Who has the most petroleum reserves in the world?

[gsvol]

The good ole USSA.

An American Oil Find That Holds More Oil Than All of OPEC - ABC News

A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that if half of the oil bound up in the rock of the Green River Formation could be recovered it would be "equal to the entire world's proven oil reserves."

Both the GAO and private industry estimate the amount of oil recoverable to be 3 trillion barrels.

"In the past 100 years — in all of human history -- we have consumed 1 trillion barrels of oil. There are several times that much here," said Roger Day, vice president for operations for American Shale Oil (AMSO).

The Green River drilling is beginning as shale mining is booming in the U.S. and a report by the International Energy Agency predicts that the U.S. will become the world's largest oil producer by 2020. That flood of oil can have major implications for the U.S. economy as well as the country's foreign policy which has been based on a growing scarcity of oil.

God keeps on blessing us but we keep turning away and worshiping Gaia, claiming we are saving the Earth.

Get real people.

 

[lawgator1]

The good ole USSA.

An American Oil Find That Holds More Oil Than All of OPEC - ABC News



God keeps on blessing us but we keep turning away and worshiping Gaia, claiming we are saving the Earth.

Get real people.

Your idiocy knows no bounds. We are projected to be an oil exporter by 2030.

 

[bluetickhound16]

Gotta go with LG on this one... Not only is the fact that America sitting on a vast quantity of oil old news, we are in position (as LG stated) to be making serious bank off of it sooner rather than later...

 

[tumscalcium]

Your idiocy knows no bounds. We are projected to be an oil exporter by 2030.

Do you think that's good or bad? Shoot, I've been waiting for this for years. Use the worlds oil, then after that's wasted, bank on our own. It's just a matter of if we'll take advantage of that or not. We do have someone in the White House who does not want that to happen.

 

[PKT_VOL]

The good ole USSA.

An American Oil Find That Holds More Oil Than All of OPEC - ABC News



God keeps on blessing us but we keep turning away and worshiping Gaia, claiming we are saving the Earth.

Get real people.

Really?

God keeps blessing the USA, we keep turning our backs on God, thus God is punishing the USA?

 

[Carl Pickens]

Really?

God keeps blessing the USA, we keep turning our backs on God, thus God is punishing the USA?

There's really no need to act as if someone is crazy if they choose to believe in God.......

 

[gsvol]

Gotta go with LG on this one... Not only is the fact that America sitting on a vast quantity of oil old news, we are in position (as LG stated) to be making serious bank off of it sooner rather than later...

Later rather than sooner if Obama has his way.

Really?

God keeps blessing the USA, we keep turning our backs on God, thus God is punishing the USA?

How do you explain it in other terms?

There's really no need to act as if someone is crazy if they choose to believe in God.......

God reveals Himself to He wills, the ignorant can be ignoarant if they want, if they do not seek God then it is unlikely they will find God but then God can find any man when He wishes to do so.

Your idiocy knows no bounds. We are projected to be an oil exporter by 2030.

My idiocy?

Your idiocy knows no bounds.

What has obama done in this area:

Canceled drilling permits right and left and has even been cited in court for contempt for failing to adhere to court orders on drilling rights as well as calling for five more years of study on previously appoved drilling rights, removed two thirds of the Alaskan oil reserve established in the 1920s from being drilled and that is just a start on what he has done to sabatoge US oil and other energy production.


Obama’s Post-Reelection EPA Plans « The Patriot Perspective

If you think the Obama administration’s Enterprise Prevention Agenda has been wildly aggressive during the past four years, believe me, we really ain’t seen nothin’ yet. A new report released by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority Committee enumerates a slew of planned EPA regulations that have been delayed or punted on until after the election that will destroy millions of American jobs and cause energy prices to skyrocket even more.

Titled “A Look Ahead to EPA Regulations for 2013: Numerous Obama EPA Rules Placed on Hold Until After the Election Spell Doom For Jobs and Economic Growth”, it lists and describes new rules concocted over the past year ranging from additional restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, tougher water guidelines and tightening of the ozone standard. Taken together, they will further drive up pump prices, impose construction bans on local communities, and cripple oil, natural gas and coal production.

As the Washington Post notes, the report puts a spotlight back on the Obama EPA which has earned a “reputation for Abuse”, serving as a stark reminder that “President Obama has presided over a green team administration that works every day to “crucify” oil and gas companies and make sure that “…if you want to build a coal plant you got a big problem.”

