U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What option do you like better?
Building a 1600 mile oil pipeline that goes across the US 15 40.54%
Building a refinery in North Dakota 22 59.46%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-25-2012, 01:44 PM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,300 posts, read 10,497,579 times
Reputation: 3541

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
I have a serious question for everybody that is going insane about the Keystone pipeline not being built.

What's the reason for building it?
If it is to get the oil to the refineries, wouldn't it be easier to just build a refinery in North Dakota?

Because ultimately the oil is going to other countries
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2012, 01:47 PM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,300 posts, read 10,497,579 times
Reputation: 3541
Quote:
Originally Posted by aus10 View Post
Three reasons you'll never see a refinery in N.D.

1. It takes 4 to 6 years to build one.
2. Cost 6 Billion or more.
3. You think it's hard getting approval for a pipeline? The EPA, FERC, and the State Depart (don't forget, you're still talking about transporting the crude across national borders) would all be involved again. Hypothetically, even if it were purposed, do you see anything being decided by oh say, 2025? You think Canada is going to wait that long to sell?

Oh they willwait if it means that it will in the long cut transportation cost, but who really cares? The only reason that we are supposely entertaining this at all is for American jobs. By building a refinery here it would provide more long term jobs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 28,227,253 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
warren buffet isn't the only shareholder of BNSF. sure, you can look at it cyncically and believe that Obama rejected the Keystone Pipeline so Buffet could profit. But then what prevents people from saying that the people who wanted it built only wanted it so their cronies could profit? Bottom line is - what's the benefit, what's the risk? I view it as Obama appeasing his supporters who take issue with his environmental record in an election year. I believe he will eventually approve it, if re-elected. But he can't alienate that group of supporters right now.

I also don't see the benefit to the United States. Pick you're poison on who to believe on how many jobs it will create. But in the end, the oil is to be shipped off shore. It does nothing to reduce dependancy.

Why not focus on projects that further reduce our need for oil altogether? Why build a pipeline that hopefully we won't need in the future, because we'll be moving further and further away from consuming oil?
Of course, you do know that much of that pipeline has already been built outside the sandhills of Nebraska and Kansas? I might say that the Kansas portion has been largely completed and not in the sandhills area since we out here in the sticks do depend on the Ogallala Aquifer for so much of our water.

FYI, Buffet owns about 75% of that railroad's stock and surely that benefits the man whose tax plan Obama talked so much about last night. Buffet and Obama have, and may still be, sleeping in the same bed and both profit from this whole thing, it seems.

That oil will be sold by the Canadians either to the US or to China. Yes the Chinese are ready to finance the construction of a pipeline to the Pacific and since they are going to get together, why wouldn't ND get in on it? None of that crude was to be shipped out as other than refined products and that should mean something to you. As long as we can force the shipment of our oil to other areas of the world we will have to be dependent on areas outside our borders and it seems to me that Canada is a better friend than Saudi Arabia or China.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 03:16 PM
 
Location: Austin
29,546 posts, read 16,490,417 times
Reputation: 8087
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
Moving away from oil? Here - take a look at this: The world can be powered by alternative energy in 20-40 years, Stanford researcher says

I don't see what Solyndra has to do with anything. Solar installers have a tremendous backlog of work in the U.S.A. My state, New Jersey, is one of the leading states for installation of solar arrays. Solar is one of multiple pieces to the future of our energy production. We can absolutely significantly reduce our consumption - but we have to be willing. It doesn't seem that the majority of Americans are right now. But it is possible and technologically feasibly.

Maybe that's because it's not cost effective even with government subsidies. Without government (taxpayers) subsidies it's not even in the ballpark. Maybe it will be in 20 - 40 years.

In Austin, the huge investment in solar panels is already rapidly driving up energy costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,901,261 times
Reputation: 12178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Maybe that's because it's not cost effective even with government subsidies.
Tar sands haven't been cost effective either, until the oil prices jumped to where they've been. Perhaps it was wasted money (much less subsidies to oil companies) to even bother with the idea until about now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 03:45 PM
 
Location: Lewes, Delaware
3,466 posts, read 3,149,908 times
Reputation: 1876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
To protect Canada's environment; help O Canada! exploit international markets; and to help O Canada! reap greater profits.



No.

