Im sure this is old news to some people.

OIL - you better sit down.

Here's an interesting 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." Please read below.

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:

http://bakkenshale.net/bakkenshalemap.html


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 3 billion
barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel,
we're looking at a resource base worth more than $321 billion.

"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," reports The 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 breakthrough has opened up
the Bakken's massive reserves..... and we now have access of up to 3
billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels
will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one
should - because it's from 2006!

U. S. Oil Discovery- 2nd Largest Reserve in the World

Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the
2nd largest untapped oil reserve in the world. 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:


- 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?


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 is all true. Check
it out at the link below!!!

Natural Gas is also found deep down in Bakken Shale Field. The USGS estimated that there could be 1/85 TRILLION cubic feet in this area as well as nearly 148 Million barrels of Natural Gas Liquids.

GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911 <http://www..usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911>
<http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911 <http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911> >


edited some of the not so facts out.

Here's what they don't tell you: This isn't oil, it's oil shale. And while some oil can be pulled
from oil shale, it's neither easy nor cheap to do. The problem is cost. Oil is no where near $100
a barrel, and it's unlikely to go back there any time soon. In order for this to be sustainable,
price per barrel has to go way up, which it won't do in the current market structure.

We will never run out of oil. This has been known for decades. 12 years ago I had an in-depth
discussion with the head of the petroleum engineering department where I went to school.
His point was clear: The world is bathed in oil, it's just not easy to reach. Most of the easily
accessible oil is tapped (that we know of). The rest is there, but its costs $100/bl just to pull
out of the ground. That's just not financially competitive right now.

As long as oil remains cheap, we can never reach these resources. But as soon as oil starts
getting expensive, alternatives start looking much better. Compressed natural gas, for instance,
is a serious contender in industrial applications.



No, it won't. It'll cost 6 times that when you factor in pump price.



At what price? At $200/bl? Yea, sure. If you want to pay $9/gal (28 gal of gas per bl, plus crack
spread, plus station markup).



Which is also oil shale.



This is what we, in the business of crap, call bullsh*t. It has nothing to do with environmentalists.
You know why ppl don't "extract" this? Because it costs $100/bl to do so, and nobody is going to
spend that kind of investment until they know price will stay at that mark over the next 20
years... and that's not likely.

That's the same argument used against offshore drilling. It's perfectly legal to drill off shore, it's
just that oil companies have bought all the leases and aren't allowing private exploration in order
to keep prices managed.



Uhm, no. OPEC manages it's own costs thru a mechanism known as hedging. They figure what
they can get get for their oil and buy "puts" on that cost. Basically they lock in refiners at a
particular price. That's great for refiners if price is high, if it's low... not so much. That's why
the negative crack spread in 2008 didn't shut down plants, price was hedged below way below
the peak (at about $70, hence the current stable price).

Opec very carefully manages supply. When price goes too high, they worry about alternatives,
and they increase supply. When price goes too low, they worry costs and projected expenses,
so they cut supply to raise price. As long as the bulk of alternative supplies like oil shale stay
well above current market prices, they're in the green.



Yes, because complaining as fixed sooooo much in the past. The free market surely reacts to
complainers, right? LOL.



Yes, it's technically true that it's technically recoverable. We could "extract" this if we wanted.
Question is: At what price?

There must have been a crap load of Dinosaurs on the planet 65million years ago, to make all that crude stuff.

Wasn't created by dinosaurs...

Linky:
http://emd.aapg.org/technical_areas/oil_shale.cfm

Quote:


Ie: Most oil in oil shale isn't decayed dinosaur, it's algae, with various plants tossed in. Basically it's the carboniferous period squeezed down...

Linky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous

This period was responsible for converting most of the atmospheric CO2 into oxygen. It's why we breath what we breath.

And Jimmy Hoffa.

*sigh* This was a old email, sing what you quoted was the actual email too me, I started looking at it and realized it was very off, there is not 500+ billion barrels under there its more like 3-5 billion of that they may be able to recover 3.6 is what the USGS said. More importantly is the amout of natural gas. Were this email sounds like a government conspiracy, i mostly posted it to be a eye opener. I know it really looked like something REXXie would have posted and I in no way ment it to be as shuch. I do how ever like the idea of not being depend on the middle east for oil, that is something we can do. anyway the links are some good info, there is many places we can get oil here in the US, but we dont ahve the HUGH areas so it would require too much moving stuff around and thats big money.

A sentiment shared by myself, and many others. The problem isn't lack of oil, it's lack of cheap oil. We're hooked on it, and our entire economy is based on it.

What we need are alternatives, compressed natural gas is something we could be using right this minute, and is something that we'd be independent on. Yet
the cost to retool equipment to work with it is outside what people are willing to pay given the glut of cheap oil. While nobody wants the cost of energy to
go up, it is the only way we're going to find a market solution to the problem.

