Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

An elusive ocean of crude
Two miles below North American wheat fields is an area that could rival Saudi Arabia

By ANTHONY EFFINGER
Bloomberg NewsJohn Bartelson, who smokes Marlboro Lights through fingers blackened with tractor grease, may look like an average wheat farmer. He isn't. He's one of North Dakota's new oil barons.
Every month, he gets a check for tens of thousands of dollars from Houston company EOG Resources, which drilled two oil wells on his land last year. He says the day his first royalty check arrived was one to remember.
"I smiled to beat hell, and I went to town and had a beer," Bartelson, 65, says.
His new wealth springs from the Bakken formation, a sprawling deposit of high-quality crude beneath the durum wheat fields of North Dakota, Montana and southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The Bakken may give the U.S. — the world's biggest importer of oil — a new domestic energy source.
Unlike the tar from Canada's oil sands, Bakken crude needs little refining. Swirl some of it in a Mason jar and it leaves a thin, honey-colored film along the sides. It's light — almost like gasoline — and sweet, meaning it's low in sulfur.
Best of all, the Bakken could be huge. The U.S. Geological Survey's Leigh Price, a Denver geochemist who died in 2000, estimated that the Bakken might hold 413 billion barrels. If so, it would dwarf Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, the world's biggest field, which has produced about 55 billion barrels.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...z/5824026.html

-

So why are we paying so much for something we have ourselves? Politicians in the pockets of Big Oil. Control the flow, control the price.

"The challenge is getting the oil out. Bakken crude is locked two miles underground in a layer of dolomite, a dense mineral that doesn't surrender oil the way more porous limestone does. The dolomite band is narrow, too, averaging just 22 feet in North Dakota."

dolomite, as we know, is the tough black mineral that wont cop out when there's heat all about. its a bad mother...

seriously though, its probably that the technology doesnt exist to extract that oil at the same rate as middle eastern oil. its still something that should be invested heavily in...like...NOW, while still persuing alternate fuels for automobiles since we need to stop using combustible fuel so much.

Wiki says Bakken is all shale and has very high extraction costs

and wiki is always right

Originally posted by Schecter
"The challenge is getting the oil out. Bakken crude is locked two miles underground in a layer of dolomite, a dense mineral that doesn't surrender oil the way more porous limestone does. The dolomite band is narrow, too, averaging just 22 feet in North Dakota."

dolomite, as we know, is the tough black mineral that wont cop out when there's heat all about. its a bad mother...

seriously though, its probably that the technology doesnt exist to extract that oil at the same rate as middle eastern oil. its still something that should be invested heavily in...like...NOW, while still persuing alternate fuels for automobiles since we need to stop using combustible fuel so much.

"Last month, the U.S. Senate's Appropriations Committee voted 15-14 to kill a bill that would have ended a one-year moratorium on enacting rules for oil shale development on federal lands (which is where the best oil shale is located). Most maddening of all - at least to someone like myself not steeped in the wacky ways of Washington - the swing vote on the appropriations committee, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., voted with the majority even though she actually opposes the moratorium."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/06/news/economy/birger_shale.fortune/?postversion=2008060617

We're being screwed, bro. Instead of using your ass, they're using your wallet.

Does this really surprise anyone?

geologically, yes

politically, no

Well in Old Western movies there was always oil in the Midwest.

Shrug, I thought they were bs'ing too

lol, I'm not necessarily convinced its the cure to Saudi dependence, but ya, considering the American government is selling enriched uranium to the Saudis for oil, its REALLY strange they aren't developing this.

Originally posted by Robtard
a bill that would have ended a one-year moratorium on enacting rules for oil shale development on federal lands

What would that even mean?

McCain and Obama should stop being **** heads and just commit to drill the oil reserves in Alaska if elected. Figure those can keep the gas prices stable enough until alternate energy is our main source.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What would that even mean?

It means the government said "no, you can't drill here, not yet. Just wait."

Oh yeah, the Alaskan peninsula has a shit-ton of oil, more than Arabia. The govt is hesitant to drill it because they wanna save it "just in case" something happens. You know, like a back-up weapon. And we if we do decide to drill, will that really effect prices, seeing that the gas titans have monopolized their industry? Maybe, since they don't have deals over their.

