buy a diesel and run bio.

Oh that's right, new diesels can't run it and any other diesel in the fine state of MA has to be pre-07

Come on RIRockhound, ScottW didn't say it so it can't be true. Please stop responding to his Republican projections w/ reality.

Here is an excerpt from the email, which conveniently exaggerates the amount of oil estimated by USGS by 100 times. You never know where people get their information, do you ScottW?

Chain e-mail:
" If you start reading and "don't believe" go to the bottom of the page and click on the US Government link. You'll get the same information.

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) 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... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion...."

I'm sure you get plenty of those emails targeting fruitcakes..... probably originated by JWB...you and Bryan mentioned the Dakotas...did anyone else? maybe you are both getting ridiculous emails from the same source :uhuh:

My source was the original press release by the USGS. coincidentally, I'm on their mailing list...

Scott, Scott, Scott...
it was in the very first post. Jim specifically named Dakotas.
try and keep up with the rest of the class :smash::love:

Also, Norway uses 240,000 barrels of oil/day. http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.asp...ph=consumption
we use ~ ten millions.

Kind of like comparing a grape and a watermelon, no?

TDi's can run B5
You can buy TDi's in MA.

RIROCKHOUND -

"Fossil fuels are a 1-time use. So we should just use it all up as quickly as we can? "

Not as "quickly" as we can, but as "best" we can. Furthermore, the revenue we collect from selling it is not a one-time event, it can be recycled through the system again and again. When you buy something at a store, do you think the store manager burns the money you give him? No, wealth gets created, wealth that was not there before. Contrary to what liberals believe, wealth is good.

Better to use up that oil, than to let it sit there gathering dust. The fact is, the world is buying jillions of gallons of oil. Today, much of that money goes to Middle Eastern countries, who use that money to train terroists and brutalize women and gays (which I would think liberals would have a problem with). I'd rather keep that money here. I don't see how any rational person could disagree with that, I just don't.

"Jim, are you really advocating for state run oil? you lament the gov's ability to run anything, period, and want to put them in charge of this?"

I said "I don't know". I am a free-market capitalist, when I believe the system allows for that. The oil industry does not represent, to me, a free market capitalist environment. There are limited players in the game, with enormous barriers to entry. There's nothing to stop them from price-gouging, because we can't do without that oil. So I think we need more regulation.

Oil is not the same as, say, hamburgers. If Burger King and McDonalds raise prices unreasonably, I can very easily eat Subway grinders instead...thus the free market works just fine. Oil is different by nature. We can't live without it, it's a legitimate national security issue (maybe you have heard of the troubles our planet has endured in the Middle East over the years)...

Furthermore, since the oil we have belongs to the citizens of our country (rather than some private entity), you could make a case that we all deserve a share of any revenue.

"You are the only far-right socialist I know."

No, I'm not. Even the most staunch libertarian recognizes that in certain scenarios, the feds have to play a role. I also know how to think for myself. I don't blindly regurgitate the talking points of any one party. I know how to think rationally and solve problems. And my conclusion is...Americans are going to spend a lot of money on oil before alternative fuels are available. We can continue to buy that oil elsewhere, which impoverishes us and enslaves us to sociopaths in the Middle East and that kook in Venezuela. Or we can refine it ourselves, and give our economy a major boost, and maybe use that money to help some people who really need it. I like the latter alternative, it pleases both my capitalism agenda and my Catholic agenda.

What's the harm in at least doing some studies to see how much oil we really have, and what it would take to get at it...

My own paty? I'll call it the "common sense with compassion" party. I've always said that will be my slogan. I'd rather give my money to an American company than to a middle eastern thug. I guess you disagree. I respect that, but I sure don't get it...

