Opec says oil could hit $200 - Page 3 - Jets Insider.com Forums

frostlich · 04-29-2008, 08:20 PM

[QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2516195]Very little has been concluded about the Bakken Oil Formation -- neither the totals, nor the feasibility of recovering a fraction of those totals, nor the timeframe any of it could occur in time to offset Peak. So, I wouldn't pat yourself on the back as if you're spiking a football in celebration at the 5-yardline.

[url]http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/04/bakken-oil-formation-big-or-boondoggle.html[/url]
[INDENT]* Bakken seems to have an undeniably large amount of oil in place, approximately 400 billion barrels.

* The amount of that oil that's technically recoverable is open to wildly varying estimates, from 3% to 50%, or 12 to 200 billion barrels.

*As for what Bakken means in the context of the peak oil discussion, it is what it is, as they say on at least one reality TV show. If in the coming years it turns out not to produce much oil per day, then it will have no discernible effect on projections of when the peak arrives or how tightly the oil crunch will squeeze us. If we are indeed on path for a 2011/2012 peak, then it's very hard to imagine how Bakken could come into play in a significant way before then.[/INDENT][/QUOTE]

OK, I really wasn't going for the spike;) In all honesty, and in my opinion, whatever the cause of outrageously expensive oil, it may well be a blessing in disguise in the long run-at least I hope it is. There are examples in the past of a single industry having a large impact/stranglehold on nations. However, I can't recall any industry having as large an impact as oil does now. Whether Hubbert was right or not, the requirement exists on many levels for nations to become energy diversified or even better, energy independent(if that is even possible). Places like Iceland come to mind, but we all can't be located above volcano formations- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland[/url]

To be fair, we are a reactionary-crisis mode/incentive based society. We do not save, we do not plan for the future, and there has been little incentive for most to seek alternate forms of energy. Yes, we had a short memory since the 70's. You think we would have learned our lesson. However, we never pass up the chance for a bargain, and that's what oil/gas has been for the past 20 years-until about 6-7 years ago.

Now, if Hubberts right, hold on for the ride. I know you're not a big fan of "clean" coal, nukes, etc., but think about it. Which do you think the powers that be will let happen first? Economic ruin or environmental ruin? I know where I'd place my bet.

04-29-2008, 08:20 PM	#41
frostlich Get it done Shidzik! All League Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 2,963	[QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2516195]Very little has been concluded about the Bakken Oil Formation -- neither the totals, nor the feasibility of recovering a fraction of those totals, nor the timeframe any of it could occur in time to offset Peak. So, I wouldn't pat yourself on the back as if you're spiking a football in celebration at the 5-yardline. [url]http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/04/bakken-oil-formation-big-or-boondoggle.html[/url] [INDENT]* Bakken seems to have an undeniably large amount of oil in place, approximately 400 billion barrels. * The amount of that oil that's technically recoverable is open to wildly varying estimates, from 3% to 50%, or 12 to 200 billion barrels. *As for what Bakken means in the context of the peak oil discussion, it is what it is, as they say on at least one reality TV show. If in the coming years it turns out not to produce much oil per day, then it will have no discernible effect on projections of when the peak arrives or how tightly the oil crunch will squeeze us. If we are indeed on path for a 2011/2012 peak, then it's very hard to imagine how Bakken could come into play in a significant way before then.[/INDENT][/QUOTE] OK, I really wasn't going for the spike;) In all honesty, and in my opinion, whatever the cause of outrageously expensive oil, it may well be a blessing in disguise in the long run-at least I hope it is. There are examples in the past of a single industry having a large impact/stranglehold on nations. However, I can't recall any industry having as large an impact as oil does now. Whether Hubbert was right or not, the requirement exists on many levels for nations to become energy diversified or even better, energy independent(if that is even possible). Places like Iceland come to mind, but we all can't be located above volcano formations- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland[/url] To be fair, we are a reactionary-crisis mode/incentive based society. We do not save, we do not plan for the future, and there has been little incentive for most to seek alternate forms of energy. Yes, we had a short memory since the 70's. You think we would have learned our lesson. However, we never pass up the chance for a bargain, and that's what oil/gas has been for the past 20 years-until about 6-7 years ago. Now, if Hubberts right, hold on for the ride. I know you're not a big fan of "clean" coal, nukes, etc., but think about it. Which do you think the powers that be will let happen first? Economic ruin or environmental ruin? I know where I'd place my bet.