digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Little known secret: The U.S. has the worlds largest oil reserves.

americanfreepress.net — Our gargantuan supply of oil lies beneath an area called the Green River Formation - a barren stretch of land covering portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. World-renowned geologist Walter Youngquist calls the oil beneath the Green River Formation, “a national treasure.” Congress calls this area simply, “the next Saudi Arabia.”

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -62/+31Alaska has multiple the amounts of oil as Saudi Arabia. But keeping our future dependent on foreign oil helps protect the oil companies and the Arab empires. This is all about control, making sure the US is dependent on other con tries for its future. Now we are begging China to please not poison our food and toys. This is a ***** joke.
    • vault, on 10/10/2007, -62/+30The libtards don't want us to drill in the ANWR, but also don't want us dependent on middle eastern oil...go figure.
      • aliengoods, on 10/10/2007, -5/+42While the former CAN help the latter, the two goals are still independent of one another. If everyone got 2MPG better gas mileage, more oil would be saved than could be produced by ANWR. And frankly, Detroit can do MUCH better than a 2MPG fuel efficiency increase, they just don't seem to want to.
        • mre5765, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20People don't want to drive fuel efficient cars. In 1976 Honda Accords had nearly 50 MPG ( http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~wstef/hist.html ). Today they barely get over 30 MPG. People want their cars big, and fast ==> inefficient. Detroit was kicking Japan's ass in the full sized pickup category till they capitulated, and delivered monsters like the Nissan Titan and Toyota Tundra. The Honda Ridgeline ain't exactly small either.

          The answer to more fuel efficiency is to tax the crap out of gasoline (as well as allow fuel European efficient diesel cars that currently don't pass stupid USA emissions laws; as if the air in Europe isn't as clean as the USA). But taxing gas isn't popular either. The GOP lost Congress mostly because of gas prices.
          • shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Not that it's particularly relevant, but in my opinion the fuel in Europe smells funkier than hippies compared to the stuff we use in the states.
            But you're right. Americans want big cars because it makes them feel safe in their cars, which is a bandage to their poor driving ability. If people were obligated to learn how to drive, they'd logically choose the small nimble car so that they could take a parking spot in a place that would normally be saved for a motorcycle. Until we see people focus on intelligent driving rather than getting from point A to point B quickly, we'll just see more and more big, fast cars.
            TL;DR idiots on the road like big cars and only read this line.
          • blackhawk919, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I don't think it's necessarliy because people don't want to drive efficient cars. I'm pretty sure drop from 50 mpg is due mostly to all the safety measures that had to be added to cars.
          • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Accidents happen. I'd much rather be in a bigger car when one comes my way.
          • Gir53457, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Unless you're in front of a Semi, most cars with a proper safety rating can stand up to being rear ended by a hummer.
          • cwgannon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"The GOP lost Congress mostly because of gas prices."

            I'm not too sure I agree with you there, mate.
        • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Damned comment system.
      • miketrin, on 10/10/2007, -33/+21libtards? Typical republican can only point fingers and name call. Get a ***** brain.
        • lansuggs, on 10/10/2007, -10/+33Hypocritical much?
        • blitzkriegpunk, on 10/10/2007, -5/+39Who says he's a republican? I think both parties are ***** retarded. How's about that *****?
          • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21The party system is for people who can't think for themselves. It's pretty sad.
          • dclowd9901, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It's unfortunately always very easy to criticize the status quo rather than present a solution. Fact is, whether both parties are retarded or not, we live in a bipartisan nation. What are we going to do to make the situation better? Do you have the answer for that, or just another smartass remark?
        • unreg, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Is that similar to labeling everyone who has conservative leanings a Neo-Con?

        • pleetonboy, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6I could write a book about all the finger pointing and name calling you ***** bestow upon republicans/conservatives and pretty anyone else who disagrees with your narrow minded viewpoint. Not that I really give a *****, just pointing out your hypocrisy. ***** jackass.
          • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14"I could write a book about all the finger pointing and name calling..."
            -"***** jackass."
            -"narrow minded"
            -"*****"

        • shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Both sides are retarded, the Republicans just happen to be in office.
        • elnerdo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12And thus, we conclude that both Republicans AND Democrats are stupid.