B95 not flex fuel. b5 is more expensive than dino

The "fruitcakes" that were targeted were potential McCain voters. You used that word, not me. I didn't get the email. Who knows, maybe Jorge himself wrote it. Please forgive me if I ignore you from now on ScottW since I have never seen you add anything worthwhile to a discussion. Everyone else is able to do that, even if I don't agree with what they say, the other members are at least worth listening to.

I think it is valid to ask Scott in CT where his info came from, particularly since I would like what he says to be true. The info I get from the person I know who's job was to find oil from exxon (and as a side note is very conservative), plus what I read from economists, says that our oil supply will not change prices based on the quantities of oil and the idiosyncrasies of the global market. Maybe socialized oil production would have an effect for a limited time, but I have not heard anyone suggest that route.

Zimmy, I don't know what quantities of oil are in Alaska or the Dakotas. I just know that...

(1) there is some oil there
(2) that oil is sitting there, not doing anyone any good
(3) today, the world buys most of its oil from places other than the US, and some of those places cause a whole lot of problems for folks like me who would rather not see their children blown to bits
(4) our economy is hurting, we have lots of people out of work, we have lots of needy people not getting the help they need.

I also know this. If we tapped that oil, it would, TO SOME DEGREE, alleviate the concerns identified in (3) and (4). Maybe it would help a little, maybe it would help a lot. I also know that there are private companies who would love to be given premission to tap that oil, so that tells me that there are some experts who believe it's worth doing. Those companies don't invest huge sums of money without convincing themselves that there will be a good return.

Where am I wrong, Zimmy? Please be specific...

I'm aware of this. I brought up Norway es evidence that you can aggressively drill for oil, and not destroy the environment. Norway utilizes their oil, and they haven't destroyed their beautiful landscape to do it.

Jim, The cost/benefit analysis for a place like ANWR clearly indicates that the benefits do not outweigh the potential environmental impacts of drilling there. As you saw in the gulf, offshore drilling has risks serious enough that Jeb Bush did not want it expanded for Florida
. Prince Williams sound has not completely recovered after 20 years. The effects on the Gulf will also likely last decades. If the benefits were as great as you initially implied I would be with you. I do not think 3 cents per gallon 20 years from now is worth it. We could have raised CAFE standards for cars 20 years ago and saved way more oil over that time than the US could have drilled. Conservatives fought it. Reduced consumption would have also reduced demand and prices would have been cheaper and more stable than now. The reason they are going up is demand in China and somewhat in India. Now the conservatives scream drill baby. It is a bit of BS. Drilling for oil here is not a fix for the economy or unemployment or gas prices. If it were, I would support expansion. With some simple conservation and higher fuel standards we could have cut our consumption 10% and stopped importing from Saudi Arabia years ago.

"The cost/benefit analysis for a place like ANWR clearly indicates that the benefits do not outweigh the potential environmental impacts of drilling there."

OK, so you are saying that the damage to the environment will outweigh any economic impact. I agree that the environment needs to be considered. What evidence is there that suggests that the damage to the environment would be greater than the economic lift?

"offshore drilling has risks serious enough that Jeb Bush did not want it expanded for Florida"

So now you're listening to Jeb Bush?

How many serious accidents have there been with offshore drilling? People get killed in cars every day, so should we switch to rickshaws? I know it sounds cold, but you don't throw away a technology because of a handful of deaths...

"Drilling for oil here is not a fix for the economy or unemployment or gas prices."

Based on what? Please cite a non-political source that says that domestic drilling will not create jobs, and will not lower domestic prices?

I also agree with you that if the environmental cost is too great, we shouldn't do it. But I'm not going to let Al Gore or Rachael Maddow tell me what the environmental cost is. Almost any estimate of environmental damage is pure speculation. Look at hard, irrefutable facts. Norway does it, and it's beautiful there. Maybe their oil doesn't require as much environmental scarring as ours?

B5 isn't flex fuel.

Nobody warranties their vehicles for anything over 5% anyhow.

