World's Biggest Oil Reserves In S Dakota, E Montana

polishpaddy

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 Bake is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Purdah 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.

http://www.rense.com/general86/world.htm

Is this true ?

Kama

Eh, rense isn't exactly the most reliable source in the world...More modestly, we have this (redirected from N Dakota Chamber of Commerce) with a figure of 3-point-something to 4 billion barrels, or this, with a range of 2.1 to 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

The point to note is that its shale oil, and the difference between whats there, and what can be efficiently recovered, either economically or physically. Essentially, you need to burn X oil-equivalent to get Y oil, and this can be counterproductive. Technology can make this easier, but there's no such thing as a thermodynamic free lunch, and shale oil is a less easily digestible 'meal' than conventional oil.

Overheal

no major news of anything. ill believe it when everyone else does. dont get me wrong though, I'd love to have $5.3 Trillion worth of oil sitting pretty.

togster

Good, then maybe they will stop trying to control the rest of the worlds oil reserves

Carcharodon

As said above it is shale oil which has a lot of economical and physical restraints from the drilling to the end product. As in Alaska, the cost to the environment far outweighs any benefits.

The largest oil reserve in the world is in Saudi Arabia and if another one was found tomorrow it still would only give us an extra decade or so of oil and thats not even taking into account the increase in consumption each year.

Oil is near its peak and it is well beyond time we start rapidly planning ahead.

aidan24326

Carcharodon wrote: »

Oil is near its peak and it is well beyond time we start rapidly planning ahead.

Some have suggested that oil production has already peaked. It's a difficult thing to accurately assess though.


You're quite right in saying that governments should be planning ahead for this, and in a hurry too. Unfortunately planning ahead is not something governments do, not beyond the next election anyway, the next few years at best. Overpopulation is going to be the biggest problem facing humankind over the coming century, and there simply won't be enough energy resources to go round. The problem right now is that there's no such thing as truly clean renewable energy, as oil always comes into the mix somewhere.

Reindeer

Carcharodon wrote: »

As said above it is shale oil which has a lot of economical and physical restraints from the drilling to the end product. As in Alaska, the cost to the environment far outweighs any benefits.

The largest oil reserve in the world is in Saudi Arabia and if another one was found tomorrow it still would only give us an extra decade or so of oil and thats not even taking into account the increase in consumption each year.

Oil is near its peak and it is well beyond time we start rapidly planning ahead.

I don't know about the cost of the environment. Gas is a fairly efficient source of energy for propelling vehicles at the moment. We are only slowly developing better means of transport. Diesel also powers most commerce. There is no better means in sight for cargo ships and planes than petroleum. So, you have to ask if the ends justifies the means, I guess.
Alaskan oil is not South Dakota oil(or most oil on US shores). There is a huge difference between drilling in silt than through shale and rock.

Black Swan

If this was true (and that's big "IF"), a great portion of the land in western South Dakota is occupied by the Lakota Souix on several closed reservations, the two largest being the Rosebud and Sandstone. If they pumped oil from their reservations, it would be non-taxable, setting a rather interesting political problem, as well as an economic one in terms of competition with other areas in the States where oil pumping is taxed? There is already controversy about Native American gambling casinos not being taxed. Just think if a major oil reserve was not?

There is also the issue of broken treaties by the United States with the Lakota Sioux. At one time both North and South Dakota were one large Native American reservation, until gold was discovered in the Black Hills and miners invaded the reservation, resulting in armed conflicts with the Native Americans, and eventually the Blue Coats entering the conflict and essentially forcing the Lakota Sioux off the rich mining area of the Black Hills.

The Lakota Sioux battled the US government in court for years over rights to the Black Hills, but the Lakota never had the wealth needed to have a clear win and the return of the Black Hills to them. But with oil money power, they could challenge the mineral rights of anyone to oil in the former two state area that was stolen from them as the result of breaking treaties?

YFlyer

If the oil shale is utilized in producing shale oil and gases it will be urgent that there will be technologies ton trap the carbon dioxide.

The scrubed CO2 could be used in producing hydrocarbons for fuel or platform chemicals.

Victor

YFlyer wrote: »

If the oil shale is utilized in producing shale oil and gases it will be urgent that there will be technologies ton trap the carbon dioxide.

The scrubed CO2 could be used in producing hydrocarbons for fuel or platform chemicals.

My brain hurts at that suggestion!

If you are going to use hydrocarbons to produce energy + CO2

What are you going to use to convert the CO2 to hydrocarbons?

Matt Holck

seems if the oil where useful
it wold already have been pumped

YFlyer

Victor wrote: »

What are you going to use to convert the CO2 to hydrocarbons?

Algae

sceptre

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

If this was true (and that's big "IF"), a great portion of the land in western South Dakota is occupied by the Lakota Souix on several closed reservations, the two largest being the Rosebud and Sandstone. If they pumped oil from their reservations, it would be non-taxable, setting a rather interesting political problem, as well as an economic one in terms of competition with other areas in the States where oil pumping is taxed? There is already controversy about Native American gambling casinos not being taxed. Just think if a major oil reserve was not?

I suspect somehow that the judgement in Lone Wolf v Hitchcock would be invoked. The case is 1903 IIRC. Until it's overturned (if it is), it ostensibly gives the US the right to overturn or ignore any of their NA treaty obligations. It's been the basis for most of the treaty modifications in the past hundred years. With regard to the current Lakota situation, it's not as though the US government is all that bothered about abiding by the terms of the Ft Laramie treaty anyway.

Valmont

polishpaddy wrote: »

Alaska 's Purdah Bay,

It's Prudhoe bay. Alaska is so huge and empty, I completely fail to see how one more oilfield will catastrophically damage the environment or the fauna. That said, I haven't read too much about it but I do live up here if that counts for anything.

worldrepublic

Why are we in a GLOBAL BREAKDOWN DEPRESSION?

Because of a "lack of regulation"?
Because of "toxic assets"?

No, there is a physical cause underlying the depression. Oil has peaked. Supply of oil cannot meet demand.... and supply will keep decreasing for ever.

As for "global warming" (sorry, they changed that to "climate change", because it's getting colder now!) and "carbon tax". Think about it, we use less petrol, less electricity... not to save the polar bears, but to reduce the consumption (demand for) oil!

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

Why are we in a GLOBAL BREAKDOWN DEPRESSION?

Because of a "lack of regulation"?
Because of "toxic assets"?

No, there is a physical cause underlying the depression. Oil has peaked. Supply of oil cannot meet demand.... and supply will keep decreasing for ever.

As for "global warming" (sorry, they changed that to "climate change", because it's getting colder now!) and "carbon tax". Think about it, we use less petrol, less electricity... not to save the polar bears, but to reduce the consumption (demand for) oil!

There is far less evidence pointing towards a lack of oil causing the depression and far more towards the booming debt of the subprime sector. A lot of things caused the recession but oil wasn't a main factor. I did a lot of research into this as it was part of my final year project in university.