural outgas, preventing our atmosphere from assuming a Venusian thickness. CO2 will have a higher concentration, but that will be countered by plant and algae growth.
 
2013-05-01 08:54:57 AM

planes: The local Motel 6 rents rooms for $129.95 a night. The Williston General Motors dealership has become the number one seller of Corvettes in the upper Midwest. Strip clubs are sending "babe buses", complete with live entertainment, out into the area to pick up customers.   More . (new window)


I wonder if it's gotten any better?
 
2013-05-01 09:02:24 AM

dryknife: Charlie Freak: On the bright side, they might actually get around to fixing the damn roads.

You can expect to the roads get considerably worse from fracking operations.


Not in this part of the state. Roads are bad here because of ice, frost, and flooding.
 
2013-05-01 09:03:58 AM

Tatterdemalian: Crackpipe: I like burning gas as much as the next guy, but where does this end? I don't have any doubt that human civilization is going to burn the Earths entire endowment of fossil fuels. Even if we know we shouldn't, we won't be able to stop. So what's the result of extracting every ounce of fossil fuel from the Earth and burning and exhausting it into the atmosphere?

Well, if we manage to hang on to a capitalist economy, it will keep getting more expensive until the few people who still have some aren't willing to burn it for anything less than saving their own lives. If we switch to any kind of planned economy, we'll waste it all in an unfortunate bureaucratic mishap (Al Gore needs his helicopter rides downtown, comrade!), and won't even be able to get it to save lives any more.

The effect on the atmosphere? Negligible, the moon's tidal forces bleed off the extra anthropogenic outgas the same way it bleeds off the natural outgas, preventing our atmosphere from assuming a Venusian thickness. CO2 will have a higher concentration, but that will be countered by plant and algae growth.


Pseudo science bullshiat. Stop lying.
 
2013-05-01 09:07:22 AM
It still isn't renewable - it just allows us to stay on crutches a while longer. We should be smarter than this by now...
 
2013-05-01 09:07:42 AM

planes: [www.global-air.com image 150x195]

The local Motel 6 rents rooms for $129.95 a night. The Williston General Motors dealership has become the number one seller of Corvettes in the upper Midwest. Strip clubs are sending "babe buses", complete with live entertainment, out into the area to pick up customers.   More . (new window)


Since only top notch members of society work the oil fields in ND, it sounds like a nice place to raise a family.
 
2013-05-01 09:10:58 AM

Charlie Freak: Pseudo science bullshiat. Stop lying.


Maybe you should practice that yourself, before you preach it.
 
2013-05-01 09:16:23 AM
So, with our current 19 million barrels/day consumption, and a 3 percent rate of growth in consumption, the North Dakota reserves will last just under eight years instead of 4? Either way, they'll outlast the Ogallala Aquifer, which when exhausted in the next 20-30 years (that's prehistoric fossil water from the post-ice-age melt, folks; it doesn't replenish), will ensure that no one will be able to live on the Great Plains. So might as well get that oil out while you can.

/No, seriously, we're farked.
 
2013-05-01 09:25:12 AM

spickus: Mart Laar's beard shaver: More than 50 posts in, and no Fargo jokes?


You're kinda funny lookin'.

/In a general kinda way.



How's the chicken fricassee?
 
2013-05-01 09:27:59 AM

tuna fingers: filter: Cool. I own mineral rights up there.

Whoever fell for that one the first time.... 'Sure, I'll sell you this land, but if there is any oil I can do whatever I want, as long as it is at least 100ft from your buildings....'

LOL.They've figured that out. You get nothing. Zilch. Nada.
[scm-l3.technorati.com image 400x265]


I drink your milk shake!
 
2013-05-01 09:30:22 AM

Tatterdemalian: Crackpipe: I like burning gas as much as the next guy, but where does this end? I don't have any doubt that human civilization is going to burn the Earths entire endowment of fossil fuels. Even if we know we shouldn't, we won't be able to stop. So what's the result of extracting every ounce of fossil fuel from the Earth and burning and exhausting it into the atmosphere?

Well, if we manage to hang on to a capitalist economy, it will keep getting more expensive until the few people who still have some aren't willing to burn it for anything less than saving their own lives. If we switch to any kind of planned economy, we'll waste it all in an unfortunate bureaucratic mishap (Al Gore needs his helicopter rides downtown, comrade!), and won't even be able to get it to save lives any more.

The effect on the atmosphere? Negligible, the moon's tidal forces bleed off the extra anthropogenic outgas the same way it bleeds off the natural outgas, preventing our atmosphere from assuming a Venusian thickness. CO2 will have a higher concentration, but that will be countered by plant and algae growth.


Oh, the planet will still bop along with some things living on it. They won't necessarily be the same things, and only the teeninsiest change is needed to make a planet that can JUST accommodate 7 billion people into a planet that can't accommodate that many. And that number doesn't have to go into deficit very far before all bets are off. War, plague, loss of technology.

Ask the Mayans and the Easter Islanders how benign the effect of human consumption of resources can be on a civilization. Also, too, study up on the tragedy of the commons.
 
2013-05-01 09:32:17 AM

Tatterdemalian: Charlie Freak: Pseudo science bullshiat. Stop lying.

Maybe you should practice that yourself, before you preach it.


Lunar atmospheric tides are negligible. Daily insolation causes much greater atmospheric tides.
Neither has much effect on atmospheric content.
 