The oil is very heavy high Sulfur oil. It is of no value to Americans.

The oil is destined for export. Building a refinery in North Dakota would only exasperate the problems for O Canada! The oil must go to a refinery at a port so that it can be exported.

The pipeline terminus is Port Arthur, Texas. Port Arthur is a US Commerce Department designated Foreign [Free] Trade Zone. That means there are no export duties or tariffs charged, and that means the American people don't profit from the export of goods there.

The products refined from very heavy high Sulfur oil are diesel, aviation fuel, asphalt, tar, petroleum jellies, lubricants, a variety of distillates, paraffin, naphtha, and base chemicals for use in other products. For example, you do get the base chemicals necessary for Dacron and other synthetic fibers, plus some organic alcohols like Neodol-12, Neodol-15 etc.

The diesel cannot be sold in the US because it is high Sulfur, and the cost for the Sulfur redux to reduce it to 15 ppm to meet EPA standards is cost-prohibitive. No one is going to buy diesel at $8/gallon. Likewise the 2 to 3 gallons of gasoline that you would get are high Sulfur, and the cost to reduce the Sulfur to 30 ppm to meet EPA Tier 2 Regulations is cost-prohibitive.

Are you willing to pay $6/gallon for gasoline?

No, not yet.

Anyway, the operand here is "export." This very heavy high Sulfur useless oil was always intended for export.

Building the pipeline is cheaper for O Canada! than building refineries and dealing with the environmental problems. Also, O Canada! just doesn't have the port facilities to export large quantities of oil or refined oil products, and it would cost too much to expand existing port facilities.

Not insane...

Mircea
We have refineries in the east that can produce high sulfur crude into gasoline, Delaware City and Paulsboro, NJ both are now owned by PBF. I would think that we have more refineries in the US that can do it as well. Believe it or not PBF is investing 1 billion dollars into a low sulfur diesel unit at its Delaware City site. Of course they might be doing this because three refineries in the east are on the verge of closure, Conoco refinery in Trainer, PA is closed, Sunoco's Eagle Point refinery in NJ has been closed for a few years and Sunoco Marcus Hook where I work has been idled since December 6, 2011. Sunoco Philadelphia is up for sale and on the verge of closing. These refineries being down takes out about 900,000 barrels a day of refining product. Of course as long as Europe uses diesel and sends us a byproduct (gasoline) into the New York harbor, gasoline probably won't be the problem but heating oil/diesel will. I hope this natural gas from PA gets to the New England area quickly, they use alot of heating oil which might be 6 or 7 dollars a gallon next winter.

I would like to see a refinery built just for the long term jobs in North Dakota, but this pipeline can also work, environmentally the pipeline is probably safer. We have pipelines all over this country, from Texas being tied to the Northeastern U.S in pipe. Certainly leaks can happen but if the right schedule of pipe is used and the welds are x rayed the Keystone pipeline should last a long time without serious problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 06:28 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,916 posts, read 14,238,717 times
Reputation: 16096
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
Additionally, Enbridge Energy transports approximately 60% of Canadian oil sands and 45% of the Bakken crude.
Not in the same pipeline they don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
Moving away from oil? Here - take a look at this: The world can be powered by alternative energy in 20-40 years, Stanford researcher says

I don't see what Solyndra has to do with anything. Solar installers have a tremendous backlog of work in the U.S.A. My state, New Jersey, is one of the leading states for installation of solar arrays. Solar is one of multiple pieces to the future of our energy production. We can absolutely significantly reduce our consumption - but we have to be willing. It doesn't seem that the majority of Americans are right now. But it is possible and technologically feasibly.
That is grotesquely disingenuous, not to mention false. But it is exemplary of the deceitful tactics that Liberals use.

You can build 3 TRILLION wind turbines (that will wipe out your entire bird and bat population) and stick a nuclear power plant in every home, office and building and cover every single inch of the US in solar panels, and your oil consumption will not decrease.

So everything you said and everything your idiot Standford research said is a lie.

Sure, Hawaii uses oil-fired power plants.

You want to build a nuclear power plant on each Hawaiian island? Not too smart.

You want to cover Hawaii in wind-turbines? Not too smart either. And solar won't produce enough power.

