It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Two Hundred Billion Barrels of Oil in North Dakota

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 10:03 AM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

None of that does any good when you have no new refineries to help the current overworked and outdated refineries that cannot keep up with the current demand at all.

So in the end, you have a bottleneck that is not a cause of lack of oil, but lack of refining, AND lack of inginuity and integrity to move away from antiquated energy.

And with the rate of increase of demand, you seriously think that 27 years is going to actually turn out to be 27 years worth????

Re-do your math and dont forget to factor in the exponential demand curve!!!



Mod Edit: Advertising removed. Please see Terms and Conditions of Use section 4) Advertising. Thank you - Jak

[edit on 26/11/08 by JAK]

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:10 PM
The United States has the largest known deposits of oil shale in the world, according to the Bureau of Land Management and holds an estimated 2,500 gigabarrels of potentially recoverable oil, enough to meet U.S. demand for oil at current rates for 110 years. However, oil shale does not actually contain oil, but a waxy oil precursor known as kerogen. For this reason and because there is not yet any significant commercial production of oil from oil shale in the United States as of 2008, its oil shale reserves do not meet the petroleum industry definition of proven oil reserves. So the fact that there is at least two hundred billion barrels of recoverable oil logic is that there is an even larger amount of oil shale in the area.

Nice quote. Anyone know the source?

Are we (U.S.) depleting Middle East reserves and ultimately Argentinas (since they now have over $500 billion barrels in reserves, twice the previous estimate) and THEN we will have the worlds supply in our Western States?

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 03:17 AM
The primary I reason I think that we (USA) do not have oil production sites is that if we did, we would be vunerable as was Iraq, to invasion. Perhaps not on the scale that the US showed in Desert Shield, Desert Storm & Iraq but at the level that its disruptive to the social agenda of many Americans.

Playing with the average citizen's mind in that context is something most Americans never thought they would have to consider before going to the store, mall or elsewhere. Wherein the past no such consideration had ever been given to doing those simple tasks.

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:17 AM

Originally posted by jpm1602
The canada geese and triple striped yellow billed crows live there. Are you kidding? Peta will go nuclear on you if you disturb any nests. Billions, perhaps trillions spent on retaining and maintaining petroleum rights and strores. We could be plugging all our vehicles in tomorrow if it wasn't for high interest stakes.

PETA is nothing more than a hypocritical Marxist terrorist group. I wouldn't even call them animal rights activist's(they only care about animals if animals can be used to lesson humans natural rights) as over 90% of the animals they take into their care are euthanized and yet they have a way larger budget than the SPCA(the SPCA finds homes for a much larger percentage of pet's).

+ PETA stores the animals bodies at their main headquarters in freezers in a creepy kind of way(well they did, they might have discontinued the practice).

P.S please donate to the SPCA if you can!

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in