[meteorite-list] OT -Oil reserves, the reality

From: David R. Vann <drvann_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:58:17 -0400
Message-ID: <1C637605D8B2495A8B649CD60E9F0124_at_sas.upenn.edu>

AAAUGH! I was trying to stop, not start this thread.

The Bakken formation: 1. Where do you people get this stuff? USGS estimates for
the Bakken are around 3-4 billion barrels in oil SHALE, the stuff that can't be
obtained economically yet. So it doesn't help today, or even tomorrow (next
decade, yes, maybe). 2. Do the math! We consume 6.6 billion barrels per year -
even using the imaginary number of 24 billion barrels, that is only 3-4 years -
that does not free us from foreign oil (at least not in my lifetime - maybe
you're planning to pop off in the next year or so).

To take this farther, the Green River formation has *way* more potential than
the Bakken formation, and it is estimated that it can only yield some 1 million
bbls/day at maximum capacity, but we can't recover it economically yet; USGS
estimates put it out to 20yrs or more before the technical and economic hurdles
are overcome.

Greg, you are correct in noting that it has been determined that we are better
off importing cheap foreign oil and keeping ours in reserve. We aren't likely
ever to be oil exporters on the scale of Saudi Arabia, however. Mike, I
completely agree that petroleum should be used for plastic, not burned, but we
don't have viable alternatives for transportation at this time. And the other
Mike, yes, why don't we try to use less? That's a very good idea, and I, for
one, believe that reducing our dependence on foreign oil is good for our
national security, but we don't have enough of our own to do so (yet).

Politicians are not preventing the oil companies from exploiting oil shales,
simple economics is. Politics seldom gets in the way of a determined industries
profits.

And Ted - thank you for your comments. The USGS is aware of the practices of the
oil companies. The 'unreported' reserves are not ten times the reported ones.
The Canadian oil shales are extensive, but it is very difficult to produce
gasoline from them; they are probably going to used as is, via burning along
with coal for energy. The large estimates there are energy equivalents (not
actual barrels of gasoline), and will not ever bring the cost of gasoline down.
(OK, not ever is maybe a bit overstated, but it is hard to see how - unless we
all switch to electric cars running on Canadian oil shale generated power).
Also, although there is a lot of rock there, it isn't all really extractable.
Everyone - please do keep in mind that energy extraction from oil sands and
shales is extremely destructive (strip-mining) of lands that hunters, fishermen,
etc now enjoy, and it uses absolutely unconscionable amounts of water, which is
left polluted with oil traces. In an era when fresh water supplies are
dwindling, is this a good idea?

Keep in mind that what started this was the notion that gas is 'expensive'. We
may well have a lot of oil in shales, etc., but it is absolutely not cheap oil.
If it were, the oil companies would be all over it - they are not idiots, you
know. Unfortunately, for better or worse, cheap oil comes from the easy stuff,
most of which is in the Middle East. Period.

Is gas expensive? I remember 25 cent gas - do you? I started driving when it was
maybe 50 cents. In pre-OPEC, inflation-adjusted dollars, we are paying something
like $1.50 -$1.75 (envelope estimate) per gallon, about three times pre-OPEC. My
parents bought the house I grew up in for $27K; my mother sold it for $175K, or
something like 75K inflation adjusted dollars, or about three times initial
cost. Make of that what you will, but I contend that gas is cheap in the US by
any measure.

The next post I make here will be meteorite-related, I promise. Maybe about how
the Chixulub impactor is why there is so much oil in the Mexican basin....


A silly quibble:
And, Tim-not PhD
 - that is the default signature put on my email when at work, not my attempt to
add authority to my words - I am not a petroleum geologist. And, I must now get
back to work - I don't think I will say anything more on this, as it seems to
bring out the blind optimists who refuse to accept the facts and do something
about them.

David R. Vann, citizen and voter of the United States of America, who is
concerned about rising energy costs and their toll on economic and social
conditions.
(is that better?)

[opinions and facts expressed herein are my own and not necessarily the same as
those of my employer, who strongly supports global sustainability issues]




