The Bakken Oil Field
The Oil Find That Trumps Saudi's Biggest Oil Field
You know the old addage "If it sounds too good to be true . . . "
or
"A Sucker is born every minute"
The Bakken oil field might have some potential, but while not as energy intensive as the Canadian oil sands, it will be nowhere near as easy to extract as Saudi light sweet crude. Something like 2% of it is probably recoverable.
Personally, I'm all for processing it if it's cost effective and not environmentally destructive (both big "if's"). It's doubtful that this project will get the political support it will need to take place though.
...it will be nowhere near as easy to extract as Saudi light sweet crude...
That's another problem that has reared its ugly head in Saudi. The quality of the oil from the older, larger fields is becoming more "sour" or "heavier" as it's called, and less light and sweet as they extract from deeper down in the reserves, making it more difficult to refine the higher grades of petroleum later during the refining process. That's in addition to deceasing internal pressures in the oil caverns themselves, making extraction more difficult and costly.
That's why Nigeria, which is even more unstable politicly, is such a influence on the oil markets. Their "bonnie light" sweet crude is among the highest quality oil on the planet.
You know the old addage "If it sounds too good to be true . . . "
or
"A Sucker is born every minute"
The Bakken oil field might have some potential, but while not as energy intensive as the Canadian oil sands, it will be nowhere near as easy to extract as Saudi light sweet crude. Something like 2% of it is probably recoverable.
Personally, I'm all for processing it if it's cost effective and not environmentally destructive (both big "if's"). It's doubtful that this project will get the political support it will need to take place though.
The drilling in the Bakken is going on as we speak, the latest USGS Estimate is 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the formation. It is not invasive for the most part, but it is straining the water supply and local resources, housing etc.
While it remains to be seen what the true impact will be, they say oil above 50 supports the drilling within the Bakken. Google it, the boom is on. The oil companies can't drill fast enough. Some wells are pumping out 1000 barrels a day, with lots of natural gas as well.
It is very interesting how they recover the oil, using horizontal drilling and fracturing techniques.
Anything on our soil should be used to help our cause, within environmental reasoning. Even that may have to be weighed against the survival of the US economy !
__________________
I am trying to expedite, not drag out, our exit from 4.A.2.B, how about you?
Anything on our soil should be used to help our cause, within environmental reasoning. Even that may have to be weighed against the survival of the US economy !
I agree.
I place a greater emphasis on our economic health than on the environment. I don't want to disregard our environment, but there comes a point when we have to accept economic damage as just a cost of doing business in a 21st century world. Drilling and refining may take a toll on the environment, but at what point do we draw the line between saving the environment or saving our economy.
I for one believe that we should drill anywhere we think ample oil may be extricated. People talk about "alternative energy" like it's just waiting for government approval. I think we should be discussing alternative sources of oil other than foreign countries. i.e., if we can extract it from Alaska, the Gulf and anywhere else, we should not let environmentalism stop us from getting it and using it.
Its no surprise that McCain said "I am in favor of staying in Iraq for the next 100 years."
5 years ago there was a radio station near my house that passed out shirts at the mall that said "Kick their A$$ and take their GAS". I thought that was sick.
I don't think that radio station believed we were really there for " Iraqi Freedom"
BTW...didn't Richard Branson fly a 747 on bio-fuel??
I place a greater emphasis on our economic health than on the environment.
They're not entirely separate entities. If we contaminate the water supply of say the Missouri river, the cost of cleaning it up has to be paid at some point. It might be deferrable, but it is not something we can ignore forever.
Some people don't care if a few Little Gray Birds, or varmints, or bugs get wiped out because we(humans) are sloppy with nasty stuff. But wildlife is our "Canary in a coalmine". If we're killing LGBs, then somebody's aunt Sally in Grand Forks is probably getting poisoned too. And if any cost is rising faster than oil, its got to be health care.
The difference is at $200 a barrel, its getting more economical to pay for the clean up, where as at $50 a barrel its obviously better to have never made the mess.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