A lot if also has to do with respecting the Eskimo's sacred lands.

Originally posted by chithappens
Well in Old Western movies there was always oil in the Midwest.

Shrug, I thought they were bs'ing too

Maybe some redneck will shoot a rabbit, miss, and then bubblin' crude will start flowing out the ground.

Originally posted by Schecter
dolomite, as we know, is the tough black mineral that wont cop out when there's heat all about. its a bad mother... Futurama reference=instant win.


To Quiero and KidRock: Drilling in ANWR potentially endangers hundreds of species of plants and animals that are only indigenousness to that area. That's why it's called a reserve. To protect it. Instead of finding new ways to guzzle gas, why don't we fund research into renewable energy sources?

I doubt the government gives a shit about the Eskimos, it is a nice pc cover though.

The gold-adjusted price of oil is apparently the same as it was in 2001 - which apparently means it's not that oil has increased in value, due to reduced supply and/or increased demand, but rather the value of currencies has decreased. Increased supply would obviously depreciate the value of oil more in line with the depreciation of the dollar, but it isn't "necessary" per se. (Although the figure I saw doesn't include the last five months)

Originally posted by Strangelove

To Quiero and KidRock: Drilling in ANWR potentially endangers hundreds of species of plants and animals that are only indigenousness to that area. That's why it's called a reserve. To protect it. Instead of finding new ways to guzzle gas, why don't we fund research into renewable energy sources?

I think its inevitable that ANWR will be drilled.

No one takes PETA or Greenpeace seriously anyways.

Originally posted by Robtard
I doubt the government gives a shit about the Eskimos, it is a nice pc cover though.

Probably. They're not very good at caring about their land's natives.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Futurama reference=instant win.


To Quiero and KidRock: Drilling in ANWR potentially endangers hundreds of species of plants and animals that are only indigenousness to that area. That's why it's called a reserve. To protect it. Instead of finding new ways to guzzle gas, why don't we fund research into renewable energy sources?

Same reason why we don't drill here more, because the powers that be want us to stay hooked on oil and they want to control the price.

Why doesn't the government let the private sector find a miracle renewable source? They could offer ridiculous tax cuts to any private company that finds a viable alternative.

Oh, anyone remember back on 2003 (when gas was $1.70 +/-) when the Bush admin gave massive tax breaks on buying the largest most gas hungry SUVs? Makes you wonder if this was set up all along, get them in the gas guzzlers, then make them pay at the pump.

I don't doubt it.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The gold-adjusted price of oil is apparently the same as it was in 2001 - which apparently means it's not that oil has increased in value, due to reduced supply and/or increased demand, but rather the value of currencies has decreased. Increased supply would obviously depreciate the value of oil more in line with the depreciation of the dollar, but it isn't "necessary" per se. (Although the figure I saw doesn't include the last five months)

Are you saying everyone is printing to much money?

More that at least from some of what I've read, a poor US and to a lesser extent global economy and resultant weaker buying power of currencies, coupled with a bullish crude oil market is resulting in overinflated oil prices. And that the effect of supply-demand economics is being somewhat exaggerated.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/5/4/thumb_480_oilprice.jpg

On the one hand, lots of oil is good because foreign dependency sucks.

On the other hand, lots of oil is bad because it retards advancements in renewable resource fuel alternatives. (I don't think that even makes sense. Also, it sounds like horrible business jargon.)

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo

On the other hand, lots of oil is bad because it retards advancements in renewable resource fuel alternatives.

yes im afraid it would generate complacency in our "if its good enough for the next 5-10 years, its good enough" government.

Two questions (I would love some in-depth answers rather than a quick rant):

1) Why has the U.S. dollar depreciated so much?

2) What causes gas prices to rise and fall as they do?

The first question is because I have some low-mid knowledge but not a vast amount of knowledge of the subject.