2013-05-01 09:37:15 AM

unyon: UsikFark: Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

That's so sad. I hope they are at least collecting the helium, if the concentrations are high enough.

Gas goes to flare all the time.  When wells or gas plants are serviced, the output is frequently sent to flare.  That happens far less frequently than it used to.  These days, it's common for gas-fired electrical cogen stations to be built near gas plants to benefit from production or fuel gas that would have previously gone up the stack.  But flaring will never be zero- it's how lines are purged prior to servicing.

/worked in a number of gas plants


Apparently you've never been to ND.  No they are not doing any of that.  They are just burning it all off.
 
2013-05-01 09:50:13 AM

brandent: unyon: UsikFark: Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

That's so sad. I hope they are at least collecting the helium, if the concentrations are high enough.

Gas goes to flare all the time.  When wells or gas plants are serviced, the output is frequently sent to flare.  That happens far less frequently than it used to.  These days, it's common for gas-fired electrical cogen stations to be built near gas plants to benefit from production or fuel gas that would have previously gone up the stack.  But flaring will never be zero- it's how lines are purged prior to servicing.

/worked in a number of gas plants

Apparently you've never been to ND.  No they are not doing any of that.  They are just burning it all off.


Not all of it.  We have 2 wells on our property.  Just as drilling started, we started working on leases for waste gas generators to be put on site.  Managed to get our hands on a few really high efficiency units.  Yeah, we did have to flare for a bit just before hookup, but once that was done we were feeding the electrical grid for 2 years off those damned things.

The big problem with this idea is that there's so much NG happening in the area that if everyone did it, you'd overwhelm the grid.
 
2013-05-01 09:55:51 AM

rohar: brandent: unyon: UsikFark: Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

That's so sad. I hope they are at least collecting the helium, if the concentrations are high enough.

Gas goes to flare all the time.  When wells or gas plants are serviced, the output is frequently sent to flare.  That happens far less frequently than it used to.  These days, it's common for gas-fired electrical cogen stations to be built near gas plants to benefit from production or fuel gas that would have previously gone up the stack.  But flaring will never be zero- it's how lines are purged prior to servicing.

/worked in a number of gas plants

Apparently you've never been to ND.  No they are not doing any of that.  They are just burning it all off.

Not all of it.  We have 2 wells on our property.  Just as drilling started, we started working on leases for waste gas generators to be put on site.  Managed to get our hands on a few really high efficiency units.  Yeah, we did have to flare for a bit just before hookup, but once that was done we were feeding the electrical grid for 2 years off those damned things.

The big problem with this idea is that there's so much NG happening in the area that if everyone did it, you'd overwhelm the grid.


"all" was an exaggeration to make a point but yeah I read something like 1/3 of it is flaring.  The grid doesn't need more power, not enough grid and not enough people to use said power.

I'm all for oil and gas exploration.  I think we should put $100/barrel import tax and lots of problems would be solved simultaneously.  Middle east, the economy, taxes, environment, etc.  But we should realize once you burn it, it's gone and we should slow down and do it right.
 
2013-05-01 10:02:02 AM

iheartscotch: I don't know why we don't have price controls on gas.

Fer Christ's sakes; we have controls on grains and dairy, but not on gas.


Obama's doing the best he can by restricting Gulf drilling. This ND stuff has sneaked around those restrictions, and is fighting the higher price that he's trying to get.
 
2013-05-01 10:17:40 AM
Neat. Now let's leave it there.
 
2013-05-01 10:24:50 AM

RanDomino: Neat. Now let's leave it there.


Why on earth would I do that?  There's a pile of value under my land.  It'll pay for both my kids' education and most likely my retirement.

Why would I walk away?
 
2013-05-01 10:35:22 AM
News flash: oil shale and other forms of heavy crude can never lead to cheap oil, no matter how much of it there is.  These fields will not be a sufficient replacement for the light crude fields in Saudi Arabia which are beginning to go into decline. When those dry up, prices will skyrocket.
 
2013-05-01 10:37:13 AM
Yay! more spills, explosions, and air pollution!
 
2013-05-01 10:43:14 AM

Hollie Maea: News flash: oil shale and other forms of heavy crude can never lead to cheap oil, no matter how much of it there is.  These fields will not be a sufficient replacement for the light crude fields in Saudi Arabia which are beginning to go into decline. When those dry up, prices will skyrocket.


News flash:  The Bakken formation is mostly light sweet crude.
 
2013-05-01 10:47:53 AM

Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.


It's not a price issue. They literally can't get the pipelines built fast enough. Mostly because landowners think they deserve millions of dollars to allow a pipeline easement thus dragging out the negotiations.
 
2013-05-01 10:47:59 AM

rohar: RanDomino: Neat. Now let's leave it there.

Why on earth would I do that?  There's a pile of value under my land.  It'll pay for both my kids' education and most likely my retirement.

Why would I walk away?


this is why the problem can't be solved. The global long term environmental and  economic effects are much too complicated for most people to understand, but the immediate benefits for the people who make the decisions are easy to understand. Naturally, they do what is in their immediate best interest, even though long-term effects are negative.

Maybe you could at least invest some of that money in solar technologies. FSLR and SPWR are both up more than 50% over last year.
 
