Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

2 Trillion Gallons of Oil Under Colorado?

Old 05-01-06, 06:48 PM
  #1  
Guest
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Glendale, next to L.A.
Posts: 18,486
2 Trillion Gallons of Oil Under Colorado?

A friend sent me an e-mail today about this 'news' story. I was able to find a couple of sources from small town newspapers and they quote the Wall Street Journal. I did a search on DVD Talk to see if this has already been posted.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/art...articleID=8433

The Great Colorado Oil Rush of 2006
Moss David Posner

April 21, 2006

When you are piecing events together trying to make sense out of them, did you ever get the feeling that there's a piece missing--a piece with which, if you had it, you could make sense of the whole?

For some time now it has been apparent to me that the Bushites wanted to corner the market on oil, as world oil reserves are clearly being depleted at an alarming rate; and our reserves, previous thought to be capable of supplying us for many decades to come, were finally seen as more limited than we suspected or dared to admit.

The only thing that I couldn't figure out was---if this is the case, why was the Administration so lackadaisical about protecting the oil sources we were occupying in Iraq? Clearly, our cavalier entry, ostemsibly with the cynical corporate purpose of winning these vast oil fields for ourselves, was not accompanied by any plan to protect them.

So, outside of driving prices sky-high, what was the purpose in possessing them? The anticipated pipelines from Russia and through the Caspian Basin were clearly a source, but not enough--and certainly not enough under our control--to make up for the losses. Increase in oil prices together with limited reserves would clearly drive the price up.

But after that--what? There was a piece missing. There was a piece of the puzzle missing. The only way this plan could work would be to have a lot of oil under our direct control; and clearly that was something we didn't have.

Or did we?

It has just been revealed that what is probably the world's largest oil source, yet untapped has been known to exist in our country, owned by the Federal government, and now ready to be tapped:

Colorado oil shale.

In what may be over TWO TRILLION gallons of oil available known to exist in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado lies the ultimate control of this smug self-satisfied administration.

According to The Wall Street Journal:

"(When the oil is extracted)...America would become the world's single biggest oil source, exceeding Saudi Arabia's proven reserves of 261 billion barrels."

This information can be found at: The U.S. Government's secret oil reserve

The area is the Green River Formation — a barren stretch of land covering portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Each acre holds 2 million barrels of oil. That's why the government quietly put restrictive legislation, deeming this Federal land, in 1930, and forbidding anyone from using it.

Now that technological advances have taken place in oil shale retrieval technology, this is the perfect time and timing for the Neocons.

So on August 8, 2005--woopsie! Bush signed The Energy Policy Act of 2005. So far three out of a total of six potential companies have been give 160 acres apiece to test-drill the land and to develop this to a commercial level.

So then, why the permanent basis in Iraq, and the threats of assault on Iran?

My guess is that we are to continue in our efforts to become--and remain--a global empire. We still have to deal with the ever-increasing and well-deserved enmity of Middle Eastern nations. In view of Bush's public comments it is clear that he supports--or sanctions--actions against Iran, should they become necessary.

Several journalists have debated action against Iran, with legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue: To extend our over-stretched military into Iran is out of the question. The only way this could be accomplished would be strategically to bomb presumed nuclear research and development sites.

The question remains---even if we made no attempt to follow this with ground troops, if nothing else, we will have won the undying hatred of Moslem world--if there are any Moslems left that don't hate us. In addition, there is simply no way to predict to what extent this will intensify attacks on Americans everywhere; but we can all agree that there will be escalating attacks.

If we do nothing to stop Iran, if left to her own devices--literally--she will do exactly what her president said--to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. And we all know Israel is not going to allow that. Enter the Israeli military, stage left.

There are those apologists who, having graduated with Honors from the Clinton Academy of Word-parsing, wade through President Ahmandinjad's speech to say that he didn't say what we all know he meant to say. So what are we do to?

The operative word here is "we."

We assume something that makes no sense: Although we know that this administration has absolutely no concern with or for the American people, we have been assuming that, if only in the light of self-interest, our leaders will be concerned--because they need us.

There are no executive elections for two more years. Additionally, the shallow distinction between political parties is overshadowed on the executive level by the fact that all of the top people are corporate lovers first, and American loyalists second. And armed with the Patriot Act, total control of the internet, new non-legal and other technology, a populist fragmented in their views, crippled by Public Education, and jointly fearful for the future, that the public will never be able to initiate a political uprising--a revolution.

They can withdraw to their gated communities, and if necessary, to vast subterranean cities which currently exist.

Add to this virtually limitless oil resources and the ability to control the oil market, these people can sell our fossil fuel predominantly to other nations, at at a handsome price.