The second question is because it seems like people are just making up numbers. Numerous times I keep hearing stuff about "running out of oil" but I've never gone to a pump and not been able to get some gas. (Around 2003, there was even that talk of "we rise prices so if you don't need it, you won't buy it" as if people did not have to drive to work...)

Also, I'm writing an editoral on the subject but I want to be sure I'm comprehensive (I can take all the time I want though because it's for my website, )

1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201075.html

2) http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/06/news/economy/tully_oil_bust.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008060610

Although I'm sure their are other views that contradict these.

Inmalist mentioned earlier that Canada has it's own reserves and they actually use them so why is Canadian gas high also?

Because it isn't nationalized

And, from what I've seen, gas prices have little to do with the abundency of oil in a nation.

... Something is really really off. I just can't put my finger on it yet.

Did I mention that America is selling enriched uranium to Saudi Arabia for oil?

The U.S. put Hussein in power, gave him the WMDs while also dealing with Iran and at the same time dealing with Contras that were shipping drugs to ghettos filled with African-Americans and then saying "Look at those crazy negros!"

NOTHING, the government does surprises me.

There is something to supply though. Oil is not nationalized but there is something percuilar about not drilling oils in areas we can. On CNN Headline, about a week ago, the governor of Alaska (a Republican woman) was saying that she felt they could drill in the reserves without harming wildlife. She kept pressing the fact that it would drive down oil prices and that there was no reason to not drill if they could help Americans across the country.

The Saudis have been in coohoots with the U.S. government since at least the early 80s and this whole thing about supply is fishy. I read that article that xmarks put up about oil, but the explanation of "why" prices are like they are is still blurry for me.

This is ugly though. It's like you can't get a clear answer.

Originally posted by chithappens
The U.S. put Hussein in power, gave him the WMDs while also dealing with Iran and at the same time dealing with Contras that were shipping drugs to ghettos filled with African-Americans and then saying "Look at those crazy negros!"

NOTHING, the government does surprises me.

There is something to supply though. Oil is not nationalized but there is something percuilar about not drilling oils in areas we can. On CNN Headline, about a week ago, the governor of Alaska (a Republican woman) was saying that she felt they could drill in the reserves without harming wildlife. She kept pressing the fact that it would drive down oil prices and that there was no reason to not drill if they could help Americans across the country.

The Saudis have been in coohoots with the U.S. government since at least the early 80s and this whole thing about supply is fishy. I read that article that xmarks put up about oil, but the explanation of "why" prices are like they are is still blurry for me.

This is ugly though. It's like you can't get a clear answer.

So, Hussein did have WMD? I thought we couldn't find any.

Whatever he had was given to him by the U.S. so it would've been silly anyway. I think that's why we never heard word about it. Too many people were waiting to jump on that.

The U.S. put Hussein in power just like they did all across Central America, in the early 20th century, during Roosevelt's era and his whole "big stick" diplomacy.

Originally posted by chithappens
Whatever he had was given to him by the U.S. so it would've been silly anyway. I think that's why we never heard word about it. Too many people were waiting to jump on that.

The U.S. put Hussein in power just like they did all across Central America, in the early 20th century, during Roosevelt's era and his whole "big stick" diplomacy.

The US supported Hussein, because Iran was a common enemy, but the US did not put him in power. Please learn your history.

http://www.emergency.com/hussein1.htm

Ya, Hussein's rise was fairly independent, but they did give him WMDs

not nuclear, but chemical, which he used on the Kurds and Iranians.

The Saudi thing is also to compete locally against Iran, but seriously, the Saudis are NOT America's ally...

Originally posted by inimalist
Ya, Hussein's rise was fairly independent, but they did give him WMDs

not nuclear, but chemical, which he used on the Kurds and Iranians.

The Saudi thing is also to compete locally against Iran, but seriously, the Saudis are NOT America's ally...

Yes, we did give him chemical weapons, and then he used them. Stupid US government; bad, bad.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, we did give him chemical weapons, and then he used them. Stupid US government; bad, bad.

Your link mentions no U.S. intervention until it brings up the United Nations...

Even with what you said, you don't think the U.S. wanted to keep him there?

Iran was given arms, not WMDs.