          Honestly, once you say "jackass," "neocon," "libtard," "Idiot," "*****," etc, etc, etc, you have already lost the discussion. It does not solve anything to call each other names, nor does it help to solve things. You don't convince anyone of anything by calling someone a '*****.' the only thing it does is prove that you are dumb. This message goes to EVERYONE here.
        • blackhawk919, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I had second thoughts - retracted
        • wakananda, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6"Neocon" is short for "neoconservative, " which is a self-given name for the far-right school of political thought that has hijacked the Republican party and the presidency. They refer to American conservatives who still believe in limited government, balanced budgets and America first as "paleoconservatives" (i.e. "dinosaurs"). If you don't know that (in your support of reckless foreign adventures, record-setting national debt and trampling the Constitution) you are in fact a neoconservative, or "neocon" for short, you may or may not be retarded, but you are certainly ill-informed. The term is descriptive, in no way derogatory, and, as I noted, self-given. The epithet "libtard," on the other hand, is applied by cowards on the internet to provoke anyone who disagrees with them; it is a word to start a fight with. Instead of neocon, I prefer the term "neofascist." I think this term represents more accurately a regime (and it's supporters) who have denied Americans the right to a trial, ship suspects to foreign secret prisons for torture, have political opposition arrested for having bumper stickers or wearing t-shirts that voice their opinion and herd them into "free speech zones," have militarized (desensitized) and coopted local police to the point that they seem universally willing to electrocute unarmed members of the public for mere non-compliance, advocate national identity cards/databases ("show me your papers, please")... I could go on. I've decided that this is no longer a ***** "debate" and that I'm not going to play by the rules or consider the "feelings" of people that have no respect for the Constitution of the United States of America. They have trashed the rules, and betrayed not only their country, but humanity. ***** them.
          • bluto36, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3kooo kooo ca choo!

            and 9/11 was an inside job right?

            /get out of your moms basement, the fumes will drive you crazy.... oh too late
      • thescimitar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25Do we really need to go straight to name-calling here? Honestly, whatever happened to common courtesy? Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you have to demean yourself and the whole of political discourse.
        • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5You smell like the back of my ball sack.
          • bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4what are you? 14?

            actually.. don't answer that.. I'd prefer to live under the delusion that people that age are actually getting SMARTER each generation
          • DavidBGie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Nougat needs to get the hell off his mom's computer like she told him!
      • Tyr7BE, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Haha oh no gotta stop those libtards! You kids :)
      • allan17, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7@Vault
        Stop grouping people. I'd consider myself to be liberal yet support drilling in Alaska.
        • jimmy72, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I support drilling anywhere in the world....as long as she's hot.
    • shellacked, on 10/10/2007, -28/+19While the republitards are driving their suv's 80 mph down the highway while bitching about gas prices being so high that we'll have to invade *another* country in the middle east.

      There is more than one way to solve this problem. How difficult is that to understand?
      • thescimitar, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20Again, what's with the name-calling? How is that possibly productive? Just because "he started it" doesn't mean you have to perpetuate it.

        This is why we can't get anything done.
        • TheHydrogens, on 10/10/2007, -5/+32Whatever, don't be such a moderatard!
          • Glynth, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4The Almighty Digg Community has spoken: 7 diggs to guy calling for civility, 23 diggs to guy attacking person for asking for civility. Brilliant.
      • ReinMasamuri, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2While the republitards are driving their suv's 80 mph down the highway while bitching about gas prices being so high that we'll have to invade *another* country in the middle east, the libertards will be drinking bottled water in mass quantities (plastic is an oil product :O ) and using the internet to raise rallies (the internet is a result of globalization *egads*!)
        Don't talk ***** when you're a pussy, and republican's are assholes. You both get ***** in the end.
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9So wait, are we starting wars to take oil or are we supporting foreign oil to further control? Can diggers please have a meeting and come up with an official version of their truth please?
    • miketrin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16This isn't about lowering gas, who in the ***** wants cheaper gas other than consumers. Investors and oil companies want to keep the oil in the ground and keep the prices high. Even if we control of every oil field in the world, the goal is to keep the oil in the ground and keep prices high.
      • unreg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Ever notice how theres just enough oil to always satisfy demands?
    • ingoldsby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16A USGS study indicated at least 5.7 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 16.0 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km³) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.. This compares to 264 billion barrels currently estimated to be in the Saudi reserves, I'm trying to figure out where your numbers are coming from. Even if you were to use the reserve estimate for Saudi before a suspicious increase in proven reserves in 1989, they would still have many billions more barrels of proven reserves than Alaska.

      Using the figures provided by the bush administration, Alaska would provide 5% of our petroleum needs for only 12 years in all likelihood... That is not exactly a long term fix.
      • DavidBGie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The Saudi's have been lowering that estimate. Also you didn't take in account the oil-sand reserves.
    • Squeetard, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24It is even simpler than this. Oil is actually fairly evenly distributed throughout the world. The difference being how easy and cheap it is to get at. Got it?

      Texas and Alberta are easy to get to locations and easy to drill for oil. The mid East is even easier. The oil lies very shallow and under very soft ground. The big challenge is to keep the hole open long enough to get casing pipe in before it crumbles.

      Comparitively, just getting the drill rig and equipment to a mountainous location costs more than drilling a hole in the Mid East. The Mid East are averaging a week a well from set up to capping. Drilling through a couple miles of rock in colorado takes months.

