It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

3 trillion barrels of oil found in Colorado !

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mcphisto
If the US had this much oil at thier disposal since the 60's at a measily $20 a barrel,


They had ;fact.


I dont think US policies would have taken the path they have in recent years, never mind the last 40 yrs!


The policy of controlling the world is dependent on having a reason to explain to the American public why all the guns and weapons are needed and if anything those should have gone away after the 'end' ( not really but another topic entirely) of the cold war. The cost to the US taxpayer to ensure ME 'security' is on the order of 50 billion USD and that is far more money than anything derevived from the cheaper oil cost in that region. It's just another scam by which they take money from Americans and either send it overseas or give it to rich industrialist to build more weapons. Without the need for 'securing' foreign oil reserves the whole house of lies will come down.


But what do I know ?


You know what they let you know by their control of the media...
That basically means your right thought.


Stellar




posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
I think we should be cautious about this story, especially considering the motives behind this link. Just from scanning it (I don't have the time or the energy to read every word), it appears that this is a corporation or similar entity trying to sell you on investing in oil shale and/or the companies involved in oil shale.


So since it offers alternatives it must be a scam? Feel free to explain the logic used.



To rely on this information would be like relying on a company that sells gold telling you how valuable gold is going to be in 5 years.


They do that all the time and it's called bonds and the like.
The whole US economy is built on the promise ( to those who accept the debt) that the US economy will somehow expand... Big shell game but it works and it pays , somehow even if it's complete BS.



Get my drift?


You sure are drifting.....


I actually pray that these figures are correct and that we can get off the crack that is foreign oil.


This is a CHOICE , not some kind of addiction. Involving the American taxpayer in foreign oil is just another scam to hit their pockets and turn them into wage slaves as they did to most of South East Asia.


It'd do a hell of a lot for our national security


Without national insecurity ( dependence on foreign oil) American policy makers would lose the big stick, commonly called the US military, that would make it far far harder for them to extract resources from the rest of the world.


economy


They care about control and you do not require an economy to control people.


military and foreign policy.


It would devastate the American military as it would suddenly lose most of it's value in the eyes of the American public when it's no longer required to those resources Americans believe they do not have.


Of course it would also be a detriment to our investment in alternative fuels, hybrid vehicles, etc.


They are not going to let that happen anyways as controlling people is in large part possible by simply restricting access to cheap energy.

Stellar



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I posted about this topic a year or so ago, along with how it can economicaly be extracted as well as doing it in an environmentally conscious way.

It is a plan put up by shell who says they can drill into the shale then heat it up causing the oil to bubble up while placing refrigerants in a perimeter to prevent the rest of the oil from spilling out.



could be that oil is being saved like has been mentioned to cause other countries be at our beck and whim when other sources of cheap oil have been depleted.

link to ATS thread with news article on how to effeciantly extract it

[edit on 10-6-2006 by Desolate Cancer]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   


It is a plan put up by shell who says they can drill into the shale then heat it up causing the oil to bubble up while placing refrigerants in a perimeter to prevent the rest of the oil from spilling out.


The Tar Sand project in Alberta are going to try to do this soon, this summer I believe, and it's not the first time they tried either. Previous attempts supposedly have been hampered by the unpredictability of the heat conduction. Dangerous fumes are also created which means added safety precautions will have to be undertaken and that's added cost.

Apparently if such a method is perfected it would increase our recoverable reserved by 3 fold. 160 billion barrels to 480 billion, almost half the total estimated. Another problem is getting the stuff out at a fast rate that keeps up with growing demand worldwide. Even the most optimistic guesses have put out production capacity at 3-4 million barrels per day by 2015. That's not even enough Oil to keep my countries own economy afloat let alone help anyone elses...

The only true fix is to just get off the crap, soon!