That leaves you with coal, natural gas or oil. Coal is way too expensive to transport to Hawaii, natural gas is also expensive and there are safety and other issues, so it's bunker fuel made from California Heavy and other oils or bust.

When either you or your idiot Stanford researcher figure out how to make birth control pills from solar panels or wind turbines, let us know. You'll get the Nobel Price in science for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
The first question that comes to my mind would be "why low grade Canadian crude" ? (of course you'd have to be aware of the fact that the US has identified and proven lite sweet crude oil reserves which may indeed be the largest in the world before that would be an obvious question). You touched upon all of the reasons why this Canadian oil would be destined for export, thereby offering no particular direct energy relief to US markets (one side of the debate). So obviously, there must be another agenda afoot, other than the economic activity for the Texas Gulf Coast region ... keeping in mind that building such an infrastructure is not a net-economic-gain in and of itself.
Part of Canada's problem is a lack of port facilities. There are three East Coast (Atlantic) ports, but only 2 are currently used for oil/refined oil export, and then one on the West (Pacific) Coast at Prince Rupert (British Columbia).

Processed oil is loaded off of a jetty onto either tankers, or onto mini-tankers which then sail to the tanker anchored off-coast and its loaded there (sort of the reverse of an oil platform in the sea where the oil is loaded onto mini-tankers which dock at the jetties to off-load).

Refined oil products like chemical feed stocks can be containerized. They actually have container tanks that are loaded on container ships. Bulk refined products like gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel and heating oil or usually loaded in tankers.

I think Canada's problem can be summed up as they have a natural resource to sell on the world market, but they have neither the refining capacity nor refineries to refine the oil, and they don't have the port space to export either the processed or refined product.

Valero already expanded their Motiva facility at Port Arthur to handle another 50,000 barrels per day, and either Premcor or Total have plans to expand their facility (which is what they have to do since it is damn near impossible to build a new refinery).

I wonder if it takes 17 years to build a refinery in Canada?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
The greater question that isn't being asked is ... what is the long term strategic agenda here? I don't profess to have any inside knowledge on the matter, but if I were to speculate, I'd say that the pipeline represents a strategic and costly infrastructure investment which is being passed off as a transcontinental pipeline for Canadian crude, when the reality is that this is really a preliminary stage to develop the capacity to handle the estimated 18 Trillion Dollars worth (@ $90 barrel) of US crude located in ... tada ... North Dakota.
But they cannot be transported simultaneously.

It is true that Brent Blend is a blend of oils from seven different oil fields in the Brent Sea. However, the crude oil assays were done first on each of the seven fields, and then a decision was made to blend the oils, and when the assays were completed on the blended oils, the assays were distributed to various refining facilities and labs.

That same process was employed for Russian Export Blend, which is an intermediate sour oil, and I believe that is from three different oil fields.

In all cases, those oils had similar densities and Sulfur contents.

I just can't see any advantage to blending Canadian Athabasca tar sands with Bakken oil. The only way to transport the Bakken oil through the pipeline would be to halt the production of Athabasca tar sands oil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Tapping this source of not so secret secret oil represents a 10 fold increase in US oil production, which could instantly eliminate our need for imported oil, and transform the US a net oil exporter.
I've read a lot about the Bakken Formation. I know that this oil is very light oil (>40 API), but I have never found a crude oil assay for Sulfur content or cut-offs.

The only thing lighter than very light is condensate (like Rocky Mountain Condensate).

The quantity of oil in the Bakken Formation is not that much in perspective.

Price originally estimated 151 Million barrels in 1995 (he died in 2000). The US Geological Survey followed up on that and taking into consideration new drilling methods (including fracking), estimated that there were 3.0 Billion barrels to 4.3 Billion barrels with the mean being about 3.65 Billion barrels.

However, most ignore the USGS' words "technically recoverable." So their estimate is really based on what might not even be able to be recovered.

Even so, the US uses 20 Million barrels per day, that means the Bakken oil formation would provide the US with....

215 days worth of oil.

Even if it were 43 Billion, it would only be 5.8 year's worth, so that is not anything to excited about.

Because it is very light oil, you don't get as much gasoline as light oil, but I don't know how much specifically. I suppose it would depend on how much you can recombine/reformulate (and how much that would cost).