      Do the math.
    • picsectionpleez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sorry but Russia has the world's largest oil reserves. Oh yeah, and gold AND diamonds. Problem is it's under about a half mile of ice and frozen earth.
  • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+173The problem with shale is very simple: in order to be economically feasible to separate the carbon from the slag, oil prices have to be high, very high, to compensate for the cost of the new machinery and technology and processes needed.

    ...but if you're going to spend all of that money, why not spend it on something sustainable? Something that uses the already hundreds of millions of tons of carbon we've released into the atmosphere?
    • vault, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Like what, and how could we save money by switching to that, figuring in the enormous cost of converting what's already been manufactured?
      • shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Like what: like every other type of energy that has been mentioned in the past several years? Solar, wind, hydroelectric solutions?
        Or we could just make idiots turn turbines by hand, but then whom would I respond to on Digg?
        • shredswithpiks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1edit: I'm stupid and tl;dr
        • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7None of the solutions you mentioned are real. They are PR BS thrown together by "save the earth" goups. The reality is that none of these can realiticly fill our energy needs right now. And not in the near future either.
        • Gir53457, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I just drove by a trash burning plant that powers a good portion of Jersey City, and it spews out air that is actually cleaner than the surrounding air from Jersey and Staten Island. They're only allowed to work it at 33% so the oil burning plants can make money.
      • Ebulating, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19How about, I don't know, ...NUCLEAR ***** POWER. You know, the thing thats been safely and cleanly generating about a fifth off all American electricity for the past 30 years or so.
    • InfiniteNothing, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Can't (exothermically) burn CO2
      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Can pump CO2 into algae, corn, soy, and then burn the remnants of any of those, though. Hence, sustainable energy.
        • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1LOL!!! Burn it to release what you put into it. Makes sense to me.....
        • Hannibalisfun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8the idea was this would be sustainable, not that it would getting ride of the CO2
    • knowitman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17The reason that CO2 is such a large product of reaction is that it's very stable. It's the law of nature that everything wants to be in the lowest energy state possible, and CO2 is at a much lower energy state then hydrocarbons. It would take just as much energy to get rid of CO2 is released to create it. Basic laws of chemistry.
      • atdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4actually much more energy because no process is 100% efficient.
      • xadhominemx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well knowitman, one type of machine already does this using another renewable resource- plants
    • Photokon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10The real problem with shale is the incredible amount of water it takes to separate the oil from the rock. Water is more precious than oil.
      • lintmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Of course it is; that's why it covers 75% of Earth's surface -- because it's so precious.
        • noisymime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I knew Digg had an arrogant readership, but usually it isn't ignorant at that same time.
    • warriorscot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If you saw a shale bing and how they take forever to get rid of and nothing ever grows on them.
    • ausfahrt, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Ya the XXX billions that went to the war could have been used to figure out a sustainable way to do process this.
    • FutureGuy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8I wonder if we had spent even a fraction of the money that we blew in Iraq in researching this where the technology would be.
    • digghasnoethics, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Its not oil and its certainly not the oil price.

      This stuff is typical marketing bull. Its not oil, its dirty rock and there is no viable route to extracting oil from it that doesn't take more energy than you get out. No oil man's wet dream is likely to change that.

      Get real. They will go out into the middle of a hurricane tossed sea and drill down further than Everest is up from a massive structure they have to build and fund; all before they will think of producing one barrel from these 'reserves'?

      The are not reserves, they are a marketing lie for the gullible to help the share price when it needs a boost.

      You will see Mr Fusion reactors across the US before you will see anything from this in the tank of your SUV.
      • wakananda, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2There is no way to get more energy out of this shale than you put into extracting it. It's another lie.
      • Myztry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yes. But oil (and thus petrol) is transportable energy. Easily handled, usable in small applications, and with great yield for volume.
        A fixed nuclear reactor could handle the conversion energy requirements. Refinement: yes. Lawn Mower: no
      • wynja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Your simply wrong. Canada is producing oil from the same stuff and turning a profit while producing more energy than they are putting into the refining process.
    • twomeyw23334, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Shell has developed a method to extract shale oil for $80 a barrel which is close to what the price is now. I first read about this in Popular Science I believe but you can probably find references to it in multiple places.
      http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2006/03/27/s ...
      • wakananda, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1A junky, milking the needle to keep that high going...
        The answer is ydro and nuclear, supplemented by solar and wind farms. First step: get Big Oil OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
      • wakananda, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1A junky, milking the needle to keep that high going...
        The answer is ydro and nuclear, supplemented by solar and wind farms. First step: get Big Oil OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
      • wakananda, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1A junky, milking the needle to keep that high going...
        The answer is ydro and nuclear, supplemented by solar and wind farms. First step: get Big Oil OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
    • Myztry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The first things they did in Iraq where secure the oil wells, and secure the 'sharing' arrangement.
      The cost of extracting oil from shade, or Iraq, can just be passed as a 'bill' for the taxpayer.
      [/endsarcasm]
    • wynja, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You seriously need to do your homework. The oil we're buying from Canada today is shale oil, and to boot it's estimated that the shale oil in the American deposits will yield twice the product of the Canadian shale.
      Furthermore, the price of processing shale has been reduced to about 50$ a barrel by Canadian companies. There are several American companies working on reducing this cost to as low as 30$ a barrel.
  • hotspot102, on 10/10/2007, -4/+46This sounds similar to the "oil sands" operations that our happening here in northern Alberta.
    • meldroc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27Oil sands are a cinch to process compared to oil shale - it's very deep underground, and it requires a lot of heat to convert it into something resembling oil (a ***** low grade crude oil) to make it useful at all.