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
But how are you guys gonna extract it at an efficient rate? Canada can only manage 1 mil/b/d and our recoverable reserves atm are roughly 140 billion barrels, if it was so cheap, why haven't we extracted it long ago? Could it be that Saudi Sweet Crude was cheaper? Not really so anymore.


You can get a barrel of Saudi crude out of the ground for about 1-2 dollars ( to this day as far as i know) while Russia is around 6 dollars. The disparity in what we pay per barrel and those prices can hardly be explained along cost analysis lines and trying is just playing their game and assuming a scarcity that does not exist. The question of how and why Canada can manage what the US 'can not' should give you pause but i guess you never bothered to stop and think about it?


Our daily output is expected to double in a decade, maybe even less,


Not if American industrial decline continues along it's current path it wont.


Oil in the Mountains seems like it may be very hard to get at.


Says who and why do you believe them give their absolutely massive profit margins these days?


The Extraction and Refining may eventually cost a good deal less then it is currently of which I cannot find any source that seems semi-reliable. (Any Wiki link or link from an unknown(and thusly untrusted)) source should be taken with a grain of salt.


Extraction and refining is not expensive to start with ( given even oil in 30 -40 dollar -per-barrel range) so why pretend it can not be massively cheaper given full government and national involvement? Wiki is more reliable as source than many of the major publications ( Britannica, etc) so why worry about source material of others when you provide non to dispute it?


But my question is this. Is the cost of extracting debris included in the extraction cost?


Well as business endeavours go you can not decide what you want to build into your cost structure if you want profitability and there is no reason to assume they will 'fail to mention' that cost in their business plan which can always be double checked.


Or is there an accounting trick to make it seem cheaper then it really is to the laymen or joe blow speculative investor.


Well research the issue and let us know why and how you suspect foul play.


If I had the will power to actually look it up, I guess I could calculate how much energy is required and then estimate the cost based on that, but it's late. Maybe tomarrow if I remember.


You do not research this sort of thing in a day ....


EDIT: If anyone wants to help out by locating reliable information for different variables, then I would be greatful.



The heavy syrup is either drawn out with heat or mined with machinery and then heated to transform it into usable oil. The production cost per barrel, $10 to $20, makes it competitive with conventional oil in the United States.

The oil sands didn't yield their treasure overnight. Suncor Energy of Calgary, the first company to begin such operations, in 1967, embarked on a major expansion in 1998, when the worldwide price of oil had plummeted to around $10 per barrel and the cost of producing from oil sands was still well over $20 per barrel. "It did take a lot of nerve," Chief Executive Officer Rick George recalls. The company continues to absorb risks. Early last year, a major fire cut Suncor's daily output for 2005 by 22 percent. Even so--in a measure of just how profitable this business is--Suncor saw a 14 percent increase in net income.

www.usnews.com...


Feel free to try discover how much the Canadian government was involved or if this company managed to do it on their own. SASOL ( South Africa corp ; i think
) is still manging to make a profit while turning coal into gas/diesel and one really has to wonder why a country with the resources of the USA can not do the same on far larger scale. This is not a question of 'cost' or 'economics' but simply one of what the American government have chosen to do for their selfish ends.

Stellar



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by timbradwell
maybe it cost 20 dollar a barrel to extract it back when saudi oil was 10 dollars a barrel years ago but would it still cost 20 dollars a barrel now or would you have to factor in inflation.how would you mine it would it be like a coal strip mine.


It keeps getting cheaper and that's with no direct government involvement to seriously reduce the cost by subsidy and or specific funding. Strip mining gets a bad name but it's not hard to return the strip mines to very nearly original conditions with some government pressure or subsidy. Why not just put trade barriers in place to the value of whatever it cost to return the strip mined ground to grazing land? Governments have choices but in a globalized world, they seem to want, competition without protection there is every reason to pollute for the advantages that provides you in terms of profitability.