They actually think that, with their relatively meager numbers, with a country enslaved and with those few that still have jobs in war and petrolium industries, coupled with the continuous demand for oil from overseas markets, that they can ignore us and control us--that they can win their own war of attrition against us, and the world, perhaps even indefinitely.

They just may be right.

So is this just bull or have you guys read reliable news sites regarding this incredible story?

Thanx Chris

p.s. I couldn't find anything on Snopes regarding this.
mrpayroll is offline  
Old 05-01-06, 07:07 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
We've had threads about it before. Shell says they can be up for production around 2010 and can make money at $40/bbl. I think the US Gov't owns around 80% of the land and private companies own the rest.

I think it will be a big impact at some point, but it seems slow to develop thus far. It is also a reason I don't think we need to worry a great deal about alternative fuels. Naturally we need to conserve, but oil is still all around and plentiful. I expect we'll find a sand flea that keeps us from getting it, though.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 05-01-06, 07:10 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
(rummages through hard drive) "Where the fuck did I put that tinfoil hat .jpg?!?"
crazyronin is offline  
Old 05-01-06, 07:14 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...5&page=2&pp=25

Post 49. August of '05. I was sure I started a topic about it as well, but don't see it. It was a big article in National Geographic at one time. It seemed that the amount of petroleum in tar sands (around 2003) was enough to meet current demands for 200 years and the amount in oil shale was enough for 500 years.

I don't buy the conspiracy, however. This has been around for awhile. The oil companies even asked for subsidies from Bush to do more research, etc. but he said based on Shell's work and the obvious viability, he wouldn't give any subsidies. They have him in their back pocket.

Last edited by kvrdave; 05-01-06 at 07:16 PM.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 05-01-06, 07:21 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Here is some stuff going on in Australia with similar deposits. Greenpeace, naturally, calls it a "Greenhouse disaster." http://www.greenpeace.org.au/media/c...12&news_id=647

Another article http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...051709,00.html
Originally Posted by teh article
On one small test plot about 20 feet by 35 feet, on land Shell owns, they started heating the rock in early 2004. "Product" - about one-third natural gas, two-thirds light crude - began to appear in September 2004. They turned the heaters off about a month ago, after harvesting about 1,500 barrels of oil.

While we were trying to do the math, O'Connor told us the answers. Upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, covers more than a thousand square miles - the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world.
This mentions $30/bbl
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002981.html

Just google "Shale oil Shell" and you will get great info.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 05-01-06, 07:30 PM
  #6  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,524
Well, we can't get it out with all those people living there.

Step 1: nuke Colorado from Orbit
Groucho is online now  
Old 05-01-06, 07:57 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Lobstrosities
Posts: 10,300
Shale oil is old news. I want to know who the fuck squeeled about the vast subterranean cities? Who ever it was will be on drone supervision in a Denver extraction camp for the rest of their life.
wmansir is offline  
Old 05-01-06, 10:09 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,967
Up until now, the big issue with trying to exploit oil shale and oil tar sands is that you had to literally dig it out of the ground to extract out the oil--a very expensive and not-environmentally-friendly process for lots of obvious reasons!

However, that all changed almost overnight when a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell in the USA announced they may have found the solution: a combination of heating the shale and high presure steam injection. If it works scaled up we could extract out the oil in situ from oil shale and oil tar sands without needing to actually mine out the shale or tar sands, and that could open up potentially enough oil to equal almost the entire Middle East combined. And with more recent developments in extracting oil from the Gulf of Mexico (many have said we've barely begun to extract oil from the Gulf), North America could have in theory more recoverable crude oil than twice known Middle East reserves.
RayChuang is offline  
Old 05-02-06, 07:11 AM
  #9  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,977
I put the relevant parts in bold.


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06120/686009-108.stm

Jack Kelly: Bush drills a dry well

The president is wrong to join the demagogues on gasoline prices

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Columnist Tony Blankley is upset with President Bush for joining Democrats in demagoguery over gasoline prices.

"One of the things that always made me feel good in the morning was waking up and realizing I did not belong to the same political party as [New York Democratic Sen.] Chuck Schumer. It made me feel clean -- even before I took a shower," he wrote. "But now, with my Republican president pulling a 'full Schumer,' even a series of showers will not help."

Mr. Blankley was decrying Mr. Bush's order to investigate whether oil companies are gouging consumers.

The president took the step Tuesday after being urged to do so by Republicowards Bill Frist, the soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader, and Dennis Hastert, the soon-to-be ex-Speaker of the House.

I have nothing kind to say about oil company executives. The $400 million retirement package ExxonMobil is giving retiring CEO Lee Raymond is the sort of thing that makes ordinary Americans suspect they're being ripped off.

But President Bush knows full well price manipulation by American corporations has little or nothing to do with the steady rise of, and the recent spike in, gasoline prices. The average profit margin of the oil industry is much less than that of many media organizations whose editorialists decry oil's "excess profits."