      Really, it's far more worth it to spend those resources to develop wind, solar and algae-biodiesel instead.
    • mre5765, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21Except the oil sands investment has been going on for over 30 years. It takes a while to build up the technology and make it economically feasible. Shale has a long way to go.

      The other thing about oil sands is that it requires a lot of energy and labor to extract. So much so that some are proposing using nuclear energy to extract the oil from the sand. This strikes me as a little nuts. Why not just use nuclear power and skip the oil extraction phase.
      • bigdoof, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Are you suggesting that we put a reactor on our cars, airplanes, etc.? Until battery tech really picks up, a lot of things can't be easily replaced by electricity delivered from a central source.
        • elnerdo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, he's probably suggesting that we use nuclear power and batteries or fuel cells for most applications ( good source of electricity is needed for fuel cells to work (it takes a lot of power to produce hydrogen)). And stick with gas for the rest of them. Not EVERYTHING needs to change all at once.
      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1"Why not just use nuclear power and skip the oil extraction phase."

        Because nuclear power is pretty wasteful in current designs. They generate a lot of waste energy that's not hot enough to turn a turbine, but still has to be discarded. Most just find some pool of water like a lake or a river, blend the water with it until it's low enough in temperature to dump it that's environmentally safe, and then dump it back into the river or lake.

        Taking the excess heated water, adding some enzymes and pumping in oil sands, yielding a foamy oil-rich top layer and clean beach-style sand on the other end is a good way to reclaim that energy, even if it's not ultimately sustainable.
    • iamnos, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Yup, except shale oil is much more expensive to extract, and this is no where near the world's largest supply. According to wikipedia, this area has around 1.5 billion barrels of shale oil. Alberta (and Saskatchewan) have somewhere around 175 billion barrels that the Alberta government figures is recoverable. The Athabasca Oil Sands are second only to Saudi Arabia



      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands
      • siafu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Wiki and the article say Green River has more then 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil. 1500 billion > 175 billion.
  • Octantis, on 10/10/2007, -9/+81Besides the whole it is expensive reason. Here is another reason why we aren't actively getting that oil. National security. I think the American military / government knows that oil is a limited supply and thus will use all other sources oil before using their own. When the world is fighting over the last few scraps of oil we won't be at the table fighting for the last bit of food.
    • zeitgueist, on 10/10/2007, -3/+45One would expect that by the time we're at the "last scraps" of oil, it would have been already financially prudent to use an alternative fuel source. Oil isn't the only option for powering us, its just the easy one.
      • gwhardyiv, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Except that only half of all crude oil is used in fuel production. Energy is only part of the equation.
        • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Plastic can be produced from vegetable oil, and even hemp oil if that's what you're getting at.
      • EndersGame, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1And the most profitable.
      • Markp487, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Octanis hit it on the nose Zeitguesist. One would expect we will have a alternative fuel source, but he mentioned national security and the american military. You are imagining the renovation of how the largest military in the world maneuvers. You think government spending is expensive now? Imagine buying everything all over again. Oil is the only option of fueling a military until there is literally none left and its not economical to synthetically make it.
    • sancho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25Good point. Here's another one.

      If our nation's leaders really have a plan to deal with the oil shortage (such a plan including using Alaskan reserves, along with other US-controlled reserves such as these), it makes sense to intentionally devalue the dollar. Why?

      We have a lot of debt. Even before Bush took office, we had debt (though we had a yearly economic surplus, that doesn't mean that we didn't owe money.) If the government can tank the dollar enough, our debt will be virtually worthless. We'll be able to pay it more easily, countries will forgive the debt just to be done with it, etc. Then we hit our next economic boom by collecting this oil and selling some of it. Suddenly, we're an economic superpower again, and beholden to no one for fuel.