2013-05-01 10:52:38 AM

sporkme: Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

No citation... told by customers in the industry that the main problem until recently was technology--they were unable to contain it, package it, and make it into something they could sell.  Now, the main problem is catching up.  They have the problem of storage--to keep up production of liquid petroleum they have to let the gas blow by, because you can't exactly let it puddle on the ground or flow it into an above-ground pool. It is either burn it or vent it (venting not allowed for obvious reasons) for want of storage or transport, and they are busting ass to get the gas into production everywhere.  Liquid is easy to store and transport, compared to vapor.

Not that they haven't had this problem from the very start and should have foreseen the polite request that they knock it off with all the burning.  Surely it is a contributor to global [INSERT CAUSE].  They are stupid for not being on the ball.  The development of recovery technology has been too slow.  They missed out, we missed out--but it *is* happening.

My company sells starters, alternators and automotive electronics to industrial and municipal fleets as well as to the general public and businesses.  We have seen a large increase in customers running vapor fuel, especially on the last 2-5 years.  One of our oldest customers now specializes in conversions.  My unscientific appraisal of fleets and equipment that have converted to natural gas is that their under-hood components have longer service lives.  The only factor that has changed is the removal of gasoline or diesel from the system--run it on literal gas and the fiddly bits last significantly longer.  Starter and alternator cores from vapor based systems tend to be less greas ...


too long but i did read - and can sum up as "follow the $$ and you will find your answers"

we are in a catch 22 - nobody, from individuals to fleets will want to invest in alternative fuels until the infrastructure exists to support it (ie- refueling stations) and nobody wants to invest in the infrastructure until the customers exist to support it.

and to make any dent in the co2 emissions i feel we need to focus on the largest contributors: freight - be it by truck or by ship, puke out massive amounts of filthy exhaust.  they sit at idle for long periods and often use the cheapest and dirtiest fuel available.

we could make a big dent in this simply by manufacturing more in the states rather than shipping raw material across the ocean to china / india then having it shipped ALL THE WAY BACK.

/ideas, i got em
 
2013-05-01 11:05:15 AM

kriegsgeist: rohar: RanDomino: Neat. Now let's leave it there.

Why on earth would I do that?  There's a pile of value under my land.  It'll pay for both my kids' education and most likely my retirement.

Why would I walk away?

this is why the problem can't be solved. The global long term environmental and  economic effects are much too complicated for most people to understand, but the immediate benefits for the people who make the decisions are easy to understand. Naturally, they do what is in their immediate best interest, even though long-term effects are negative.

Maybe you could at least invest some of that money in solar technologies. FSLR and SPWR are both up more than 50% over last year.


Are you suggesting the producers (rights holders) are the root of the problem and not the consumers?

Seriously, if we shut production down tomorrow, it'll have absolutely 0 effect on pollutants.  None, nada, 0.  Meanwhile, those monies would not be available to my family and a number of jobs would be lost.

Here's the kicker, and it even confuses me sometimes when I don't think too hard about impact.  All of the energy my home consumes is carbon free.  I work at home so I don't drive much.  Better still, all of my garbage is consumed by a high efficiency, almost 0 output waste to energy plant.

Now, tell me again how I'm not thinking long term.
 
2013-05-01 11:05:30 AM

rohar: News flash:  The Bakken formation is mostly light sweet crude.


No it's not.  It is low porosity oil shale.  If it makes you feel better to call it "tight oil" rather than "heavy oil" that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it cannot be a price replacement for the middle east fields.  Yes, it is higher quality than some oil shale.  No, it cannot be cheaply extracted.
 
2013-05-01 11:08:28 AM

Hollie Maea: rohar: News flash:  The Bakken formation is mostly light sweet crude.

No it's not.  It is low porosity oil shale.  If it makes you feel better to call it "tight oil" rather than "heavy oil" that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it cannot be a price replacement for the middle east fields.  Yes, it is higher quality than some oil shale.  No, it cannot be cheaply extracted.


The diesel and kerosene yields are south of 5%.  That's pretty damned light.  Seriously, WTF do you want?
 
2013-05-01 11:11:23 AM

rohar: Seriously, WTF do you want?


Oil that's not tied up in shale pores?  Look, if you think that the Bakken Field deposits are as easy to extract and refine as the Saudi fields, just say so.  It will save me a long and pointless argument.
 
2013-05-01 11:13:40 AM

Hollie Maea: rohar: Seriously, WTF do you want?

Oil that's not tied up in shale pores?  Look, if you think that the Bakken Field deposits are as easy to extract and refine as the Saudi fields, just say so.  It will save me a long and pointless argument.


I didn't say that, I said the bakken is light sweet crude.  All metrics prove that out.  Difficulty of extraction is a secondary issue I have yet to address.
 
2013-05-01 11:17:44 AM
cool!  let's just keep right on pumping carbon into the atmosphere and perpetuating the economic / social / cultural memes attached to deliberate inefficiency-for-profit.  seriously, who gives a flying shiat about what's prudent from a efficiency, technological, or public health standpoint?  all that matters is that a portion of financially fluid americans get to play out their Dream for a few more years before the system collapses under the weight of its own unequal distribution.  can't wait for that pity party: "oh, we never saw this coming!  those evil corporations!"  right, it has nothing to do with a constituency utterly addicted to and complacent with the unsustainable conveniences affordable by the ecocidal, homocidal, classist, criminally negligent "free-market" economy.  give me a break.  none of this is necessary, just the cost of the hubris of a small number of people with a large amount of power, who have, over time, convinced the public by example that their lack of empathy and insane narcissism are sound american values.  after all, it's easier to compete when you have no regard for the consequences of your actions.  anyway, that's enough to put out there for now.

pro-tip: pour money into technology, education, health, and infrastructure (before ultimately getting rid of money).  so much wasted resources and energy on literally useless crap that people "want."  at the end of the day, i hope a dollar burrito or cheap plastic fan is worth the cost of a habitable environment and life-improving technology.  or that your Mercedes Benz was worth the resources that could've been spent saving someone's life or doing something else not completely farking self-indulgent.  the irony is that maximizing technological efficiency will afford us more leeway in available materials -- but our smart use of them will ensure they last much, much longer than they would now.  in short, if we actually assign the economy a series of these type of goals, we can raise the standard of living equitably to a level unimaginable today.  "HOW" that gets done is a different debate, but that it must is not even a question to anyone half-paying attention.
 
