Show me the oil!

[tradosaurus]

As you may know, Cruz Construction started a division in North Dakota just 6 months ago. They sent for every Kenworth (9 trucks) we had here in Alaska to North Dakota and several drivers. They also just bought two new Kenworths to add to that fleet; one being a Tri Drive tractor and a new 65 ton lowboy to go with it. They also bought two new cranes (one crawler &
one rubber tired) for that division. Dave Cruz said they have moved more
rigs in the last 6 months in ND than Cruz Construction moved in Alaska in
the last 6 years. Williston is like a gold rush town; they moved one of
our 40 man camps down there since there are no rooms available.



Unemployment in ND is the lowest in the nation at 3.4%, last I checked. See anything in the national news about how the oil industry is fueling North Dakota 's economy?

Here's an astonishing read. Important and verifiable information:

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together."

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana.

Check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable(50 billion
barrels) at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than
$5.3 trillion.

"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reportsThe Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada. For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end.
Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological break-through has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves, and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL !!!!!!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006!

U. S. Oil Discovery - Largest Reserve in the World

Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005, President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil, why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

8 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

18 times as much oil as Iraq

21 times as much oil as Kuwait

22 times as much oil as Iran

500 times as much oil as Yemen

and it's all right here in the Western United States!!!

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy. WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East, more than 2 TRILLION barrels
untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the
world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price even with this find? Think again!
It's all about the competitive marketplace, it has to. Think OPEC just
might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this:

Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices. By doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.

Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.

By the way, this can be verified. Check it out at the link below !!!!!!

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?D=1911

Cruz Construction:
http://www.cruzconstruct.com/services.php

[trollbait]

The linked article is no longer available.

Are they counting the shale oil, which will be more expensive, energy intensive, and thus dirtier than the Canadian tar sands in their NA estimate?

10% from the Bakken might be a high, realistic estimate. One report claims 50%, but lowest estimate is just 1%.

With improvements with extraction we very well may have more oil than the Middle East. It just won't be cheap to get too.

And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL !!!!!!

No, it will cost that much to whatever private company gets access to it. We'll pay the going rate of the global commodity, or said company will just ship it to China or India who will pay it.

[bowtieguy]

heard!

good read(again). i know you're a "government guy", but our govt agencies REALLY get in the way...quite often.

occupy wall street, enviro nuts, even corporations can lobby govt, but it still comes down to govt's decision to yield.

[madnessspirit]

I agree with Trollbait's point. Most of the oil they are counting is stuff that is REALLY difficult to extract like shale oil, but yeah, we have a LOT of oil ready to come out of the ground if people would just let us get at it. Honestly, with production on the decline since we have reached peak oil (according to the military and USGS), we should be opening more of this stuff up to drilling or extraction. It takes years to set up these operations, and many of these companies could also be using some of this time experimenting with more cost effective methods. Really, allowing companies to move in to some of the restricted areas would be a good move. Though, some of those types of areas are open, and oil companies still go offshore for the oil.... why? Because it is cheaper and easier to get the oil. Look how long some of the oil fields out in western North Dakota sat unused. Try western South Dakota and Nebraska too. Perfectly good wells, just too expensive to extract.

The downside though.... Any oil we extract in the US enters the open market with the rest of the world, so our supplies won't really get bigger and prices won't come down even if we can extract it more cheaply. Just look at domestic crude prices. They are inflated by world markets, and even with that production, it doesn't effect the final trading prices. Plus, frequently, I have seen pretty exaggerated reports of our oil reserves, but nothing on the magnitude of what that chain letter is claiming.... But, even assuming it is true. There is still the fact that none of this oil will go to the American people at $16 a barrel. It will enter world markets, be traded back and forth, generate billions in profits, then be sold to American consumers prior to being refined into gasoline or plastic products at $80-120 a barrel. Heck, half the oil in the Middle East is being pumped out of the ground by American companies for a cost under $15 a barrel. You don't think shipping costs $65 a barrel do you?

It isn't just overzealous environmentalists screwing us here.....

Also, I just have to make one other note about North Dakota. Having lived there for 7 years, yes, the unemployment level is indeed very low. But, that is not the actual unemployment level. North Dakota has a huge problem with the chronically underemployed or long term unemployed. The 3.4% that sounds very low is only a figure based on people who have lost full-time employment and have not found ANY jobs between initial loss of the job and 2 years afterwards. Also, with the amount of work up there that is agricultural, a lot of farms don't have to pay unemployment benefits, therefore dislocated workers cannot claim unemployment.

Just saying, it is a dangerous figure, because it skews reality a great deal.

So have you been down there? I think the area is actually pretty nice if you aren't there during some stupid month like January or February...

[VX_Arky]

Is this real or a hoax? I find this hard to believe considering the report came out 3 1/2 years ago yet nobody knows it. I'm not buying it.

[trollbait]

...many of these companies could also be using some of this time experimenting with more cost effective methods.

Unfortunetly, the industry tends not to factor in environmental costs. I don't remember any mention of the of the huge 'ponds' of toxic water waste that would be generated during extraction in the excitement of opening up the tar sands. The oil shale, I think soggy, waxy coal might be more accurate, will be more difficult to extract. It's more mining than drilling. So more cost in all aspects.

I'm not totally against extracting it, but in the coming decades we will hate ourselves for burning so much of it, and wishing we saved it for lubricants, plastics, and pharmaceuticals.

[madnessspirit]

Originally Posted by trollbait

Unfortunetly, the industry tends not to factor in environmental costs. I don't remember any mention of the of the huge 'ponds' of toxic water waste that would be generated during extraction in the excitement of opening up the tar sands. The oil shale, I think soggy, waxy coal might be more accurate, will be more difficult to extract. It's more mining than drilling. So more cost in all aspects.

Oh, I'm aware of that. These companies should have to meet certain requirements in regards to protecting the environment as well. I was just saying, the option to extract should be there. I don't see any reason why our dependence on oil should give anyone any reason to destroy the environment.

But, like I said, a lot of places, the option to extract is there, and the wells are already in place. It is just more cost effective to get it elsewhere so they aren't even using them. Closed oil reserves in the US is a red herring. Even if they were open, we wouldn't be extracting in most of them until it became prohibitively expensive to do it elsewhere. People seem to have this fundamental misunderstanding that US oil companies are stuck in the US and we are forced to buy more and more oil from some evil foreign corporation. The truth is, our US oil companies pay other countries for the right to drill there because it is just cheaper to do it and they can make a larger profit selling that oil. Besides, they sell the oil on the world market anyways, not just in the US.

Just saying, the areas should be open so companies can consider new methods and implementation. Plus, it would stop all the nonsense politics regarding whether or not such and such reserve is open and how the other guy wants us to do this and this, but we would be so much better off if we drill baby drill.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by trollbait

we will hate ourselves for burning so much of it, and wishing we saved it for lubricants, plastics, and pharmaceuticals.

If the premise that dinosaur juice is limited is correct, then this is my largest concern. We should be saving the dinosaur juice for non-fuel usage and as fuel for old vehicles/equipment...we shouldn't still be making new vehicles that are intended to run on gasoline or dino-diesel.

[Nrggeek]

You guys have already figured out many of the errors in this email. Am I the only one whose first reaction is to check out the source of a story?
http://schutt.org/blog/2011/09/bakken/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp

~Bill

[bowtieguy]

your snopes link suggests large usage of water to extract oil from shale. um, what about corn ethanol?...http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22428/