Minus that, it'll take gov't intervention. Gov't funding of alternate infrastructure, and massive spending on energy programs. Back when this whole "recession"
started I was hoping we'd use some of the stimulus plan to build energy infrastructure, but instead we've basically just thrown it down a rat hole.

To make matters worse, our own system is at war with our best interests.

Linky:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... wind-power

The thing I really want to point out here, the "take-away" if you will, is the comparison and contrast between the reality you now know, and the reality posed
by the email you quoted. Why? Because that email uses a combination of scapegoat and strawman attacks to blame the energy issues on "environmentalists."
Reality is far more complex, but as you can clearly see, a large part of the problem actually comes from the industries themselves. Yet that is rarely brought
to attention.

We will never solve our problems if we can't identify their sources. I'm always left to wonder if the same entities that cause the problem also circulate ideas
like that in an effort to distract people away from a real solution.

Yeah its too bad the US wont start doing more like they are in Europe. Gas its self is not very efficient, Diesel on the other hand fairly fuel efficient. The bad part is the us auto makers wont switch over why? I have an idea not that it matters any more but, when the gov gave them the bail out money why didnt they mandate they use some of this money to change the production lines? 90% of the cars could be switched over to diesel, sure they would need different engines and fuel management but it could have been done, Or is it the preconsived notion that diesel is "icky and dirty". Fun facts for ya 2007 Edmunds top 10 list for most fuel efficient cars. #1 spot Toyota Prius at 60 hwy and 51 in town but Edmunds even said,

"Affordably priced at $22K and up, the Prius is a bargain on many fronts. Real-world fuel economy doesn't match EPA estimates, but this hybrid car is still the most fuel-efficient vehicle on the market. "
To make matters worse, our own system is at war with our best interests.

Now from www.autoblog.com The 2008 VW Jetta Diesel gets EPA est 40 city 60 hwy and thats not a hybrid.
Its no doubt that the US government throws money down "rat" holes



Well of course no big corp. is going to like being told what to do ane when to do it. They also dont like it when it effects their bottom line. Granted the email was very much so propaganda but it goes to show you what somethings are "hidden". Like Wind generators, all that about natural gas planets is crap, why not use the wind generators and help? So not to over work the COal/natural gas power planets. its possable to help enough and it will lower the "green house" gasses, maybe we could get rid of the coal planets. and use them to burn used tires for energy. LOL

Theres also the fact that producing oil out of the shale is extremely dirty. The oilsands in Alberta are a prime example. By the time we get to 2020, our oilsand production will be the biggest source of emissions in Canada, including cars and trucks.

Not to mention the tailing ponds(currently 50 square km), and the huge amount of natural gas(currently enough to heat 3mil homes/day) these endeavours use.

so bankrupt companies taking doleouts should rework all their assembly lines, designing new diesels on the fly? do you know how much time and money it takes to do that? and think of the reliability issues- a wholesale immediate switchover for automakers would be virtually impossible in good times and you want them to do it in bad ones? to save money?

They should have thought of booger's arguement when they were in the good times.

Exactly why I was against government bailouts.

People say that, but then again most people are against a 2nd great depression too.

Some of the bailouts, at least of banks, took a depression off the table. Granted, it removed a lot of performance
incentives too, but sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.

Well they wouldnt have to rework all of their assembly lines, or designing new diesels on the fly. They could use allready made diesels, and it wouldnt take an outragous amount of work. My point wasnt for the auto makers to save money, it was to put the money they were given to good use, not buy more corp. jets and get bigger bounuses. It was also to point out how are FAILING auto makers are 10+ years behind on tech. Not only in gas mileage but also in quality. Yet they wonder why more and more people are buying cars from outside the US.

the thing is, american motor companies dont make diesels like volkswagen does. gm, chrysler, and ford dont have a 4 cylinder quiet 50 mpg diesel sitting there. and i guess youve never been involved in a line switchover. i have. and it takes weeks- then you have to work out the bugs in factory- then you find dozens once they are out of factory. ask toyota. as for 10 years behind, how do you figure? american cars still garner awards, still sell like hotcakes. the executive business aspect is what caused the bankrupcy. as to the money being wasted- all the auto companies did with it was pay down an enormous amount of debt.

No US does not make nice quiet 4 cyl diesels right now, Ford has made 4 cyl diesels in the 80's. Remember escorts and rangers? they had a diesel option. Old tech that can be made up to current standards. No ive never been involved in a line switch over, I do have an Automotive and Engineering background. Ive built more then a few cars (ground up) drag cars, hot rods, ect. Fixed a number of diesel powered equipment. I have half and idea what it take to do stuff. As for Us cars gettting awards, sure and why not I never said they dont build a ok product. Awards are nothing more then peoples opinions just like what I stated. They are years behind, its not hard to see. Sell like hot cakes? guess your still living in 2004-2006.... Yeah money was wasted, by paying down debt. Maybe the CEO's should take a few business management classes....