Oil prices are rising because world wide demand is soaring, and production has leveled off. Consumption in China and India has nearly doubled from 10 years ago, and our own consumption has increased substantially.

The recent spike in oil prices is due mostly to civil unrest in oil producing countries. Production in Nigeria is down more than 10 percent this year, thanks to civil war. Violence in Iraq has kept production there below prewar levels. The policies of Castro wannabe Hugo Chavez are hampering Venezuela's oil industry. Nuclear saber rattling by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has cast doubt on the reliability of supplies from there.

Only three things can make the price of oil drop a lot, for a sustained period of time: Discovery of vast new quantities of petroleum; a massive shift to alternative fuels, or a worldwide depression.

Since production is declining in 33 of the 48 largest producers, the first isn't likely.

But it is possible. In both the oil shale of Colorado and Utah, and in the tar sands of northern Alberta, there are oil reserves that exceed those of Saudi Arabia.

Development of these resources has been retarded partly by price (at $72 a barrel, this is no longer an issue), mostly by environmental restrictions.

Royal Dutch Shell has developed a process for "in situ" mining (the shale is heated in place, and the oil leaches to the surface) that avoids the environmental degradation of older processes, and also reduces the cost. All that's standing in the way of a boom that would make Colorado the Spindletop of the 21st century are the politicians and environmental lawyers.

It would be nice if there were a safe, effective, inexpensive alternative fuel for our automobiles. But for the time being, that remains pie in the sky.

We could reduce the cost of gasoline if we used less oil to heat our homes and offices, and to generate electricity. Nuclear power could do this, as could expanded use of clean-burning coal. It is politics, not economics or science, that has been the barrier to more extensive use of these fuels.


In the short term, the blow to consumers can be eased by suspending the federal gasoline tax -- currently 18.4 cents a gallon -- for the summer.

In the long run, the only way to have lower gasoline prices and a healthy economy is to increase supply. But since 2001, Democrats have opposed every measure to increase supply, most notably by blocking drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in Alaska, though the area affected is the equivalent of a bath towel on a tennis court.

In the rare instances when they venture beyond calling President Bush names to making actual policy recommendations, Democrats call for price controls, and conservation. We tried this when Jimmy Carter was president. The result was soaring inflation and unemployment, and long gas lines.

"There is no silver bullet to solving this side of the equation," said Rep. Richard Pombo of California, a Republican who gets it. "But a billion barrels here, a billion barrels there, and pretty soon we're talking about real energy."

President Bush should be listening to Rep. Pombo, not to Sen. Frist and Rep. Hastert.
grundle is offline  
Old 05-02-06, 12:41 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by mrpayroll
So is this just bull or have you guys read reliable news sites regarding this incredible story?
Supposedly, in western CO, they have a saying to the effect that oil shale is the fuel of the future, and always will be

For starters, oil shale is not quite oil, but a substance known as "kerogen" (or organic marlstone) - an oil precursor. Hence the requirement that all of the processes used in the past or currently being tested to extract this "oil" require heat i.e. a significant energy input

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/...hale/shale.asp

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/...ale_retor.html

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reser...e_Program.html

Best estimates I have seen are that oil shale might produce 2-3 million barrels/day over the next 20-30 years, assuming a commercially viable process is developed which can be ramped up quickly enough

By comparison, the Alberta tar sands produce about 1.5 million b/d, and are only expected to triple over the next 20 years.

In other words, oil shale/oil sands are a piece of the solution, but their impact will be modest for the foreseeable future
Illinois Enema Bandit is offline  
Old 05-02-06, 04:07 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
it's a lie, everyone knows we are running out of oil
al_bundy is offline  
Old 05-02-06, 04:22 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
The Bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 54,812


Government scientists have estimated that the United States is sitting on 2.6 trillion barrels of reserves in oil shale form... "We're confident that high-quality crude can be produced from shale for roughly $30 per barrel," says Shell spokeswoman Jill Davis.

From 5 Ways to Beat the Oil Crunch
The Bus is offline  
Old 05-02-06, 06:15 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 268
I've seen estimates for about $50, but with oil sitting at $75 now, it becomes profitable. The only problem is the heating issue, since that takes energy. (maybe a nuclear reactor in the area dedicated to power the heating would be wiser than using the community grid.)