Meanwhile, the EPA is “proving” their “science” through debunked cooked books, crooked mad science and human experimentation. It’s all watermelon environmentalism, though. They don’t really care about the environment, they care about social/ecological/environmental “justice”, rebalancing the scales against colonialist imperialist pig-dog oppressors of whatever oppressed minority they feel gives them enough justification to destroy the industrialized west and free markets, and ushering in a glorious land of “sustainable” communism.

Thirty years ago, that might’ve been parody, rather than an accurate description.

That’s Interior Secretary Ken “Boots” Salazar, noted above. Also, fracking is only considered bad because of propaganda against it, including anti-fracking propaganda films made by oil-rich Middle Eastern nations. And of course there’s also the accusations that fracking sets water on fire… which has been shown to be totally unconnected in some cases and hoaxes in a few others.

 

[gsvol]

Energy Potential vs. Energy Limitations | The Energy Collective

Oil shale deposits on federal lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming may hold more than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil – six times Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves. Yet the administration has decided to rope off more than two-thirds of the oil shale lands in areas previously opened for leasing in 2008. This is a not-all-of-the above energy approach that undercuts the president’s campaign commitment to pursue greater domestic oil and natural gas development.

“This is another step in the wrong direction that limits development and investment in one of the nation’s most energy-rich areas and goes against a prior government decision that would allow for research and development over a much wider geographical area. Just days after the election this decision by the administration sends negative signals to industry and capital markets at a time when we need to encourage growth and innovation in the U.S.”

Notice the timing, just days AFTER the election.

Not that you can really call it a fair election.

A national robbery is a more if an aplicable word

 

[PKT_VOL]

There's really no need to act as if someone is crazy if they choose to believe in God.......

Where did I say that?

I was trying to see if someone on here actually believes the rational I posted which was implied in the OP. Do you believe such a notion?

 

[gsvol]

Where did I say that?

I was trying to see if someone on here actually believes the rational I posted which was implied in the OP. Do you believe such a notion?

Do you believe the notion that CO2 is causing global warming which is causing climate change?

Sadly a lot of people do and that false narative is used to curtail use of domestically produced coal, oil and natural gas.


Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996.
---------------

Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
---------------------------

Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.

The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.

Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.
----------------------

Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.

The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.

 

[Coug]

The good ole USSA.

An American Oil Find That Holds More Oil Than All of OPEC - ABC News



God keeps on blessing us but we keep turning away and worshiping Gaia, claiming we are saving the Earth.

Get real people.

Oil shale is a different beast than crude oil.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Oil shale is a different beast than crude oil.

It is but once oil exceeds $70 a barrel it becomes a viable alternative

 

[gsvol]

Oil shale is a different beast than crude oil.

In the final analysis petroleum is petroleum is petroleum.

Oil shale may be more difficult to extract but that has nothing to do with quality.

FWIW Saudi Arabian crude (40% of American imports?) is some of the worst because of it's high sulpher content.

And it isn't just a question of American resources all being shale oil, we have vast untapped resourses in Alaska, off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico.

If the objection to the Canadian pipeline is crossing Nebraska then why not build a refinery on this side of the border?

Answer, ridiculous EPA regulations prevent new refineries being built and even some existing American refineries being closed down.

No doubt the Saudi princes and the idiotic treehuggers applaud all this but any thinking American has to see our energy policies as being stupid and idiotic on an epic scale.


Examples of lawlessness on part of the Obama Administration

How dare I call the EPA a rogue organization? It's director, Lisa Jackson decided to enforce a mandate that oil refiners blend cellulosic ethanol into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. There is one little problem though. It does not yet exist commercially. That is apparently of little concern to Lisa. The EPA fined refiners $6.8 million for not following their edict. They appealed her decision. She thanked them for their concern, but said the decision will stand, pay up!
------------------------

American oil refiners have been forced to spend money to sue the federal government for being forced to comply with an impossible edict, rather than focusing on creating jobs.
--------------------

Here are just a few of the power grabs that began as a trickle and have turned into an executive flood of circumvention, perhaps to become a full blown tidal wave by 2016:

(1) Circumventing Congress's refusal to pass the DREAM ACT by directing federal officers to no longer deport large groups of younger, illegal immigrants;

(2) stripping away a "central component" of the 1996 bipartisan Welfare Reform Act — that being the "work requirement" — by substituting "education programs" for those citizens to engage in while they enjoy their welfare benefits. This sends the wrong message and encourages growth of our "entitlement society";

(3) can't pass Cap and Trade, just have the EPA enforce something similar through unilateral regulations...