2013-05-01 11:19:39 AM

rohar: Difficulty of extraction is a secondary issue I have yet to address


Go for it.
 
2013-05-01 11:21:58 AM

UsikFark: Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

That's so sad. I hope they are at least collecting the helium, if the concentrations are high enough.


not a chance
same problem
not enough money in it

that new oil reserve figure? about a year supply for the US
 
2013-05-01 11:23:31 AM

Hollie Maea: rohar: Difficulty of extraction is a secondary issue I have yet to address

Go for it.


Why would I for a person who seems to have no handle on reality.  So, you suggest it's heavy crude.  You'll find a cite for that right?

Seriously, it's so light that we don't have the refinery infrastructure we need to handle it.  Most American refineries are geared up for substantial diesel refining.  There isn't much diesel in the light crude coming from the Bakken.

So how 'bout we get through this issue before we wander in to others you have no knowledge of.
 
2013-05-01 11:25:00 AM
Guess it's time to invade North Dakota!
 
2013-05-01 11:25:39 AM

LemSkroob: Yay! more spills, explosions, and air pollution!


you are still alive?
why havent you dont your part is reducing your pollution by 100%?

/no really, people with kids, people who are alive "pollute". so unless you cut your emissions to zero, you are part of the "problem".
/NEWS FLASH: spills, explosions and pollution are DOWN versus all periods in the past.
 
2013-05-01 11:27:23 AM

inner ted: sporkme: Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

No citation... told by customers in the industry that the main problem until recently was technology--they were unable to contain it, package it, and make it into something they could sell.  Now, the main problem is catching up.  They have the problem of storage--to keep up production of liquid petroleum they have to let the gas blow by, because you can't exactly let it puddle on the ground or flow it into an above-ground pool. It is either burn it or vent it (venting not allowed for obvious reasons) for want of storage or transport, and they are busting ass to get the gas into production everywhere.  Liquid is easy to store and transport, compared to vapor.

Not that they haven't had this problem from the very start and should have foreseen the polite request that they knock it off with all the burning.  Surely it is a contributor to global [INSERT CAUSE].  They are stupid for not being on the ball.  The development of recovery technology has been too slow.  They missed out, we missed out--but it *is* happening.

My company sells starters, alternators and automotive electronics to industrial and municipal fleets as well as to the general public and businesses.  We have seen a large increase in customers running vapor fuel, especially on the last 2-5 years.  One of our oldest customers now specializes in conversions.  My unscientific appraisal of fleets and equipment that have converted to natural gas is that their under-hood components have longer service lives.  The only factor that has changed is the removal of gasoline or diesel from the system--run it on literal gas and the fiddly bits last significantly longer.  Starter and alternator cores from vapor based systems tend to be less greas ...

too long but i did read - and can sum up as "follow the $$ and you will find your answers"

we are in a catch 22 - nobody, from individuals to fleets will want to invest in alternative fuels until the infrastructure exists to support it (ie- refueling stations) and nobody wants to invest in the infrastructure until the customers exist to support it.

and to make any dent in the co2 emissions i feel we need to focus on the largest contributors: freight - be it by truck or by ship, puke out massive amounts of filthy exhaust.  they sit at idle for long periods and often use the cheapest and dirtiest fuel available.

we could make a big dent in this simply by manufacturing more in the states rather than shipping raw material across the ocean to china / india then having it shipped ALL THE WAY BACK.

/ideas, i got em


Over the road trucks can no longer idle while the driver rests. They carry auxiliary power units to run the amenities. Some truck stops provide everything including air conditioning, television, internet and more through window units, eliminating the need for APU use.

Rail freight is much more efficient than truck.

International import and export is vital to the world economy-- economics 101. International shipping maximizes efficiency... that is their job.

Companies will adopt a new technology when it will help their bottom line. Spending by the government to try to force a new tech to be adopted is folly because: a) it is difficult to predict what will actually be adopted or what new tech may eclipse your pet project, and b) if the subsidy vanishes, you run the risk of pushing the tech right back out of the realm of economic rationality.
 
2013-05-01 11:29:41 AM

rohar: Why would I for a person who seems to have no handle on reality.


So...got nothing?
 
2013-05-01 11:30:30 AM

namatad: you are still alive?
why havent you dont your part is reducing your pollution by 100%?


We all need to dont our parts
 
2013-05-01 11:31:39 AM
You remember how North Dakota was supposed to have 3.6 billion barrels of recoverable oil?

Nope.
 
2013-05-01 11:36:36 AM

Lukeonia1: Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.


*sigh*

When are people going to stop using this line?
 
