Billions of barrels of untapped U.S. oil

An American oil boom: Nationwide there are a handful of shale oil fields that could contain as much as 17 billion barrels of oil, according to a recent study from IHS CERA. That's more than the country's largest oil field, Alaska's Prudhoe Bay.

"It's going to have a major impact on the United States reducing imports," Scott Sheffield, head of Pioneer Natural Resources Company, said Tuesday during a packed roundtable discussion on shale oil at CERA's annual energy conference in Houston.

Sheffield estimates that with the new technology, the country could produce an extra 2 million barrels a day from both the Bakken and from shale oil trapped in existing traditional oil fields.

--

North Dakota State University estimates the oil workforce has gone from just over 5,000 in 2005 to over 18,000 in 2009.

Hamm said the industry now employs 30,000 in the state, and if production does hit a million barrels a day, it could employ over 100,000 people there.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/04/news/economy/oil_shale_bakken/index.htm

That is close to eight billion barrels a year. Why invest in something that has no long-term benefit to anyone? Ask anyone in ND if the good times are there to stay. :)

This article appears to be discussing oil shale that is relatively easy to get. The big deposits in the United States present two problems, problem one is that they are on pristine government land, and two, they're buried beneath a big mountain range and crazy ass terrain.

Most of the BLM spots for oil shale have already been leased, in perpetuity, by the oil companies. They're just bidding their time until oil is $150 a barrel and you'll see all that pristine land be destroyed.

Shale oil snake oil. It's all industry hype.

It would be a boom for someone, just not for us.

snip - It went from a mere 3,000 barrels a day in 2005 to 225,000 in 2010, according to the government's Energy Information Administration.
EIA thinks it will produce 350,000 barrels a day by 2035, but most analysts think that estimate is far too low.

The oil is there.

Also, who says it is 'not for us'? This man is 'us' -
snip -"This is a giant field," said Hamm, a 65-year old self-made oil man whose parents were Oklahoma sharecroppers.

The estimates are potential production figures under full exploitation, but just estimates.

But shale oil isn't oil that you can pump.

The boom will be for the scammers who convince landowners to turn over their rights, it will be a boom for the speculators, not for us.

Which is far worse because with owners you have to actually pay to exploit a resource, with the government, you can get it for pennies on the dollar (current land leases are under $10 an acre, in perpetuity).

still .....

And what will replace it when it doesn't anymore?

Then use the repayment to fund solar. Apparently we weren't ready to go all out on solar yet or something.

Fracking, Fracking, Fracking. It destroys the water supply. It destroys the land.

Who needs people?

I work in the Marcellus shale. You have no idea what you are talking about. Peace out brother.

Do you drink the tapwater in the region that you are poisoning?

Or just suggest that it is safe for 'them' and run the complete opposite way?

what's your next dumbass question?

In terms of resources - water- and conversion costs? Is it profitable at todays market prices? Seems like a big investment for short term (2 years) reserves. How about creating 100,000 jobs building/installing/maintaining renewable energy in North Dakota? Jobs and long term energy savings for the consumer.

I don't get why it didn't catch on so I don't know how to fix it, but something bogged it down. Was it mismanagement? I have no idea.

(which it isn't) the oil would not be destined for the USA. It would be sold to the highest bidder, which isn't us.

which was the highest bidder.

Originally, the drilling was approved but the oil had to be sold to the U. S. customers.

But, the oil companies bought off the legislatures and got the requirements changed. From then on, all the oil went to Japan, who bid the most. They sent the tankers to Alaska and filled them up.

All this "Drill, baby, drill!" is B.S.. Oil is sold to the highest bidder. If the United States is not the highest bidder in the world, then the oil will be sold elsewhere. Drilling here is not going to drive down our price for oil.

Sure you can.

:sarcasm:

Drilling those "handful" of shale oil field for 17 billion barrels is hardly worth it considering, what, that oil would only last for a couple of years with the amount we consume in this country?

its sucked up more resources and wasted more time than anything else...maybe this time is different, but I doubt it - its still oil trapped in rock, and you have to process the rock somehow to get the oil. Its more costly and creates a bigger mess that the oil sands.

They are paid millions and millions by the oil companies to polish turds. Just read some articles on the same subject on theoildrum.com which is the best site I've found for information and has a searchable data base. One of the main bones of contention is that CERA looks at reserves with rose tinted glasses and another is that they do not take into account

As "...all the unresolved mega-borrowing of the past 30 years is whirling down the drain ..." we're supposed to finance yet more speculation in oil.

http://worldnewstrust.com/the-rainmakers-james-howard-kunstler.html

Not to mention the frakking, getting oil from shale requires that the shale be boiled. That's going to take one whole hell of a lot of water that we just might need for something else.

Man we are so screwed if we don't get things moving.

of stars that we need to exploit, too.

Point 1: 17 billion barrels is somewhere between two and three years' worth of the oil this country consumers, so the suggestion that this will have any long-term impact is simply ludicrous on its face. As has often been said, "We cannot drill our way out of this crisis.

Point 2: Every drop of crude oil, whether it be extracted from the Gulf of Mexico, a Saudi oil field, ANWR or anywhere else, gets sold on the world market. It isn't like domestically-extracted oil is set aside for American use first. So even the notion of "oil imports" is bogus at its core, as is any argument that appeals to "reducing imports" of oil. And relative to worldwide demand, our little 17 billion barrels doesn't mean jack shit.

That is, of course, unless we were to nationalize the oil industry . . . (But something tells me CNNMoney wouldn't be too keen on that idea!)

to say the oil belongs to the USA is specious.

I'd like it to be increased to 75-90% but since we're a good old capitalist country I doubt we'd do it.

So to clarify, yes the oil belongs to OPEC or whatever, but the profits can belong to the people ... if we were that kind of people.

What's next, perpetual oil wells that employ the world?

This is starting to remind me of the Gull Island spam that was going around last presidential election cycle. Gull Island was supposed to be this "massive" oil deposite that was just sitting there untapped becuase the mean old enviromentalist wouldn't allow thenm to drill it. I believe it even involved a "chapliain". It was hilarious. Of course it was complete and utter bullshit too. But hey, it did give the industry trolls and shills a paycheck for about two months.

We may get some workers who many of us are more than happy to allow to risk their lives for our suburbs (I am guilty as charged; sorta), but, it is still true that there is no such thing as "US" oil.

to attract money from investors into the pockets of the oil companies. These companies know better than to invest their own money in shale so they are trying to con suckers into footing the bill for them to play the game of make believe a little longer.

The age of petroleum is on the decline. Things will never be the same again.

every quarter for as long as the oil lasts.