      Hey. It could happen.
      • withincontext, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I hadn't considered this, but it's actually quite interesting. Good point!
      • crobathias, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3however, for that to work, SMART people would have to be in power, something that in present-day America, couldn't happen
      • theid0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Devaluing the USD only makes foreign debt worth more to the holder, because it is held in the foreign currency. A devalued Dollar makes our debt harder to pay for. Besides, currency is largely a popularity contest. If there weren't so many people wrongly deriding the US economy for political gain, we would be seeing a climb in the value of the Dollar every year based on relative growth in the global economy.
    • zerodaysoon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and sell it at inflated prices to all those countries. My dad used to tell me that all the time when i was a little kid, lol, nice to know someone thinks like that
    • svenathon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My first thought reading the headline was stockpile.
    • svenathon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My first thought reading the headline was stockpile.
      edit: Sorry, double post
    • CptBuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We also have the largest supplies of Coal, another material that can be viably turned into coal when oil prices are high.
    • crazybugger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Stop this *****.
  • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5"National treasure"? What good is the oil doing anybody, sitting underground? I hope he means "national treasure" as in, we're going to mine it up and burn it.
    • mryar, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Fictional Possibility: Saudi Arabia, then Nigeria get attacked by al-qaeda. Their oil capabilities are halted, and so a large chunk of the overall oil supply is taken down. For the lives of each of us and our countrymen hinge on the military's ability to protect the country, and the primary energy supply for that protection is oil.

      That being said, how couldn't we have a supply?
      • chadarizona, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6How could Saudi Arabia get attacked by Al-Qaeda? Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't most of the 9-11 hijackers Saudi?
        • ChildeRoland420, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6A lot of fundamentalist Muslims hate Saudi Arabia because of their connections to the USA.
      • jcounterman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Well, since it would take at least 10 years (more like 20) to acquire the equipment, drill the wells, and set up the infrastructure, we'd probably all be dead by then or, more likely, have learned to live on alternative resources.
  • sixlaneve, on 10/10/2007, -16/+48This is not a secret. I've heard it 10 years ago at school. Basically US are trying to keep their own national reserves probably for hard times, instead of buying it from other countries at extorsion prices.
    • GeekyLotus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Hmm... you are fortunate to have been dugg up since you have not read the article. This is not about our emergency oil reserves. This is about shale oil.
      • dementia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9This is no secret because one of the headings in the article is 'NO SECRET'
      • Ryetronics, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14This is Digg. No one reads the articles!
        • EntangledPhysx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i read the comments first, usually.
    • ogremidget, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3No, its the Tree Hugging liberals who created laws that make it near impossible to drill for oil.
    • airiox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2At least in Utah as of last year the Shale is in the starting phases of being lifted.
  • JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -9/+51Inaccurate: it's oil -shale-, not oil. And it can't be used to make gasoline. It CAN be turned into natural gas, but it isn't economically or ecologically feasible.
    • kcasper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4yes you can. The stuff starts as solid then liquid and if you heat it enough then it turns to gas.
      • jcounterman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10yes, by burning natural gas and oil. So your efficiency drops like mad, and you are using almost as much energy to produce it as you gain from it once you're done. That is called "being stupid."
        • fluxion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5that's called "being a nation of SUV owners". so it's feasible we'd go down that route, however stupid it may be in light of recent advances in alternative fuels. we could leave other nations in the dust if we took alternative energy seriously.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3any hydrocarbon can be made into gasoline. It is expensive but doable. Our abundance of coal can be used to create more oil.
    • wynja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yep, sorry to say your wrong, but you are. Read about the shale oil being processed in Alberta Canada and get back to us with your uniformed opinions.
  • civperc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Better to have reserves than none at all.
  • mryar, on 10/10/2007, -20/+5Secret?? Come on, you're a moron if you thought someone else had one larger. USA is the most prosperous country in the world. Look at each of us and the family and friends around us, where else would you rather be in the world?
    • alexkorova, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11Well, there are numerous places all over the world with a higher standard of living. Perhaps I'd rather be there?
      • pleetonboy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Then leave, I'm betting nobody wants you here anyway.
      • mryar, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Great thing about this country is you're free to leave.
    • JHattendorfII, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7canada?
      • mryar, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3High taxes, red tape from here to the moon, govt controlled health care that takes 6 months to get a visit. Sounds like a great place.
        • wiskers69, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2You've been there then and can verify all this?
        • breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Canadian Federal income tax rates from the govt website: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxra ...

          US 2006 Federal income tax rates: http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856, ...

          Not that much difference genius. In fact I pay 15.5% on anything up to $37,178 then 22% on the next $37,179. You start paying 25% on anything over $30,650. Depending on where we live our state/provincial taxes may be different, but I hardly think you can point a smug finger at Canada for high taxes.
          • aaronm67, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1But your provincial taxes are extremely high compared to ours. Most states have 3-5% income tax, while in Canada (just quickly scanning), it appears as though rates are about 10% at the first level.
            Quick example, say you're living in Alberta (10% flat tax, seemed about average on a quick scan)
            In Canada, you're paying total 37,178 (=5763) + 10% (=3717) = 9480 total, 25.5% of your income.
            In the US, you're paying 37,178 (=4220 + (.25)(6528)= 6052) + 5% (=1859) = 7911, 21% of your income.