2013-05-01 11:38:09 AM
ND's crime rate is booming as well. The Rig Rats are presenting a helluva lot of issues for the dwindling local population. Prices are through the roof and locals are streaming south because they cannot afford to live in their town any more.

When the oil runs out we will see a modern day ghost town. Many of my Petro Engineering students have been actively warned away from taking jobs up in Williston and Minot by both Oil company employees and industry professionals. One student did a short, three day thing up there and was armed the entire time because his sponsors essentially told him not to come up without a firearm.

Also, the female to male ratio is insane. My female Engineering students will not touch that area with a 400000000 foot pole. Rape is off the scales. It's bad, so bad the bigger oil companies are constructing closed compounds and only letting employees off for certain tasks.

North Dakota was bad enough before all of this. Now it's way, way worse.
 
2013-05-01 11:54:42 AM

Hollie Maea: rohar: Why would I for a person who seems to have no handle on reality.

So...got nothing?


Quite to the contrary.  You stated it's heavy shale crude.  But diesel and kerosene content is below 5%.  This is, by definition, light crude.

Can we agree on this before we proceed to other stupid assertions?
 
2013-05-01 11:55:21 AM

BigNumber12: Lukeonia1: Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

*sigh*

When are people going to stop using this line?


Why would they stop using it when it's true?
 
2013-05-01 12:09:51 PM

BigNumber12: Lukeonia1: Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

*sigh*

When are people going to stop using this line?


Ur anus is visible from space.
 
2013-05-01 12:20:45 PM

Lukeonia1: FTA: The report also estimates there to be 0.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.


If what the people wearing the tin foil hats say is true, everything is visible from space.
 
2013-05-01 12:24:21 PM

namatad: LemSkroob: Yay! more spills, explosions, and air pollution!

you are still alive?
why havent you dont your part is reducing your pollution by 100%?

/no really, people with kids, people who are alive "pollute". so unless you cut your emissions to zero, you are part of the "problem".
/NEWS FLASH: spills, explosions and pollution are DOWN versus all periods in the past.


Just because you arent at 0% doesn't mean saying 'fark it, lets do what we want' is acceptable. I live an a major urban city, rely on public transit, keep our house at 60f max during the winter, and my wife and I refuse to have children. My footprint is far smaller than most in the US.
 
2013-05-01 12:27:01 PM

LemSkroob: Just because you arent at 0% doesn't mean saying 'fark it, lets do what we want' is acceptable. I live an a major urban city, rely on public transit, keep our house at 60f max during the winter, and my wife and I refuse to have children.


If only your parents had been this wise.

/i kid
 
2013-05-01 12:28:35 PM

rohar: kriegsgeist: rohar: RanDomino: Neat. Now let's leave it there.

Why on earth would I do that?  There's a pile of value under my land.  It'll pay for both my kids' education and most likely my retirement.

Why would I walk away?

this is why the problem can't be solved. The global long term environmental and  economic effects are much too complicated for most people to understand, but the immediate benefits for the people who make the decisions are easy to understand. Naturally, they do what is in their immediate best interest, even though long-term effects are negative.

Maybe you could at least invest some of that money in solar technologies. FSLR and SPWR are both up more than 50% over last year.

Are you suggesting the producers (rights holders) are the root of the problem and not the consumers?

Seriously, if we shut production down tomorrow, it'll have absolutely 0 effect on pollutants.  None, nada, 0.  Meanwhile, those monies would not be available to my family and a number of jobs would be lost.

Here's the kicker, and it even confuses me sometimes when I don't think too hard about impact.  All of the energy my home consumes is carbon free.  I work at home so I don't drive much.  Better still, all of my garbage is consumed by a high efficiency, almost 0 output waste to energy plant.

Now, tell me again how I'm not thinking long term.


I don't think you got the point of my statement. It's that big global long-term problems that are difficult to understand can't be solved by individual decision makers acting in self-interest. Consumers are just as much a part of that as producers.

I'm curious about your clam to use 100% carbon-free power in your home, in ND. How are you doing that? And not to nitpick, but waste-to-energy is not carbon free unless you only produce plant and animal waste.

Also, why do you think shutting down production would have zero effect on pollutants? Not that I am advocating doing that - it's just that shutting down production would remove those pollution sources from the system, so of course it would reduce pollution. Do you mean it wouldn't immediately reduce pollution? Or that it would just be produced somewhere else instead?
 
2013-05-01 12:35:29 PM

mbillips: So, with our current 19 million barrels/day consumption, and a 3 percent rate of growth in consumption, the North Dakota reserves will last just under eight years instead of 4? Either way, they'll outlast the Ogallala Aquifer, which when exhausted in the next 20-30 years (that's prehistoric fossil water from the post-ice-age melt, folks; it doesn't replenish), will ensure that no one will be able to live on the Great Plains. So might as well get that oil out while you can.

/No, seriously, we're farked.


What if somebody figured out a way to move water? Nah, that's wishful thinking.
 
2013-05-01 12:47:42 PM

rohar: Hollie Maea: rohar: Why would I for a person who seems to have no handle on reality.

So...got nothing?

Quite to the contrary.  You stated it's heavy shale crude.  But diesel and kerosene content is below 5%.  This is, by definition, light crude.

Can we agree on this before we proceed to other stupid assertions?


Sure why not.  I should have called it "tight crude" rather than "heavy crude" although it's splitting hairs...no one calls shale oil "sweet light crude" no matter how little refining it takes once you get it out of the rock pores.  But if we are going to bicker about terms I'm happy to switch my characterization to "unconventional crude".  My original point remains---these fields are not going to be able to replace the big middle eastern fields that are beginning to decline, in terms of output per day or in terms of price.
 