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
There is way more going on here than moving Canadian oil to Texas refineries for export ... you can take that to the bank.
I'm absolutely certain of that. Somebody benefits, but it's hard to figure out exactly who will, because it's such a big shell-game.

Geologically...


Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
FYI, Buffet owns about 75% of that railroad's stock and surely that benefits the man whose tax plan Obama talked so much about last night. Buffet and Obama have, and may still be, sleeping in the same bed and both profit from this whole thing, it seems.
You aren't going to transport 700,000 barrels of oil per day by rail.

That has to be the most absurd thing I've heard in a long time. As I said on another post, there's a limit to what tank cars can handle. Federal law limits gross weight to 263,000 pounds. Subtracting the weight of the tank car, your load limit is about 190,300 pounds.

Very heavy oil is API 10 which means 1 gallon would weigh 8.33 pounds. Note that Canadian tar sands oil is heavier than that.

Going with what we know, one barrel of Canadian tar sands weighs at least 349.86 pounds (42 gallons * 8.33 pounds).

That means one rail tank car could only transport 544 barrels of oil. You would need 1,286 cars per day to meet the requirements. And yes, there are in-line train tanks that allow you to drain all cars just by hooking up to one car.

Still, it doesn't matter. Those 3 refineries at Port Arthur, Texas aren't going to drain 400 freaking cars per day, and in short order, you've got grid-lock with trains sitting on miles and miles of tracking waiting to be emptied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
That oil will be sold by the Canadians either to the US or to China.
The US already exports California Heavy, Alaskan Heavy, Louisiana Heavy and Oklahoma Heavy, so why would the US buy very heavy tar sands oil?

Unloading...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Tar sands haven't been cost effective either, until the oil prices jumped to where they've been. Perhaps it was wasted money (much less subsidies to oil companies) to even bother with the idea until about now?
Quite true. If the price of very heavy and heavy oils drops, then the Canadians are toast.

Heavy and very heavy oils sell for $30 to $60 per barrel less than West Texas Intermediate. I think about a year or two ago I posted something from EIA that showed tar sands oils selling at $65/barrel while West Texas Intermediate was selling at $100/barrel.

So, yes, it wasn't profitable to produce until recently. It's the same story with capped wells. Even though every barrel of Illinois Intermediate is 50% water, it's still profitable to pump. If the price of oil dropped too low, they would shut those rigs and fields down.

Pumping...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by James420 View Post
We have refineries in the east that can produce high sulfur crude into gasoline, Delaware City and Paulsboro, NJ both are now owned by PBF.
Sure. West Texas Sour is only 1.5% Sulfur. Anything over 0.5% is "sour" but 1.5% Sulfur is nothing like 3% or 5% Sulfur like some of the other oils are. Heavy oils in general are "sour" but intermediate and light can go either way.

I think you're probably referring to Valero, because Nu*Star operated an asphalt refinery in Paulsboro (that used to be owned by Citgo).

PBF? You got me on that one. I'm guessing Premcor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James420 View Post
I would think that we have more refineries in the US that can do it as well. Believe it or not PBF is investing 1 billion dollars into a low sulfur diesel unit at its Delaware City site. Of course they might be doing this because three refineries in the east are on the verge of closure, Conoco refinery in Trainer, PA is closed, Sunoco's Eagle Point refinery in NJ has been closed for a few years and Sunoco Marcus Hook where I work has been idled since December 6, 2011.
Good things to know. I'm taking notes. Funny, but I worked as a utility pumper at a facility that was built by Sun Oil, which became Sunoco, and then that facility was bought by Union Oil, which then became Union*76, which then became UNOCAL, who then sold the facility to Valvoline, who sold it to Gulf who sold it back to Valvoline who sold it to a German company.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James420 View Post
Sunoco Philadelphia is up for sale and on the verge of closing. These refineries being down takes out about 900,000 barrels a day of refining product. Of course as long as Europe uses diesel and sends us a byproduct (gasoline) into the New York harbor, gasoline probably won't be the problem but heating oil/diesel will. I hope this natural gas from PA gets to the New England area quickly, they use alot of heating oil which might be 6 or 7 dollars a gallon next winter.

I would like to see a refinery built just for the long term jobs in North Dakota, but this pipeline can also work, environmentally the pipeline is probably safer. We have pipelines all over this country, from Texas being tied to the Northeastern U.S in pipe. Certainly leaks can happen but if the right schedule of pipe is used and the welds are x rayed the Keystone pipeline should last a long time without serious problems.
Why the closures?