            4.5% of your total income for the year is a pretty significant difference.
          • breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't disagree with your figures and I did allow for some difference at state/provincial level (but perhaps not enough), but...since one of mryar's other issues was govt "controlled" health care (ooh, sounds scary), let me point out that the $2500 difference is less than the annual cost for US health insurance.

            From here: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/82218.php

            "The average health insurance premium for a family now amounts to 12,106 dollars a year, with workers on average paying 3,281 dollars."

            I may pay a little more in tax, but you seem to get stung for more when all's said and done.
    • Scienceisfun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13You know, I like the US. I really do -- for all the bad press you get, you put out brilliant minds and ideas, you are prosperous, and I think most Americans are generally good people. But please don't be offended that some people like other countries better. There are plenty of great countries all over this world, and no one of them will ever be right for everyone on the planet. The blatant "We're the best!" chest thumping just perpetuates the idea that you view the world in black and white, right and wrong, winners and losers. We expect more from you -- the world is not a simple place, so stop treating it like it is.
    • BradMW, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Dugg up for your humorous blind patriotism.
  • kedzieg, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14The problem with US oil is that it's too crude; we have to put in a lot of energy to refine it into gas and diesel. You can almost put that sweet Saudi gold into your car straight from the ground...
    • unreg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Not all oil winds up a gasoline or diesel. If you can apply this lower grade crude to things such as power generation, plastics or something else, that frees the higher quality stock for refining into gasoline.

      Same concepts holds for the entire energy picture. We don't have to necessarily replace gasoline if we can eliminate a lot of the other uses for oil. ANd as a previous poster pointed out, increasing mileage by 2 mpg would have a dramatic impact. It's all a matter of degrees.
      • breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6So why won't the US government enforce stricter regulations on fuel efficiency for new cars? The knock-on effects seem worth the effort and worth any short-term pain for the US auto industry. We hear all this talk about ending reliance on Mid-East oil but the baby steps to achieve this are painful to watch.
        • fluxion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4lobbyists and private campaign funding
          • breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That would certainly seem to be the case (I was speaking rhetorically, sorry I should have made that clearer). When politicians so blatantly favour special interest groups over the interests of the population alarm bells should be ringing, but it doesn't seem to matter how many Jack Abramovs or Randy Cunninghams get busted, the money keeps flowing.
        • adoggz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1because U.S automakers are already deep in ***** and don't need any more people shoveling more ***** on top of them while they are trying to get out. Not until U.S automakers start regaining ground will there be any new serious regulations.
    • eatmyshorts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It's not that the US oil is too crude (West Texas Intermediate si among the most sweet crudes around, and Saudi crude has far higher sulfur levels than Brent crude, which is more sour than West Texas crude), it's that the deposits are not well connected and are not easy to produce. Tar sands and shale oil aren't inherently more sour; the rocks in which they are trapped are not as porous and well connected, meaning we have to do some strange things to produce that oil (like pumping in steam and fracturing the source rock, for starters, although tar sands and shale will require far more sophisticated technology)
  • imacommi, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6A company called Global Resource Corporation has the technology needed to extract this. ticker: GBRC
    • cramd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I dugg your comment so I can quickly find it if you are right. I will post the following item on Digg "You Dugg him down 5 years ago, now he owns you!!!"
  • Modestexcuse, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8We're getting closer with the technology required to make this work. Here is a dig article on a patent on just this:

    http://www.digg.com/general_sciences/New_Royal_Dut ...
    • iheartartoo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Digg is a database of links. There are no Digg articles.
      • ericthegreat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Doh, I was beaten. I was just looking up that link as well
    • moulin1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Weekly Standard is a neocon media tool. While the issue is technology, not politics, you must question the veracity of the source. The connection between neocon "news" and oil company profits is very real. Find a better source and see my post in this thread.
  • jpop, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Something to think about in re. Alaskan oil. Count how many American companies are drilling.
  • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I have definatly heard about this before. This is good though. Why not get as much foreign oil as possible right now, And when worst comes to worst we just start extracting our own. And then we can be the aopec. American Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Country.
    • BradMW, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Soon to be confused with -both- APEC and OPEC by you know who.
    • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Exactly! Use theirs before we use ours. It's a no brainer.
    • digghasnoethics, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Boy are you ever in for a shock.
    • noisymime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3By which stage China will be hinting at WMDs in America and saying that United States culture is a threat to their way of life...
  • zensequential, on 10/10/2007, -6/+27i don't think this is either "little known" or "a secret," it's more like common sense to me....