Originally posted by chithappens
Your link mentions no U.S. intervention until it brings up the United Nations...

Even with what you said, you don't think the U.S. wanted to keep him there?

Iran was given arms, not WMDs.

I have no idea what the US wants.

Chemical weapons are considered WMD.

Also, the link I gave was the first one I could find on Goggle.

That's not an adequate source. I read multiple books on this stuff.

It would be nice if you did the same rather than just put something up and assume it supports your argument.

Edit: Oh and just to be clear -

According to The New York Times, the United States supplied the following arms to Iran:

* August 20, 1984. 96 TOW anti-tank missiles
* September 14, 1984. 408 more TOWs
* November 24, 1984. 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles
* February 17, 1986. 500 TOWs
* February 27, 1986. 500 TOWs
* May 24, 1986. 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts
* August 4, 1986. More Hawk spares
* October 28, 1986. 500 TOWs

** TOW is (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided)

Link

As you said, chemical weapons are considered WMDs.

No WMDs given to Iran.

Originally posted by chithappens
That's not an adequate source. I read multiple books on this stuff.

It would be nice if you did the same rather than just put something up and assume it supports your argument.

Bullshit. I just found something to support what I was saying. I don't have the time to go read a novel just for you.

Plus there are a lot of wacko books out there. Just ask Deano.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bullshit. I just found something to support what I was saying. I don't have the time to go read a novel just for you.


That's the same thing


Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Plus there are a lot of wacko books out there. Just ask Deano.

I try to read more than one book one a particular subject that might be on either side. Iran-Contra was a pretty big scandal and once it was out, there was no point in trying to hide everything. Oliver North took most of the fall but Regan signed off on everything claiming that it was because he wanted to save hostages and so on.

The stuff about Iraq is mainly discussed as a ploy to keep the USSR away because that region was of strategical importance.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think its inevitable that ANWR will be drilled.

No one takes PETA or Greenpeace seriously anyways. I was watching C-SPAN today (typically), and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer mentioned that there is 6 times more oil in areas that have already to authorized to be drilled than even the most optimistic projections of the oil content of ANWR.

I don't really think PETA has anything to do with protecting ANWR, it's mostly the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is exactly that. It is protected federal land and instead of trying to drill and endanger thousands of threatened species like I'm hearing a Republican Congressman say right now, we should actually drill in places where it's less damaging, and in fact we are already authorized to do so.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
More that at least from some of what I've read, a poor US and to a lesser extent global economy and resultant weaker buying power of currencies, coupled with a bullish crude oil market is resulting in overinflated oil prices. And that the effect of supply-demand economics is being somewhat exaggerated.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/5/4/thumb_480_oilprice.jpg Notice a jump in March 2003. I wonder what caused that.

CNN did some special on oil running out last night. One scenario said that by Sept 2009, oil is $5.00 +. Al Qeda then attacks oil refineries of Saudia Arbia causing prices to go over $9.00. But then it made me realize two things (more in focus; had thought them before but it actually pissed me off last night):

1) Everyone is talking about the supply of oil. Saudia Arbia is relevant because they have so much oil. Supposedly, Saudia Arbia is also a terrorist hideout and blah blah, yet a nice amount of oil is known to be in certain places throughout the world (even the U.S.) but we don't drill for it.

Why would the U.S. allow itself and other places to be subject to being at the whim of Saudia Arbia if it could be helped? But then again...

2) Oil prices are not based on supply but equilibrium pricing, but WHY THE HELL DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? The only thing I can even understand this sort of pricing system being used is to tell people "Well, you think it works this way, but it's really like this," hence "experts" not coming to a concrete conclusion of what is going on (similar to taxes in the U.S.; it could be easy but the forms are unneccesairly complex).

I still don't have the semantics down, but in just in thinking, without doing hardly any research, it is clear something is really off about this whole thing.

The oil deals with the saudis in the 50s were too lucrative

now, it is just those with invested interests trying to maintain their stranglehold on... well, I guess at this point it is the entire geopolitical system.