(4) when Congress was reluctant to take up Internet regulations through something called "net neutrality", our president's FCC took it on anyway;

(5) the Affordable Care Act, which has been cited as being a "mammoth legislative concession to executive branch lawmaking" — 2700 pages of incomprehensible directives and mandates, giving the HHS secretary unbelievable power in implementing the policy, including the religious mandate. Platoons of IRS agents will be summoned to go after those who are fined for non-compliance.

There are many, many more examples of lawlessness, but this is enough for one letter. Suffice to say, these actions and others have already caused hundreds of employers to lay off employees, cut back on full-time workers and put growth and entrepreneurship on the back burner for who knows how long?

How is it that so many people voted to keep Barack Obama on for four more years to complete his progressive transformation of a, soon to be, once proud Republic?

No doubt, some of those folks would be the same ones who refuse to believe our president detests the fact that our Constitution is a document of limiting powers.

Just how much more evidence does anyone need?

 

[Carl Pickens]

In the final analysis petroleum is petroleum is petroleum.

Oil shale may be more difficult to extract but that has nothing to do with quality.

FWIW Saudi Arabian crude (40% of American imports?) is some of the worst because of it's high sulpher content.

And it isn't just a question of American resources all being shale oil, we have vast untapped resourses in Alaska, off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico.

If the objection to the Canadian pipeline is crossing Nebraska then why not build a refinery on this side of the border?

Answer, ridiculous EPA regulations prevent new refineries being built and even some existing American refineries being closed down.

No doubt the Saudi princes and the idiotic treehuggers applaud all this but any thinking American has to see our energy policies as being stupid and idiotic on an epic scale.


Examples of lawlessness on part of the Obama Administration

Why is it that this type of info never reaches the general public? It blows my mind because even the average democrat/liberal would be pissed off by this

 

[PKT_VOL]

Do you believe the notion that CO2 is causing global warming which is causing climate change?

Sadly a lot of people do and that false narative is used to curtail use of domestically produced coal, oil and natural gas.


Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

Two indisputable facts:

1) Climate change is real.

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

What is not clear is how much of climate change is due to human action.

 

[gsvol]

Why is it that this type of info never reaches the general public? It blows my mind because even the average democrat/liberal would be pissed off by this

I do my best to present the factoids.

Consider the latest tropical storm to hit NJ, there was the same sort of event in 1788 probalby only worse, trees were uprooted by winds well into Pennsylvania, there is no data anywhere that indicates more or less hurricanes due to global temperature.

Two indisputable facts:

1) Climate change is real.

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

What is not clear is how much of climate change is due to human action.

1. Climate change is real only in the sense that climate has been changing since the dawn of time and will continue to do so no matter what we do.

2. CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas because it doesn't have any affect on atmospheric temperatures no matter what you have been told. It is related to global temperatue only in that when the planet warms, CO2 levels rise and when the planet cools, CO2 levels fall, this is a scientific fact that has held true for 450,000 years and I don't expect that to change.

About a thousand years ago it was 3 to 4 degrees warmer than now and that was a great time for man and beast and all plant life and there were no dire consequences from climate change.

At most man has less than one half of one percent to do with global warming or cooling, what isn't clear is what motivates a lot of these people to lie about the facts.

"Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Maurice Strong father of the IPCC

What does cause very dire climate change are the ice ages, we should be studying what may be their cause and if there is anything we can possibly do to avoid or delay the next one or prepare to survive an ice age and we are about due for another one if history is any indicator.

BTW, the onset of major ice ages may occur within the short span of about twenty years and last for thusands of years.

PS; Last time around the alarmists and the meglomaniac power hungry fools that back them claimed that human released CO2 was going to cause an ice age and that wasn't hard to believe for anyone who experienced the winter of '51 but eventually the theory was debunked, primarily because the Earth entered a warming trend, now that earth's temperature hasn't warmed in 16 years the talk is all about climate change.

How does CO2 bring about climate change if it doesn't cause global warming and if the globe isn't warming what's all the fuss about?

Your "Two indisputable facts" have all the strength of a wet noodle in a sword fight.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Two indisputable facts:

1) Climate change is real.

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

What is not clear is how much of climate change is due to human action.