2013-05-01 12:56:25 PM

bmihura: mbillips: So, with our current 19 million barrels/day consumption, and a 3 percent rate of growth in consumption, the North Dakota reserves will last just under eight years instead of 4? Either way, they'll outlast the Ogallala Aquifer, which when exhausted in the next 20-30 years (that's prehistoric fossil water from the post-ice-age melt, folks; it doesn't replenish), will ensure that no one will be able to live on the Great Plains. So might as well get that oil out while you can.

/No, seriously, we're farked.

What if somebody figured out a way to move water? Nah, that's wishful thinking.


moving it is one thing. finding somewhere to get it from is another. i'm in Michigan, and local politicians are already making noise about people piping water from the Lakes to elsewhere in the country.

/although the congressman who claimed he'd call out the militia has since retired
//the Canadians get antsy about it too
///slashies!
 
2013-05-01 01:29:53 PM

kriegsgeist: rohar: kriegsgeist: rohar: RanDomino: Neat. Now let's leave it there.

Why on earth would I do that?  There's a pile of value under my land.  It'll pay for both my kids' education and most likely my retirement.

Why would I walk away?

this is why the problem can't be solved. The global long term environmental and  economic effects are much too complicated for most people to understand, but the immediate benefits for the people who make the decisions are easy to understand. Naturally, they do what is in their immediate best interest, even though long-term effects are negative.

Maybe you could at least invest some of that money in solar technologies. FSLR and SPWR are both up more than 50% over last year.

Are you suggesting the producers (rights holders) are the root of the problem and not the consumers?

Seriously, if we shut production down tomorrow, it'll have absolutely 0 effect on pollutants.  None, nada, 0.  Meanwhile, those monies would not be available to my family and a number of jobs would be lost.

Here's the kicker, and it even confuses me sometimes when I don't think too hard about impact.  All of the energy my home consumes is carbon free.  I work at home so I don't drive much.  Better still, all of my garbage is consumed by a high efficiency, almost 0 output waste to energy plant.

Now, tell me again how I'm not thinking long term.

I don't think you got the point of my statement. It's that big global long-term problems that are difficult to understand can't be solved by individual decision makers acting in self-interest. Consumers are just as much a part of that as producers.


Producers produce because the product has value.  Value exists because consumers demand the product.  The economy in America (and possibly the world) is consumption driven.  As long as consumers demand the product and it exists, it will be produced.  The issue must be resolved on the demand side.

I'm curious about your clam to use 100% carbon-free power in your home, in ND. How are you doing that? And not to nitpick, but waste-to-energy is not carbon free unless you only produce plant and animal waste.

I own land in ND, I don't live there.  I'd agree waste-to-energy isn't completely carbon free, where does your garbage go?

Also, why do you think shutting down production would have zero effect on pollutants? Not that I am advocating doing that - it's just that shutting down production woul ...

As long as demand exists, someone else will produce, see my previous comment.
 
2013-05-01 01:32:05 PM

Hollie Maea: rohar: Hollie Maea: rohar: Why would I for a person who seems to have no handle on reality.

So...got nothing?

Quite to the contrary.  You stated it's heavy shale crude.  But diesel and kerosene content is below 5%.  This is, by definition, light crude.

Can we agree on this before we proceed to other stupid assertions?

Sure why not.  I should have called it "tight crude" rather than "heavy crude" although it's splitting hairs...no one calls shale oil "sweet light crude" no matter how little refining it takes once you get it out of the rock pores.  But if we are going to bicker about terms I'm happy to switch my characterization to "unconventional crude".  My original point remains---these fields are not going to be able to replace the big middle eastern fields that are beginning to decline, in terms of output per day or in terms of price.


You know how I know you have no idea the terms you're using?

You are right though, production globally is in a period of flux.  What would you have producers do?  The value of these products is going to rise.  Consumers are telling us to explore and produce more not less.
 
2013-05-01 01:58:29 PM

trotsky: ND's crime rate is booming as well. The Rig Rats are presenting a helluva lot of issues for the dwindling local population. Prices are through the roof and locals are streaming south because they cannot afford to live in their town any more.

When the oil runs out we will see a modern day ghost town. Many of my Petro Engineering students have been actively warned away from taking jobs up in Williston and Minot by both Oil company employees and industry professionals. One student did a short, three day thing up there and was armed the entire time because his sponsors essentially told him not to come up without a firearm.

Also, the female to male ratio is insane. My female Engineering students will not touch that area with a 400000000 foot pole. Rape is off the scales. It's bad, so bad the bigger oil companies are constructing closed compounds and only letting employees off for certain tasks.

North Dakota was bad enough before all of this. Now it's way, way worse.


Define 'bad'...  To those of use who live up here, it was heaven before the republicans put the oil in the ground!   We had low cost of living, good wages, almost no unemployment, no crime.  Now our cost of living has shot up, but salaries for jobs outside the oil field have not changed to accomodate that.

As far as being armed all the time, no...  If you are working in the field, there are strict firearms policies.  No firearms on the rigs or in mancamps.   Yes, female to male ratio is pretty much non-existent, but rape isn't the issue you make it out to be.  Turns out that most of the guys here are here to work hard, make lots of money, and then go back to their families in their home state in their off weeks.  (oil companies run 7 days on/7 daysoff, 10/10, or sometimes 14/7 shifts.)  When the guys are on their shifts, they are working as many hours as humanly possible and pretty much just collapse at the end of it for a couple hours.