One of the best things I like is that Saudi Arabia (along with Pakistan and America) supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. However, after the fall of the soviet invaders and as the Taliban began to rise during the post-occupation civil war, America left, but Saudi arabia, through Pakistan's ISI, supported the Taliban regime, as they are ideological allies and Saudi arabia is a regional power.

So, now we are at war with the Taliban in the Wahabbi regions of Pakistan/Afghanistan, and at the same time, we are giving buckets of money (and ENRICHED URANIUM, ya, I know I mentioned it, just, you know, pretty stupid thing to do) to the very same people who we know support these groups. Americans, Canadians, Brits and anyone else in Afghanistan is supporting the very people their soldiers are fighting against. When I fill up my car, I am funding both the Canadian NATO forces and the Taliban fighters shooting at them.

Originally posted by inimalist


So, now we are at war with the Taliban in the Wahabbi regions of Pakistan/Afghanistan, and at the same time, we are giving buckets of money (and ENRICHED URANIUM, ya, I know I mentioned it, just, you know, pretty stupid thing to do) to the very same people who we know support these groups. Americans, Canadians, Brits and anyone else in Afghanistan is supporting the very people their soldiers are fighting against. When I fill up my car, I am funding both the Canadian NATO forces and the Taliban fighters shooting at them.


Its an odd and frustrating world we live in.

is there a solution to his knot of mayhem?, hmm anyone?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Its an odd and frustrating world we live in.

is there a solution to his knot of mayhem?, hmm anyone?

lol, bitching I can do, solving... not so much...

Originally posted by KidRock
McCain and Obama should stop being **** heads and just commit to drill the oil reserves in Alaska if elected. Figure those can keep the gas prices stable enough until alternate energy is our main source.

But omgz it could affect the migrating patterns of the caribou and screw up the environment... even though the current pipeline up there from another site hasn't done any of that

why even risk it when there are numerous undeveloped (re: known) oil reserves on the continental United States which would be just as effective as the potential reserves (re: unknown) from environmentally risky areas.

Oh wait... is it how much tax dollars oil companies can grab and band-aid solutions from political parties owned by oil interests?

Part of me doesn't want to believe the world is that full of shit.

first you get the money, then you power and then you get the women

though, in full disclosure, its more a problem with American lobbying practices than a world gone mad.

Funny how little people are bothered by lobbying, and the idea that those with money can use it to create policy. Thats what, the 7th ammendment?

Originally posted by chithappens
Part of me doesn't want to believe the world is that full of shit.

With well over 6 billion people shitting in it in various ways, there's got to be major loads of shit all over the place. (again, literally and metaphorically.)

True but come on. This is what people base their "beliefs" on.

i think I get your point, what do you mean about basing their beliefs off of "it" though?

"It" is bullshit. Something such as "terrorism" or "energy crisis" to confuse people when the truth is far more complex than the media is making it seem.

I'm not the biggest history buff, but this is just a modern reminder of why democracy is bullshit.

For example: Citizens vote a leader in. Once leader is in office, he does not need to have cater them, only sway their consent here and there as necessary.

"Of course the people do not want war... But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce pacifists are lack of patriotism."

- German Field Marshall Hermann Goerin, Nuremberg, April 18, 1946

I can't even tell you the last time I heard Bush's name in the news unless they were talking about his all-time low approval ratings which are around 35 % but I think lower. We don't even know what the hell he has been doing in the year 2008 without some serious digging. It's not an accident. It is one of the reasons all these media mergers scare the hell out of me.

I was wondering, does pumping all this oil out of the ground leave massive holes?

If so could this not help the rising sea level problem, by letting the sea water flood these holes left from where the oil was?

Are the holes in land based oil winning a risk, could towns collapse into them, earthquakes happen etc.

Originally posted by KidRock
McCain and Obama should stop being **** heads and just commit to drill the oil reserves in Alaska if elected. Figure those can keep the gas prices stable enough until alternate energy is our main source.

Why are American's so determined to destroy the planet?

I don't know why "American's" goal is to destroy the planet?

By the way, who is that?

Originally posted by chithappens
I don't know why "American's" goal is to destroy the planet?

By the way, who is that?

Wow...clearly you lack cognitive ability...