Hahahahahahaha....you still don't get it? You were lied to by the libs young man...nature is cyclical....and the tooth fairy isn't coming. Were you the last kid on your block to still believe in Santa??? Don't be the last kid to believe in man made global warming bro....Al Gore is laughing at you...LOL

 

[PKT_VOL]

1. Climate change is real only in the sense that climate has been changing since the dawn of time and will continue to do so no matter what we do.

I'm glad you understood the first statement.

2. CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas because it doesn't have any affect on atmospheric temperatures no matter what you have been told. It is related to global temperatue only in that when the planet warms, CO2 levels rise and when the planet cools, CO2 levels fall, this is a scientific fact that has held true for 450,000 years and I don't expect that to change.

About a thousand years ago it was 3 to 4 degrees warmer than now and that was a great time for man and beast and all plant life and there were no dire consequences from climate change.

At most man has less than one half of one percent to do with global warming or cooling, what isn't clear is what motivates a lot of these people to lie about the facts.

"Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Maurice Strong father of the IPCC

What does cause very dire climate change are the ice ages, we should be studying what may be their cause and if there is anything we can possibly do to avoid or delay the next one or prepare to survive an ice age and we are about due for another one if history is any indicator.

BTW, the onset of major ice ages may occur within the short span of about twenty years and last for thusands of years.

PS; Last time around the alarmists and the meglomaniac power hungry fools that back them claimed that human released CO2 was going to cause an ice age and that wasn't hard to believe for anyone who experienced the winter of '51 but eventually the theory was debunked, primarily because the Earth entered a warming trend, now that earth's temperature hasn't warmed in 16 years the talk is all about climate change.

How does CO2 bring about climate change if it doesn't cause global warming and if the globe isn't warming what's all the fuss about?

Your "Two indisputable facts" have all the strength of a wet noodle in a sword fight.

I said nothing about how much CO2 it would take to make X degree of change. I also said nothing about how human CO2 has caused climate change.

I merely stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That was it. No matter how much you ramble, that is an indisputable fact.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Hahahahahahaha....you still don't get it? You were lied to by the libs young man...nature is cyclical....and the tooth fairy isn't coming. Were you the last kid on your block to still believe in Santa??? Don't be the last kid to believe in man made global warming bro....Al Gore is laughing at you...LOL

1) You made my point for me with the bolded part.

2) The rest of your post is utterly embarrassing. You are too dumb to realize that you agreed with me then ripped me for my opinion (thus, in turn, ripping yourself in a proxy manner). Kudos to for pulling that off.

 

[gsvol]

I'm glad you understood the first statement.



I said nothing about how much CO2 it would take to make X degree of change. I also said nothing about how human CO2 has caused climate change.

I merely stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That was it. No matter how much you ramble, that is an indisputable fact.

You are merely using clever rhetoric that allows the tooth fairy scenario to continue.

You imply that CO2 does cause climate change and you imply that humans (especially Americans) are the cause.

10x CO2 doesn't change the equation.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas only if you claim that every element in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas.

Why do the alarmist environmentalists oppose using nuclear energy if the motive isn't the deindustrialization of America?

Why would our own government do it's best to prevent the harvest of domestic oil, coal and gas yet put up ten billion $$ to back a Soros company drilling for oil off the coast of Brazil in very very deep water if there isn't an anti-American agenda?

Why would Obama put comestic coal fired electrical plants out of business but not oppose the 10,000 proposed coal/electrical plants in other countries?

Why is it that we are effectively putting to an end the use of coal in America which produces 50% of our energy but allow the shipment of 100 million tons of coal to China, a country to which we owe a significant amount and with which we have a significant trade deficit?

Clue for the clueless, making ourselves poor will NOT make anyone else rich.

Your claims about CO2 are merely a smokescreen designed to hide the truth concerning energy issues.

 

[therealUT]

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

What, exactly, do you hope this chart does for you?

You do understand that no one who believes in global warming and climate change believes that it can or will be mapped on a perfect slope, right?

On the contrary, they believe that global warming and climate change involve incremental fluctuations in temperatures over a vast span of time, which are graphed as sloping sawtooths.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You are merely using clever rhetoric that allows the tooth fairy scenario to continue.

I am not. I stated two clear and concise facts. You are the one rambling.

You imply that CO2 does cause climate change and you imply that humans (especially Americans) are the cause.