    Why eat the cookies that are in your pockets when there's cookies on the table? and when the cookie jar is empty, then you digg into your "pocket reserve"
    • Genady, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13No... it's more like: "These cookies from WalMart are pretty good, they only cost $2 and I don't have to make them. Yeah, I've got the makings for cookies in my Freezer, but then I'd have to thaw it, put it in the oven, let them cool, it's too much work. What? Those WalMart Cookies are $3 now? 'eh, still cheaper than getting out the cookie dough. $4? Still, too much work. $5? Hrm... maybe I could get out my cookie dough and start selling them...."
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Why are you keeping cookies in your pocket? Are they at least in a baggy or something?
    • 0ldmankdude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3dugg for unintentionally using "digg" instead of "dig" in your comment
  • tdelet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9It was never feasable when oil was $30 a barrel, but as mid east reserves fall and prices rise and the "easy oil" goes away we'll become a lot more motivated to get to the oil in the ground in Canada and the US. It becomes "feasable" when mid east oil is north of $200 a barrel.

    It sucks, but there should be enough oil in the world to get us to another type of energy.
    • anonadmin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The problem with your argument is that the "easy oil" production falling is not the reason that the prices are what they are. You are applying a supply and demand market principal to a market that is controlled by a cartel.

      For example from June 21, 2007 "EU officials said Thursday that oil prices were about as high as consumers could bear and challenged OPEC to lift restrictions on production."
      http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/21/business ...

      You see, the prices are not high because there is not enough left, the prices are high because OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC ) controls the market and is artificially restricting the flow.
  • fweepa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8If its known it wouldn't be a secret X(
  • Xbef, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I do like the idea of having a back-up supply of oil. I would bet when it is absolutely needed much of the "oil shale" will be available. Advances in drilling technology happen each year and when oil execs are faced with a problem little will stand between them and a profit. They are good that way.
  • fiktionous1, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Its not oil, and its not a secret.
    Got to laugh at the typical digg responses though, instantly always turns into a republican/democrat fight.
    "if the demotards, blah blah blah" vs "if the republicraps... blah blah blah"
  • Rayeth, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1More like well know secret. If you didn't ever wonder what that "Strategic Oil Reserve" congress is continually trying to tap into is, guess what? This is it.
  • sputza, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3no *****.
  • Flunkysama, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Is it just me or do these type stories pop up more frequently when the pressure increases to stop using so much oil.

    "Worried about Record high oil prices, Global warming, Peak oil? Well don't worry, according to this headline you can keep driving that monster SUV till you retire."
  • slonrgjon, on 10/11/2007, -7/+9let's digg this oil up!
  • madroneDorf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Theres a large difference between oil being avaiable, and it being realisticall used.

    Most of the oil that's been used over the last century has been relatively easy and cheap to extract and refine. OIl shale on the other hand is much harder and expense, if prices continue to be high, oil shale can become more economical, but people are relucant to commit because they don't want a repeat of the 1970's, where the oil price were basically the same as today, which made oil shale economical, only to have them plumet in the coming years. (Although personally I don't think that oil prices are going to go down much anymore but hey, I'm not an expert!)
  • s14sh3r, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Oil shale? *****, this story keeps popping from time to time. lame and innacuate.
  • camaroz06, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Its not oil
  • heartcoldfusion, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2How can something be a little-known secret? If it's a secret, isn't it unknown?
    • DooM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If I tell you a secret and only we know then its known to us but still a secret, yes..? So this is just a secret that a few million people know about. :)
    • wtfpwned98, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2And how can this be oil if it's not really oil?
  • theoallardyce, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4I guess it comes down to a choice - do you want to pay $200+ a barrel or do you want Saudi Arabia to start dictating conditions. They've already built a school in London that teaches kids that Christians and Jews are "apes and pigs", carry on relying on Saudi oil and they're gonna start making demands.
  • mre5765, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10> Congress calls this area simply, “the next Saudi Arabia.”

    Wrong, the next Saudi Arabia is Alberta.
    • Xanadude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Alberta Akbar! Gretsky is Great!
    • khellendros1984, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sweet. When's the US going to invade Canada, then? It's so much closer than Iraq!
  • codehkr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3This story is little known as bush's IQ.
  • dualaudi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7It's not really OIL people... http://www.theviewfromthepeak.net/index3.html explains that OIL SHALE is 1/10 the energy of oil after it's been processed - which costs more and causes more green house gases. (PIX)

    hotspot and octantis make very good points...
    • wtfpwned98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Right, reading this article was like opening a letter from Publisher's Clearing House.
    • 10001, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1so its like every other alternative fuel?
  • jeffiek, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/Oil%2 ...

    crude oil prices of $70-$95 per barrel should be enough to make shale oil profitable. After development and experience, the price would drop.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale has lots of info and references
    • inigomntoya, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Yay! Wiki-graffiti!
      The problem is that the price of oil per barrel is made up by OPEC. If we started making Shale Oil - who is to say that OPEC doesn't drop their prices to $30 per barrel? Then all of the investors in shale oil would lose their investment.
      • jeffiek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1And YOU would get $30 per barrel oil.

