3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakke

3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakke (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

pahunkboy -> 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakke (1/20/2011 12:34:24 PM)
3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate— North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation. A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil. Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using currently available technology and industry practices. USGS is the only provider of publicly available estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources./snip That is odd... Lindsey Williams said this a while back.

mnottertail -> RE: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakke (1/20/2011 12:52:26 PM)
and whats even odder is I have posted about the huge oil deposits discovered in North Dakota for several fucking years on this site.

Hillwilliam -> RE: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakke (1/20/2011 12:56:02 PM)
"Technically recoverable undiscovered oil" How the hell can it be recoverable if it isn't discovered yet? Smelly

luckydawg -> RE: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakke (1/20/2011 1:16:00 PM)
just like a liberal to use a fake quote to make a point. If you keep the words in the right order and do not remove the comma (ie use what it actually says) it makes perfect sense.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakke (1/20/2011 2:07:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg just like a liberal to use a fake quote to make a point. If you keep the words in the right order and do not remove the comma (ie use what it actually says) it makes perfect sense. Actually I dont think that really is at the core of Smelly's problem with the article linked. "undiscovered technically recoverable reserve estimates" are just that...estimates of what oil reserves exist in a region. The undiscovered part means that we dont know precisely where to drill to access them, and the quantities are unproven. My problem with the OP is why it took 3 years for PA to "discover" this information.

Moonhead -> RE: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s B (1/20/2011 2:09:09 PM)
So why aren't you crediting Ron for pointing this out?

mnottertail -> RE: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s B (1/20/2011 2:10:59 PM)
He can't see me...I point out his lies in irrefutable ways and do not let him elide them, as others do, so he has simply blocked me.

Moonhead -> RE: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s B (1/20/2011 2:13:32 PM)
I wonder why he hasn't blocked me, then? Maybe I should feel offended...

pahunkboy -> RE: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s B (1/20/2011 4:01:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I wonder why he hasn't blocked me, then? Maybe I should feel offended... I wonder never block you, because you bring me joy in every post. ;-0

anthrosub -> RE: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s B (1/20/2011 4:12:16 PM)
I'm wondering what sort of recovery would be needed. The recovery of oil from the oil sands in Canada is underway but not doing the local and regional ecology a lot of good. From what little I have read, China has a big stake in the Canada operation or at least has tried to have.

Hillwilliam -> RE: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s B (1/20/2011 8:32:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail He can't see me...I point out his lies in irrefutable ways and do not let him elide them, as others do, so he has simply blocked me. he has you blocked? what a pussy

Hillwilliam -> RE: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s B (1/20/2011 9:04:30 PM)
One note. "Technically recoverable" does NOT mean that it could be recovered at a profit. A few years ago, I was in a gold mine. A RICH gold mine. They werent mining gold. It was a tourist trap. WHY you ask? Extraction costs were about $1400/oz for this particular mine The price of gold at the time was about $850. This oil may be in a similar situation.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s B (1/20/2011 9:16:13 PM)
Exactly. My father worked in the oil industry for most of his life and back in the 70s I can recall him discussing various means of extracting oil from oil shale and coal gasification and all sorts of processes - his comment was that none of them were even remotely cost-effective unless the price of oil skyrocketed. Now that it has, suddenly certain things seem much more feasible - but you also have to be certain that the price of oil will stay that high before you invest billions in processing facilities. There may also be significant side-effects. Hydraulic fracking (which is what's driven the price of natural gas so low) has extensive environmental effects which are still being debated. (Back in the early 70s, btw, they tested underground nuclear explosions as a method of increasing the output of natural gas formations - they dropped the project when the results indicated that natural gas was contaminated by the radiation. Look up Operation Plowshare, if you're curious.)

Termyn8or -> RE: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s B (1/21/2011 5:27:50 AM)
"One note. "Technically recoverable" does NOT mean that it could be recovered at a profit. " True, but if we turn the middle east into a glass parking lot it will then be profitable. So it is in our best interests to bomb the middle east. Quite simple rally. T^T

Hippiekinkster -> RE: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s B (1/21/2011 10:02:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack Exactly. My father worked in the oil industry for most of his life and back in the 70s I can recall him discussing various means of extracting oil from oil shale and coal gasification and all sorts of processes - his comment was that none of them were even remotely cost-effective unless the price of oil skyrocketed. Now that it has, suddenly certain things seem much more feasible - but you also have to be certain that the price of oil will stay that high before you invest billions in processing facilities. There may also be significant side-effects. Hydraulic fracking (which is what's driven the price of natural gas so low) has extensive environmental effects which are still being debated. (Back in the early 70s, btw, they tested underground nuclear explosions as a method of increasing the output of natural gas formations - they dropped the project when the results indicated that natural gas was contaminated by the radiation. Look up Operation Plowshare, if you're curious.) Your father was right. I spent 10 years with Shell E&P R&D doing Enhanced Oil Recovery (tertiary techniques) research. Now there seem to be hazards with respect to frac'ing, but, hey, what are a few exploding water wells or cases of silicosis compared to being able to postpone serious alt energy implementation?

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125