I said CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Now, one can add that given enough CO2 or methane (another greenhouse gas) climate change of a certain variety can happen. I have no idea how much of each it would take given other certain climate conditions remain the same.

10x CO2 doesn't change the equation.

That is ridiculous. Climate change is extremely complex. To say that one component being changed by ten fold won't change the equation is absurd. I am not saying that it would change the equation much, but saying that it won't change the equation at all is utterly disingenuous.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas only if you claim that every element in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas.

Some are, some aren't.

Why is it that we are effectively putting to an end the use of coal in America which produces 50% of our energy but allow the shipment of 100 million tons of coal to China, a country to which we owe a significant amount and with which we have a significant trade deficit?

Clue for the clueless, making ourselves poor will NOT make anyone else rich.

You oppose exporting anything? What is wrong with exporting coal?

 

[gsvol]

I am not. I stated two clear and concise facts. You are the one rambling.

Don't be such a troll.

You say they are facts, I say they are fairy dust.

To imply your so-called facts are reason to oppose domestic harvesting of oil, gas and coal is inimical to rational thought.

I said CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Now, one can add that given enough CO2 or methane (another greenhouse gas) climate change of a certain variety can happen. I have no idea how much of each it would take given other certain climate conditions remain the same.

Methane is a greenhouse gas, CO2 isn't.

Show me any study that proves CO2 to be a greenhouse gas, every theoretical conclusion inicating that it is has been scientifically proven to be false.

Science has no idea really how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere or absorbed back into the oceans and consumed by plant life each year but we do know that CO2 emitted by human activity is only about 0.03% of the total, not enough to make any real difference.

That is ridiculous. Climate change is extremely complex. To say that one component being changed by ten fold won't change the equation is absurd. I am not saying that it would change the equation much, but saying that it won't change the equation at all is utterly disingenuous.

That's a fact.

Study the history of CO2 levels back far enough and you will find my statement to be true.

Some are, some aren't.

Then Co2 isn't as proven by CERN. In their atmosphereic chamber various levels of CO2 made no observable difference in temperature.

You oppose exporting anything? What is wrong with exporting coal?

No problem with exporting coal, no reason to shut down domestic coal use.

Stopping of the use of coal in America while exporting to China is suicidal economically and makes no logical sense.

My point is this, if we are afraid the use of coal will lead to catastropic climate change, then why allow it to be exported.

Does that make sense to you?

therealUT

1. What, exactly, do you hope this chart does for you?

2. You do understand that no one who believes in global warming and climate change believes that it can or will be mapped on a perfect slope, right?

3. On the contrary, they believe that global warming and climate change involve incremental fluctuations in temperatures over a vast span of time, which are graphed as sloping sawtooths.

1. It shows the alarmist's claims don't hold water.

2. Yes.

3. If that were the case then they would look back at least a thousand years and more instead of only showing data from when we came out of the little ice age until now. Instead they want to focus on only a relatively short period of time and then sound the alarm, silly really, as is anyone who buys their propaganda.

Just because the Earth has been naturally warming since the little ice age and that coincides with the industrial revolution doesn't mean that the industrial revolution caused global warming.

There, I can't put it any simpler than that.

 

[therealUT]

1. It shows the alarmist's claims don't hold water.

It actually does not. It does not make the case for the "alarmists" but anyone with knowledge of analyzing peaks and troughs can see that the graph suggests an upward trend.

2. Yes.

3. If that were the case then they would look back at least a thousand years and more instead of only showing data from when we came out of the little ice age until now. Instead they want to focus on only a relatively short period of time and then sound the alarm, silly really, as is anyone who buys their propaganda.

Are you faulting the scientists for not having data from thousands of years ago? The short time span for their plotted data points is due to the fact that these things have only been measured and recorded for a short time span. They have models and they rely on archaeological testimony for what temperatures might have been thousands of years ago; but, the predictive models, as I understand them, are based on the solid data points.

Just because the Earth has been naturally warming since the little ice age and that coincides with the industrial revolution doesn't mean that the industrial revolution caused global warming.

I agree.

 

[SWIL]

Vast oil reserves can be both a blessing and a curse; just ask our friends in the middle east.

As the demand for oil has grown exponentially over the past 50 years, they've consistently been a lightning rod for international conflict. Of course there are other factors at play here, but make no mistake, these recent wars have been waged to lay claim to the black stuff.

My point here is to ask: will the US be the new lightning rod 50 years down the road - once middle eastern reserves are depleted?