It is an issue of capitalization, or is it that those facilities are out-dated/out-moded or EPA regulations? An expansion issue?

Refining...


Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 06:43 PM
 
18,273 posts, read 10,377,134 times
Reputation: 13335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
What, in their backyard?



Two reasons, refineries and ports. Seen a map of O Canada! lately? The US was blessed with numerous harbors and ports that needed almost no modifications or dredging at all. O Canada! (and many other countries) have few natural ports or harbors to use.

I suspect money is another issue. As I said, there are no exports/tariffs at Port Arthur, because it is a Foreign Trade Zone. If they exported from Canada, they might have to pay export taxes/tariffs/duties to the Canadian government. They might be saving enough money on taxes/tariffs to pay for the pipeline over the long-term. I don't know the specifics, but if I had to guess, I would say that is a primary motivator, in addition to the lack of port facilities, and the lack of refineries.

Also, note this:



That is from a report by a parliamentary committee in the Canadian government. Gotta wonder if that doesn't come into play somehow.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Co...Seaports-e.pdf



Yes. That is not speculation or conjecture, it is fact. The Alberta provincial government says so.

Porting...

Mircea
I see you've now departed from your normal factual offerings and have resorted to "O Canda" and "what, in their back yard" as comments intended to be derisive of Canada.

Those refineries in Texas; have they been upgrading their ability to process heavier and heavier crude or were they just sitting there from the time they were built capable to handle the ever increasing demand throughout the world?

I'm led to believe they've been steadily improving their capabilities to handle the very heavy stuff from California and Canada.

Oil Sands | Energy Tomorrow

Now given this might be factual; if you had access to refining capacity in place that was already ready, willing, able and perhaps even eager, could you then excuse this bad country Canada for utilizing that service at a cost preferrable to building a refinery? I guess those Texas refineries are doing it for free and not profiting at all in this exchange. I also suppose all that processed crude is being sold by "O Canada" to foreign buyers with no American's getting a piece of that action at all?

It seems strange that a country that made every effort to "corner" the oil market for decades and who would buy the stuff from dictatorships and even enemies who've bombed you, would now look askance at "O Canada" with negative comments about the country in general when it's basicly just one oil company doing business with another.

Why did you choose to lower your usual posting standards?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 07:07 PM
 
Location: Lewes, Delaware
3,466 posts, read 3,149,908 times
Reputation: 1876
[Sure. West Texas Sour is only 1.5% Sulfur. Anything over 0.5% is "sour" but 1.5% Sulfur is nothing like 3% or 5% Sulfur like some of the other oils are. Heavy oils in general are "sour" but intermediate and light can go either way.

I think you're probably referring to Valero, because Nu*Star operated an asphalt refinery in Paulsboro (that used to be owned by Citgo).

PBF? You got me on that one. I'm guessing Premcor.]


Similar front man, O'Malley, its now called PBF. In the northeast they have a contract with Statoil to provide the crude (sour) and Morgan Stanley is doing the shipping, while PBF does the refining. PBF also bought the very old Sunoco refinery in Toledo, I think that one is one of the oldest like Marcus Hook.


Quote:
Originally Posted by James420
Sunoco Philadelphia is up for sale and on the verge of closing. These refineries being down takes out about 900,000 barrels a day of refining product. Of course as long as Europe uses diesel and sends us a byproduct (gasoline) into the New York harbor, gasoline probably won't be the problem but heating oil/diesel will. I hope this natural gas from PA gets to the New England area quickly, they use alot of heating oil which might be 6 or 7 dollars a gallon next winter.

I would like to see a refinery built just for the long term jobs in North Dakota, but this pipeline can also work, environmentally the pipeline is probably safer. We have pipelines all over this country, from Texas being tied to the Northeastern U.S in pipe. Certainly leaks can happen but if the right schedule of pipe is used and the welds are x rayed the Keystone pipeline should last a long time without serious problems.

Why the closures?

It is an issue of capitalization, or is it that those facilities are out-dated/out-moded or EPA regulations? An expansion issue?

Refining...