        Idiot.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0i love how you just GUESS at what price for oil that shale becomes profitable. AS if you have ANY expertise on it.
      • jeffiek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Don't need any expertise in oil. I only need to be able to READ the article I referenced.
  • scingram, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yep, not a secret so much. There is a MASSIVE surge in drilling in Colorado's Western Slope area, near Rifle / Craig. And like said before, it's not oil so much as it is Oil Shale. The latter being much harder to convert into oil and gas. But with the current high prices for oil, the profit is back in the business, much like it was back in the 80's in the area. With that, housing prices in the area have skyrocketed, and on average are around the same price in say Grand Junction as it is for a house in Denver.
  • Deltablade, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7From what I've read, the earth has nearly infinite oil reserves but the cost in processing the cruder stuff is way more than consumers would be willing to pay.
    • Drax0n, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But if that cost came down it would never be enough to last.

      Remember at one point no one ever could have imagined running out of IP addresses. Which is now quickly approaching.
  • JamesTorrence, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Dugg down for pissing all over my intelligence with that headline.
    • wtfpwned98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I hate that *****...gaming Digg.com
    • 10001, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1that headline wasn't vast... too bad you cannot edit your post, eh?
  • Shogun6996, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3How about we just get off the oil conga line and move on to other fuel sources? We are so keen on squeezing every last dollar out of oil (hydrogen cars?) that we can't move on. Cars can run off numerous sources of energy. Lets put our money into that research rather than spending it allto squeeze/heat up oil from shale.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Money is not what is bottlenecking the research of alternative energy, moron.
  • inigomntoya, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3YAY!! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
    Let's not talk about how to resolve issues! Lets belittle each other and join the popular groups so people vote for us!
    Hmm - sounds like High School (AND Congress!!)
  • XenonofArcticus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Oil shale has so far been a boondoggle. It's not the same as the "oil sands", and it's not viably recoverable as yet. Colorado already had one big oil shale bust, and lots of folks would love to see another subsidized try at recovering it. Technology isn't there yet. Maybe in the future, but not today.
  • wishninja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3like an addict scraping their bowl or caps it will not be a good day when we have to use that crap.
  • Ethervoid, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Little known secret ? Only if it's for Americans, its Geology 101
  • MothBoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3We also have the worlds largest coal reserves. That is not a secret either. Kerogen releases more greenhouse gases than just about any other fossil fuel.

    We really ought to be reducing our burning of liquid oil in the first place. Liquid oil is way too valuable for other things to be burning it all up in cars, especially when battery electric cars are so much more efficient, cleaner, etc.
  • InfiniteNothing, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So I take it you can't just shovel this stuff into a power plant heat it up to burn what is flammable and end up with net energy
  • sysoprock, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I love how you can tell when a blog is a conservative blog just by how ugly and poorly designed it is.
    • 1337Einstein, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What, you've never seen a ***** blog of anything else before?
    • nick111, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Ha ha... yea - exactly.
    • Speck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@1337Einstein: You have the logic wrong. Yes, any blog _can_ be *****, conservative blogs just seem to be uniformly so.
      • 1337Einstein, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But your claim was that you could tell it was republican by the fact that it was ugly and poorly designed. Only this more recent one follows the more plausible claim that if the blog is conservative then it can be said to be *****.
    • 10001, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You're argument is compelling. Is myspace must be the largest collection of conservatives on the planet?
  • PieterOpie, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2If there is so much oil underneath you people, did you have to drag us people (the unwilling willing) over to the Middle East to make all this trouble for *****? I would rather you ripped up your own country than Iraq. just cut it out!!! Enough already.... Don't make me come over there. GRRRRR.....
    • nbrntrt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't you get it. Use the rest of the worlds oil while we can... once it is gone, guess who has it all without invading other countries. ;-)
  • ReinMasamuri, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Good, we'll take the shale and we'll have a good supply of oil!
    Until they discover some rare bird where only one lives in that particular area and they close it off as a natural reserve...
  • BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Lets not export any of it and let the rest of the world develop alternate technologies that we can steal
  • zarathustra, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Deceptive headline, implies that we don't really need to worry about the coming oil shocks to the global economy.
  • textalon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Can you say "internal combustion engine forever"..........sure you can.
  • Jack9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Marked inaccurate
  • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I guess it is about time for the perennial oil shale post. You have to wait for the newbie level to get high enough.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.