Stellar



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Coal and Tar sands is not shale oil


Shale " Oil " The process to turn shale rock into something usable creates massive amounts of wastewater, environmental issues, and carcinogenic Waste matter. I think it is 2 tons of water for each barrel of oil to process from shale rock....i maybe be incorrect but i remember it was a large amount. The solid waste is a carcinogen and will require expensive storage and disposal costs.

And the process involves many steps to turn the "stuff" coming out of the ground into a usuable fuel, and each step creates many issues.

It wont happen until we run out of fossil fuel Oil, and there is no other alternative, if we have not been weaned off Oil beforehand.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by toolman
It wont happen until we run out of fossil fuel Oil, and there is no other alternative, if we have not been weaned off Oil beforehand.


It's already happening and if you actually read the informative above that would have been evident. As i remember the Canadian process requires about 1 barrel of water for each one of oil....

Why should we be weaned of oil when it's so plentifully and the global temperature is in fact showing a cooling trend over the last few decades? Pollution is something we can avoid if we showed an active interest in our own health but since it's apparently too much trouble we just let the government 'take care' ( not) of it. We deserve the disease that results in as much as we deserve the lack of cheap energy.

Stellar



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
This is a timed "discovery" to try to get the current administration up and hobbling on the crutches they were using before the presidents approval rating nearly blew a hole in the floor...


And as for the drilling, it better not ruin the fine Rocky Mountain taste of my Coors beer products or I will SUE the federal government with...with....something.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   
It's already happening and if you actually read the informative above that would have been evident. As i remember the Canadian process requires about 1 barrel of water for each one of oil ""


Your confusing tar sands with shale oil, they are not the same thing.

Shale oil processing creates massive waste and carcinogenic solids, not to mention the massive hole in the ground left afterwards, etc.

It wont happen until there is no other alternative, and maybe not then. We have another 30-50 years of Petroleum, maybe more...relax, enjoy your petroluem based computer and enjoy the view.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by newtron25
This is a timed "discovery" to try to get the current administration up and hobbling on the crutches they were using before the presidents approval rating nearly blew a hole in the floor...


So how are they connected please considering the US policy is to cause enough instability to drive up oil prices? How did you arrive at your conclusion?


And as for the drilling, it better not ruin the fine Rocky Mountain taste of my Coors beer products or I will SUE the federal government with...with....something.


Good luck with the lawsuit!

Stellar



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by toolman
Your confusing tar sands with shale oil, they are not the same thing.


I am not as i pointed out that the processes for extraction is very similar if not the same.


Shale oil processing creates massive waste and carcinogenic solids, not to mention the massive hole in the ground left afterwards, etc.


minerals.usgs.gov...

After the former USSR strip mined Estonia the Estonians still managed to reclaim more than 80% for mainly forestation when more investment would have made agriculture in general possible again. Do not tell me that the USA can not do better and do it more efficiently had the state put it's weight behind such a program.

In fact SHELL believes it can produce from shale at 25 - 30 dollars a barrel.

www.futurepundit.com...

Considering that the US involvement in the ME is a completely cost inefficient ( in terms of the oil being imported from there) the money wasted could easily pay for cheaper oil from American soil if that was in fact the reason for American involvement there. Since it's not they will continue to pretend that oil from other sources is very expensive and that their presence is required in the ME.


It wont happen until there is no other alternative, and maybe not then.


It will happen when they can turn a profit by cheaply acquiring resources no one else wants to attempt exploiting. Shell seems interested in being involved in all things to do with oil extraction.


We have another 30-50 years of Petroleum, maybe more...relax, enjoy your petroluem based computer and enjoy the view.


We have at least 50 before we seriously need to consider STARTING to look for another resource that can do the same. That is the facts of the matter and worries about pollution do not change resource-in-the-ground reality. There are plenty of other ways to get energy thousands of times cheaper so our current energy situation has nothing to do with efficiency anyways.

Stellar



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I'm seeing where some of the millions of illegal immigrants may come in use now.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join