Yes, there are people who have heard ND has money and have come to try and make trouble without any intention of being part of the solution.  Problems like that have a way of solving themselves when you are living in what is essentially the wild west.
 
2013-05-01 02:07:15 PM

Elegy: BigNumber12: Lukeonia1: Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

*sigh*

When are people going to stop using this line?

Why would they stop using it when it's true?


Except the lights are not only flares, they're also ordinary work lights.
And that natural gas is not "all being flared off" -- from the "true" link above: "29 percent of the natural gas now extracted in North Dakota is flared off."
 
2013-05-01 02:07:53 PM
For a little perspective, 7.4 billion barrels of oil isn't even 3 months world production.
 
2013-05-01 02:25:30 PM

WelldeadLink: Elegy: BigNumber12: Lukeonia1: Meanwhile, that natural gas is all being flared off because they can't earn enough selling it to justify building the infrastructure to recover it. The flares are visible from space.

*sigh*

When are people going to stop using this line?

Why would they stop using it when it's true?

Except the lights are not only flares, they're also ordinary work lights.
And that natural gas is not "all being flared off" -- from the "true" link above: "29 percent of the natural gas now extracted in North Dakota is flared off."


So not all the lights we see in ND are flares. OK. But that would still mean that some of the lights that we see ARE flares.

Ergo, you can see the flares from space.

I understand your objection to the panic-inducing wording of "we can see these flare offs from space" but your objection to the wording has little to do with the fact that yes, in fact, we can see them from space.

A better argument is that we can see lots of things from space - the current crop of commercial satellites have a resolution of less than a meter on the ground. I can see your car parked in your driveway from space if I know where to look. Thus, natural gas flares aren't somehow special because we can see them from space.

/work with satellite remote sensing data on a daily basis
 
2013-05-01 02:29:38 PM
Whoops, should have used the indefinite article there.

"I understand the objection" not "I understand your objection"
 
2013-05-01 02:29:49 PM

Hollie Maea: rohar: News flash:  The Bakken formation is mostly light sweet crude.

No it's not.  It is low porosity permeability oil shale.

 
2013-05-01 02:36:34 PM
I think there should be a town called West in North Dakota. For added confusion, in should be in the southeast corner of the state.
 
2013-05-01 03:07:03 PM

Snarfangel: I think there should be a town called West in North Dakota. For added confusion, in should be in the southeast corner of the state.


while you're at it, there should also be a movie about West, North Dakota starring Hugh Jackman as Gene Hackman.
 
2013-05-01 04:07:26 PM

rohar: kriegsgeist: rohar: kriegsgeist: rohar: RanDomino:


You still haven't gotten my point.

I know how capitalist economics works. My point is it can't solve this problem. Capitalist economics is great at finding optimal solutions to efficiency problems where a single decision maker (or a small group of decision makers) can try radically different solutions on their own, producers and consumers have roughly equal access to information, and the results are visible on short time scales relevant to those decision makers. In the energy economy, small groups can invest in new technologies, but the payoff timescale is on the order of decades, not years, and that doesn't work well in today's stock market, or for anyone who doesn't have money to burn. Producers and consumers do not have equal access to information - not even close. That's true just because of the technical nature of the production, distribution, and consumption of electricity. Maybe 0.1% of people worldwide understand even the basics. The result is lots of people independently making small, short-term good decisions that collectively add up to big bad decisions.

Capitalist economics will hopefully eventually get us there (lately it's looking a lot more likely), but it will be a lot more painful and disruptive then it needs to be. Your statements are essentially proving my point. I suppose you are focusing on demand over supply because you know that what I am saying is true, but you feel defensive about the role you play in the problem. After all, if you don't do it someone else will, right? And you might as well take care of your family and make money while you can, right? And solar is risky, even if there have been big gains in the last year. Why, it might take 10 years to really pay off. So you had better put that cash into conventional energy, like oil and natural gas. Makes financial sense.

This is my point. Lots of small good decisions can add up to a big bad decision. If you are good with math, it's like finding a minimum using Newton's method. If you only look a short distance ahead and go in the best direction, you will get stuck in a local minimum. If oil wasn't an exhaustible resource that the entire world depended on, this wouldn't matter too much.
 
2013-05-01 04:27:00 PM

shootsright: Snarfangel: I think there should be a town called West in North Dakota. For added confusion, in should be in the southeast corner of the state.

while you're at it, there should also be a movie about West, North Dakota starring Hugh Jackman as Gene Hackman.


head asplode.jpg
 
2013-05-01 04:31:01 PM

Elegy: A better argument is that we can see lots of things from space - the current crop of commercial satellites have a resolution of less than a meter on the ground.


That was the point I was making - not that the flares are somehow not visible from space. I thought that you'd understood that.
 
2013-05-01 04:51:20 PM
This thread was super-exciting... so many NEWS FLASHES:
 
2013-05-01 04:53:32 PM

kriegsgeist: I suppose you are focusing on demand over supply because you know that what I am saying is true, but you feel defensive about the role you play in the problem. After all, if you don't do it someone else will, right? And you might as well take care of your family and make money while you can, right? And solar is risky, even if there have been big gains in the last year. Why, it might take 10 years to really pay off. So you had better put that cash into conventional energy, like oil and natural gas. Makes financial sense.