JimCT- to clarify, in reference to the cost/benefit analysis for ANWR, that is in my opinion, based on the sensitivity of the area for breeding populations. In the future, as oil becomes more scarce and technology continues to limit the impact, I might change my mind. I don't see it as an issue of it's now or never.

I think Jeb Bush's opposition indicates that there are substantial risks. If anyone should be pro drilling, it would be him.

There certainly will be some jobs created.

I will have to find the sources for the effect of drilling on prices, but they are ridiculously low given the rancor that surrounds the debate.

I had a conversation with my neighbor about this topic of not drilling in this country.
My neighbor works for a big environmental company and deals with oil companies every week.
Neighbor says we do far more drilling in this country than people think.
(Pennslyvania for one state I would never have thought)
He also says the problem in this country is the speculators & Wall st.

ya got me...Jim said Dakota

AHHHHH....USGS

Previous predictions on the longevity of oil have been consistently premature. In 1909, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that oil in the US would be exhausted by 1935. In 1916, they reported that the earlier assessment had been too optimistic, and that oil would run out in 1921. In 1919, the USGS revised their estimate, and predicted that the US would run out of oil in 1928
In 1922 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) warned that America was going to run out of oil within 20 years. In 1956, M. King Hubbert(I don't know who Hubbard is but this guy wrote a book too), at the time a geophysicist with Shell Oil, predicted that U.S. oil production would peak by 1970.
Despite the critics, the USGS’s numbers from the 2000 study still retain their status as the official US government view. The USGS’s position back in 1962 denied a 1956 warning by M. King Hubbert that U.S. oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. The USGS told then-Interior-Secretary Stewart Udall that the USA probably wouldn’t hit peak production until near the turn of the century.
Back in 2000, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), USGS data, plotted their first “reference case” that showed peak production in 2016; since then they’ve replotted the curve to show a peak delayed until 2043....

and so on...and so on...

ARE YOU NOTICING A TREND????

as time goes on we seem to advance technologically and find new and more advanced ways to locate and extract these resources as well as optimize our use of them.....even after they were supposed to be depleted

you have 13 or so posts in this thread and the only sources for your rantings provided are your sister's uncle and a "ridiculous chain email"....please...I'll try to include more pictures with my text...just for you :)

You ever watch the history channel on diamonds or "blood Diamonds " ... Diamonds are actually very common ,, There's a huge amount of diamonds making them worth very little . So they control the flow making them valuble . Watch at the end of the year when oil companys have record proffits ,, Just like last time .. Other sources of energy ? They like it just the way it is .. High gas prices will make the economy tank again too..

Interesting article in the 4/25/11 issue of the New Yorker on North Dakota oil situation.

stop posting propaganda from evil right wing rags :rotf2: that's blood oil....we'll get about 4 days worth of 99 cent gas then it's right back to 4 bucks a gallon because the speculators will not stand for it and this is all part of some ridiculous email tageting potential McCain voters and originated by Jorge anyway, do the math... like "Hubbards Peak" :uhuh:
"the beginning of a 20 year boom"...that's silly, the greedy, evil oil companies will just keep the extra money, shut it down, like the gulf, it's of absolutely no benefit to US...at least until we have a good solid socialist system in place to manage it properly
... like Norway, where the government has made sure that it's citizens have no desire to drive anything other than a bobsled....with gas prices that are 2/3's taxes, no domestic auto production with high tarriffs and taxes on cars entering the country and confiscatory taxes for ownership,
if Norway didn't have oil, I guess they'd be Cuba, who has fabulous healthcare of course...


everyday it becomes more clear how Obama got elected......

Also an interesting article in Time on fracking and methane production... very controversial in parts of PA and other states...

GF's family has property in PA that has fracked wells on it.

The water is..... not good.

People in brokerages are bidding up the oil contracts against the person across the across the aisle in the same office/agency. They did the same thing years ago in Cailfonia.

HERE'S WHY

Energy in America: EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans - FoxNews.com