Australia is also sitting on a huge reserve of this stuff.
Holy Jackson is offline  
Old 05-02-06, 06:26 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Nuclear would be the cheapest way to get the energy created to make the heat. That would probably reduce the price per barrel.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 05-02-06, 06:32 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 268
For pure economics, coal would be cheaper. Burning oil to mine oil does seem rather redundant.
Holy Jackson is offline  
Old 05-03-06, 01:53 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Formerly known as "brizz"/kck
Posts: 23,420
This would seem to render Anwar even more irrelevant, no? Outside of the handful of people that would get rich off of it anyway....
HistoryProf is offline  
Old 05-03-06, 07:00 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,041
Originally Posted by brizz
This would seem to render Anwar even more irrelevant, no? Outside of the handful of people that would get rich off of it anyway....
We probably need ANWR to have enough oil to heat the shale to extract the oil. Did you see that diagram with months or years of heating the ground to several hundred degrees.

Also, the extraction cost of the ANWR oil is likely to be less.
OldDude is offline  
Old 05-03-06, 11:10 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Capitol of the Empire! Center of all Commerce and Culture! Crossroads of Civilization! NEW ROME!!!...aka New York City
Posts: 10,909
Originally Posted by brizz
This would seem to render Anwar even more irrelevant, no? Outside of the handful of people that would get rich off of it anyway....
So an oil source would make oil sources irrelevant?!?
Tommy Ceez is offline  
Old 05-03-06, 11:18 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Originally Posted by brizz
This would seem to render Anwar even more irrelevant, no? Outside of the handful of people that would get rich off of it anyway....
I'd leave that up to the people of Alaska.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 05-03-06, 02:36 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Formerly known as "brizz"/kck
Posts: 23,420
Originally Posted by Tommy Ceez
So an oil source would make oil sources irrelevant?!?
of course not, but one of such magnitude under discussion here so close to being viably utilized would seem to make one so comparatively insignificant irrelevant.

I think ANWR is more about making $$ for a few folks than it is about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. This source could cut the price of oil in half....ANWR would save 50 cents a barrell.
HistoryProf is offline  
Old 05-03-06, 02:51 PM
  #21  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 30,999
Originally Posted by brizz
of course not, but one of such magnitude under discussion here so close to being viably utilized would seem to make one so comparatively insignificant irrelevant.

I think ANWR is more about making $$ for a few folks than it is about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. This source could cut the price of oil in half....ANWR would save 50 cents a barrell.
But isn't a lot of the Rocky Mtn oil under national parks too?
VinVega is offline  
Old 05-03-06, 02:52 PM
  #22  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 30,999
Originally Posted by kvrdave
Nuclear would be the cheapest way to get the energy created to make the heat. That would probably reduce the price per barrel.
You could also use heat energy from nuclear to make Ethanol as well. Or so I've heard.
VinVega is offline  
Old 05-03-06, 03:07 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Originally Posted by brizz
ANWR would save 50 cents a barrell.
I'LL TAKE IT!!!

I think the idea of us getting serious about the problem would affect the market far more than anything else. OPEC really doesn't want us to be very independant, and would move to get the price low enough that we would quit looking towards it, imo.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 05-03-06, 03:30 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The conservative estimates for ANWR production would be equal to the reserve capacity of OPEC - if you believe what OPEC says.

That's considerably more than a drop in the bucket.

The real advantage of opening up ANWR is to demonstrate to the folks that sell us oil that we are serious about reducing our consumption of their oil.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 05-03-06, 04:03 PM
  #25  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,977
I'm skeptical of this, because I haven't been able to verify it from a legitimate source. But maybe that will change in the future:

http://www.newtechspy.com/articles06/oildiscovery.html

May 1, 06

Scientists Discover (Biggest Ever) Oil field off U.S. coast

Scientists from the University of Cornell have discovered a massive amount of Oil off the coast of Louisiana.The find is some 60 billion barrels or 3 Times more than current US recoverable Oil of 20 Billion barrels, and would bring US total reserves to 80 billion barrels which is on par with Venezuela. In comparison to other finds around the world, this is twice the size of all Oil ever found in the North Sea and 6 times larger than the estimates of the Alaskan ANWR oil deposits.

....The area is about 10,000 sq. miles in size, and was found under layers of salt dooms by a new method of oil discovery known as “gas washing” . A process in which geologist are able to track the movement of oil deposits by the way they interact with the flow of natural gas. This method helps scientists to make extremely accurate 3D-seismic maps of deep underground oil deposits and mitigate the risk involved in drilling such deep under sea wells.

....The information was gathered from source rocks deep below the sea and was discovered by a team lead by Larry Cathles, a chemical geologist from Cornell and funded by a grant from Chevron. Efforts are now underway to rush more equipment into the area and conduct more tests, but because of the devastation left by the hurricanes Katrina and Rita there is a critical shortage of equipment and manpower to do the kind of recovery work needed to bring the oil to the surface.

.... Estimates now range from 1 to 2 years before oil can be pumped from the find area

“This is enough Oil to make the US self sufficient and make foreign Oil supply disruption a thing of the past”
grundle is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.