Almost, but not quite.

You see, I find myself in the position of being on the production end and barely on the consumption end at all.  As I stated, my home is powered by 0 waste systems.  No fossil fuels, no nuke waste.  I drive less than 150 miles per month in a high efficiency diesel.  I feel no guilt.  If the rest of you did similar, oil would be going for $20/barrel and I'd be out of business.

So no, I don't feel much for guilt as I'm not burning much of these products.  Standard drug dealer rules, you don't get high on your own supply.

How's your energy consumption doing?
 
2013-05-01 05:10:18 PM

BigNumber12: Elegy: A better argument is that we can see lots of things from space - the current crop of commercial satellites have a resolution of less than a meter on the ground.

That was the point I was making - not that the flares are somehow not visible from space. I thought that you'd understood that.


No, I hadn't understood that.

If that was your point, it was pretty poorly stated.
 
2013-05-01 05:24:31 PM

Elegy: BigNumber12: Elegy: A better argument is that we can see lots of things from space - the current crop of commercial satellites have a resolution of less than a meter on the ground.

That was the point I was making - not that the flares are somehow not visible from space. I thought that you'd understood that.

No, I hadn't understood that.

If that was your point, it was pretty poorly stated.



I've never been a great communicator.

A more 'shocking' statement would have been that the flares look like a [city name]-sized city at night when viewed from space. Maybe they could measure the footprint in Rhode Islands.
 
2013-05-01 06:14:07 PM

rohar: kriegsgeist: I suppose you are focusing on demand over supply because you know that what I am saying is true, but you feel defensive about the role you play in the problem. After all, if you don't do it someone else will, right? And you might as well take care of your family and make money while you can, right? And solar is risky, even if there have been big gains in the last year. Why, it might take 10 years to really pay off. So you had better put that cash into conventional energy, like oil and natural gas. Makes financial sense.

Almost, but not quite.

You see, I find myself in the position of being on the production end and barely on the consumption end at all.  As I stated, my home is powered by 0 waste systems.  No fossil fuels, no nuke waste.  I drive less than 150 miles per month in a high efficiency diesel.  I feel no guilt.  If the rest of you did similar, oil would be going for $20/barrel and I'd be out of business.

So no, I don't feel much for guilt as I'm not burning much of these products.  Standard drug dealer rules, you don't get high on your own supply.

How's your energy consumption doing?


I still don't think you get my point. That's ok, it wouldn't make any difference if you did. You would still do exactly what you are doing, and you would be right to do so.
 
2013-05-01 07:08:39 PM

Snarfangel: I think there should be a town called West in North Dakota. For added confusion, in should be in the southeast corner of the state.


Does West Fargo count?

How about the mall, West Acres?
 
2013-05-01 07:23:46 PM

kriegsgeist: rohar: kriegsgeist: I suppose you are focusing on demand over supply because you know that what I am saying is true, but you feel defensive about the role you play in the problem. After all, if you don't do it someone else will, right? And you might as well take care of your family and make money while you can, right? And solar is risky, even if there have been big gains in the last year. Why, it might take 10 years to really pay off. So you had better put that cash into conventional energy, like oil and natural gas. Makes financial sense.

Almost, but not quite.

You see, I find myself in the position of being on the production end and barely on the consumption end at all.  As I stated, my home is powered by 0 waste systems.  No fossil fuels, no nuke waste.  I drive less than 150 miles per month in a high efficiency diesel.  I feel no guilt.  If the rest of you did similar, oil would be going for $20/barrel and I'd be out of business.

So no, I don't feel much for guilt as I'm not burning much of these products.  Standard drug dealer rules, you don't get high on your own supply.

How's your energy consumption doing?

I still don't think you get my point. That's ok, it wouldn't make any difference if you did. You would still do exactly what you are doing, and you would be right to do so.


Of course I don't get your point.  As much passion as you're exhibiting, it doesn't work.

Again, how's your home powered, what's your commute?
 
2013-05-01 10:33:20 PM
rohar
Seriously, if we shut production down tomorrow, it'll have absolutely 0 effect on pollutants. None, nada, 0.

People consume what's cheapest. If what's currently being purchased is made more expensive, consumption will decrease.

You are stupid and you should feel bad.
 
2013-05-01 10:40:19 PM
I know how capitalist economics works. My point is it can't solve this problem.

Um.. what is the problem?
 
2013-05-01 10:49:33 PM

RanDomino: rohar
Seriously, if we shut production down tomorrow, it'll have absolutely 0 effect on pollutants. None, nada, 0.

People consume what's cheapest. If what's currently being purchased is made more expensive, consumption will decrease.

You are stupid and you should feel bad.


...and strangely I don't.  Probably a defect on my side.  Meh, I'm ok with it.
 
2013-05-02 12:40:07 AM
 
2013-05-02 10:27:38 AM

SpaceBison: http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/01/16/169511949/a-mysterious-p a tch-of-light-shows-up-in-the-north-dakota-dark
[blog.heartland.org image 600x363]


My God, North Dakota is visible from space!
 
2013-05-02 02:07:39 PM
Hopefully none of it is on any Indian reservations, or the Freedom-Loving conservatives in ND might have to displace a few people and ignore a treaty or two.
*****************************************************
Gee there's a novel idea considering that the government has entered into over 4600 treaties with the native tribes and broken every one of them to date.
 
Displayed 159 of 159 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report