Mircea


I guess its a combination of both really, Sunoco Philadelphia, Marcus Hook, and Conoco Trainer all really run the light sweet brent crude from countries like Nigeria and Libya and the margins are terrible because its so expensive. They have been running some of the Bakken crude but only like 20 to 30 thousand barrels a day since there isn't a pipeline to bring the bakken crude here. It's been coming by railcar to NY and then loaded by barge and brought up the Delaware river. Thats expensive to say the least.
The Toledo PBF refinery can get the Bakken crude by pipeline I believe, so they are doing pretty well. We ( Sun Marcus Hook) are without a wet gas scrubber (environmental) which will cost about 200 million dollars, and that attaches to the FCC. Side note; I believe if you look up the FCC cracker on wikipedia the one we have in Marcus Hook comes up, it was the first one in the U.S I think. Philly, Eagle Point and and Conoco Trainer already have one, and it didn't save them so who knows. We, again in Marcus will probably be a terminal, especially since it looks like we are getting a pipeline from the Marcellus Shale gas project in PA. It looks like they will be loading barges in Hook and sending them to the Gulf and Europe. As a terminal they might need 1/4 of the guys that we have now, including operators and maintenance. We are the second stop on the Delaware river and the channel was just dredged to 45ft deep.

The Delaware City refinery was shut down by Valero and the state of Delaware gave some huge tax breaks to find a buyer (PBF). Although that place is much newer it seems running the high sulfur crude is alot tougher and they have problems on a regular basis. But again if PBF is willing to put a billion dollars in it for a ultra low sulfur diesel unit they must be doing something right.
It seems the governor of PA has some ties to the Marcellus project so Marcus Hook becoming a terminal for the gas is beneficial to him and alot of other politicians.

Last edited by James420; 01-25-2012 at 07:12 PM.. Reason: m
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 08:44 PM
 
9,094 posts, read 5,613,928 times
Reputation: 3840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
The quantity of oil in the Bakken Formation is not that much in perspective.

Price originally estimated 151 Million barrels in 1995 (he died in 2000). The US Geological Survey followed up on that and taking into consideration new drilling methods (including fracking), estimated that there were 3.0 Billion barrels to 4.3 Billion barrels with the mean being about 3.65 Billion barrels.

However, most ignore the USGS' words "technically recoverable." So their estimate is really based on what might not even be able to be recovered.

Even so, the US uses 20 Million barrels per day, that means the Bakken oil formation would provide the US with....

215 days worth of oil.

Even if it were 43 Billion, it would only be 5.8 year's worth, so that is not anything to excited about.

Because it is very light oil, you don't get as much gasoline as light oil, but I don't know how much specifically. I suppose it would depend on how much you can recombine/reformulate (and how much that would cost).

I'm absolutely certain of that. Somebody benefits, but it's hard to figure out exactly who will, because it's such a big shell-game.

Geologically...
Well, that has been part of the deception ... no one is going to get all worked up over that quantity ... but that's just not what I'm hearing. What I've read suggests 400-500 Billion barrels ... those figures you mention are USGS figures, and forgive me if I don't believe a word coming from a US alphabet agency anymore ... and I could think of Trillions of reasons for why they might "fib" about the volume. When do these clowns EVER tell the truth? When? Never.

And Bakken is not the only large proven find either ... there are a couple of others that are estimated to be even larger.

Also, the "recoverable" issue is dubious at best ... even the official Bakken website says that recoverable estimates range from 1% - 50%, obviously, someone is BS'ing somebody ... that's quite a wide margin of error being accounted for, which could be measured as $300 Billion to several Trillion Dollars ... and as the old joke goes .... a few Billion here and a few Billion there, and next thing you know, you're talking about some serious money!

Let's say the 215 days worth of oil is being calculated at the 1% level ... and 50% is actually the real figure .... that's 30 years at present levels of consumption ... while US consumption is actually on the decline, and as more alternative energy technologies are futher developed, and effeciancy is increased ... that trend should continue.

No ... this Canadian Oil Pipeline is a ruse. This, in my opinion is a means of covertly establishing the major infrastructure needed to move significant amounts of crude from Bakken to refining facilities in Texas which represent at least 1/4 of the nation's refining capability at preset, with understanding of the crisis on the horizon as the destabilization of the middle east continues on it's planned course.

Mark my words.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top