| -----Original Message-----
| From: Tim Heitz [mailto:midwestmeteor at earthlink.net]
| Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 2:51 PM
| To: David R. Vann; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
| Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] OT -Oil reserves, the reality
|
|
| Hi David,
|
| 340 billion dollars leaves the U.S. every year to buy oil,
| when we have all the oil we need right here, its the 24
| billion barrels at the
| Bakken Oil Formation in S.D.
|
| Our politicians are running this scam and we are the fools.
| Think of all the
| jobs this would create
| and onshore drilling would also be much safer against oil
| spills, keeping
| the money here, would
| also greatly help America. Just what are the politicians thinking?
|
| Will the oil in the Bakken Formation free us from depending
| on foreign oil? You bet it will.
|
|
| We need more money to buy meteorites:)
|
|
| Best Regards,
| Timothy Heitz - not Ph.d
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "David R. Vann" <drvann at sas.upenn.edu>
| To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
| Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 1:16 PM
| Subject: [meteorite-list] OT -Oil reserves, the reality
|
|
| >
| > Thought maybe it was time to change the thread title, and
| maybe stop
| > this non-meteorite thread. In truth, I am responding to
| correct some
| > factually inaccurate statements.
| >
| > Guido, I respectfully suggest that you investigate the facts before
| > you
| > make
| > statements like "We are played for fools by the career
| politicians in
| > Washington
| > who pander to the environmentalists and prevent us from
| tapping our own
| > reserves
| > which are larger and easier to obtain than all the oil in
| the Middle East.
| > That's why we object to increased pump prices."
| >
| > Politicians are not pandering to environmentalists, they
| are pandering
| > to businesses, I think the events of the last thirty years
| speak very
| > strongly to this; attacks on the Clean Air and Clean water
| acts, the
| > Great Recession, the
| > Savings and Loan disaster, the Energy trading frauds, etc.
| (I can go on
| > for
| > quite a while here, but is not the forum).
| > Environmentalists have very little influence on the price
| of oil, if any.
| > Rather, market forces determine this entirely. Examples: in
| the late '70's
| > oil
| > did not skyrocket because of environmentalists, it did so
| because OPEC was
| > flexing its newfound muscle. Oil prices did not jump prior
| to the Great
| > Recession because of environmentalists; it jumped because
| of speculators
| > and
| > because the oil refiners underestimated demand by China and India,
| > resulting in
| > inadequte production capacity (there was plenty of crude
| oil). The cost of
| > oil
| > is related to the cost of drilling; I could, again, go on,
| but this isn't
| > really
| > the forum. Suffice it to say, the price of oil is driven by
| market factors
| > that
| > are *not* related to supply, as the supply can be (and
| frequently is)
| > increased
| > to meet demand.
| >
| > So, environmentalists atempting to reduce drilling are not
| affecting
| > the
| > price,
| > regardless of how one wants to view it. Most recently, the state of
| > Florida,
| > under a Republican govorner, decided to limit in-shore
| drilling to protect
| > the
| > states' fishing and tourist industries. They were deemed
| more valuable (to
| > the
| > state) than the short-term gains from onshore drilling - an
| economic
| > argument,
| > not an environmental one.
| >
| > Our oil prices are lower because we consume so much, getting a
| > discount,
| > and
| > because we subsidize the oil companies with tax dollars. Government
| > subsidies
| > for profitable companies are not defensible, yet they keep
| getting them,
| > because
| > the politicians are pandering to the industries paying for their
| > reelection.
| >
| >
| > The final inaccuracy, " tapping our own reserves which are
| larger and
| > easier to
| > obtain than all the oil in the Middle East" is the most
| egregious. This is
| > simply wrong. The proven resources in the US are about 22
| billion barrels
| > of
| > oil; Saudi arabia *alone* has an estimated 270 billion
| barrels. Although
| > that
| > number has been questioned as possibly politically
| motivated, it is not
| > overestmated by a factor of ten. If we take the 1968
| numbers (before
| > OPEC), they
| > had something like 170 billion barrels, still fabulously
| more than our
| > reserves.
| >
| > Our remaining reserves are not easier to obtain (discounting the
| > politcal
| > issues
| > related to dealing with the Middle East), as they are
| increasingly deep
| > water
| > reserves (whose difficulty was amply demonstrated last
| summer) or in
| > shales,
| > which are environmentally destructive and energetically and
| mechanically
| > difficult to extract; in fact, to date, there has been no
| economically
| > viable
| > method to extract these (but we will, when gas is expensive
| enough). The
| > oil
| > companies are going for the easy fruit first, as it is the most
| > profitable.
| >
| >
| > Sorry, but I have a difficult time letting false information get
| > distributed -
| > much like the NYT article. Plenty of others responded to
| that, so I'm
| > responding
| > to this one. The fact is, the Middle East holds more than
| one-half of the
| > total
| > reserves in the world. North America, including the shale
| sands in Canada
| > holds
| > maybe 16%. The largest reserves are in Venezuela, Saudi
| Arabia and the
| > former
| > USSR.
| >
| > We consume about 6.6 billion barrels per year, so we have
| about 3 or 4
| > years, if
| > we drilled everything (that we 'own').
| >
| > The world average consumption rate vs the reserves
| indicates that we
| > have
| > about
| > 50-60 years left (at current consumption rates, which are increasing
| > substantially each year).
| >
| > So, to recap this too long message:
| >
| > Oil prices reflect market forces, not environmentalist obstruction.
| > The US does not have more oil, easily obtained or not, than
| the Middle
| > East.
| >
| > We complain about high oil prices, not because of politicians, but
| > because
| > it
| > means we have fewer dollars left to buy meteorites.
| > (that puts it back on topic. Sort of.)
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > David R. Vann, Ph.D.
| > Department of Earth and Environmental Science
| > THE UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA
| > 240 S. 33rd St.
| > Philadelphia, PA 19104-6316
| > drvann at sas.upenn.edu
| > office: 215-898-4906
| > FAX: 215-898-0964
| >
| > ______________________________________________
| > Visit the Archives at
| > http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
| > Meteorite-list mailing list
| > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
| > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
| >
|
|
Received on Fri 08 Apr 2011 03:58:17 PM PDT