Billions of Barrels of Oil May Lie Under Northern Plains

nytimes.com/2008/04/11/us/11oil.html?em&ex=1208059200&en=070c095a22369c8d&ei=5087%0A

Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota and the person who requested the survey, said the oil resources should attract more investment to his state and make the United States “marginally” less dependent on foreign oil.

“The technology always improves and advances,” Mr. Dorgan said, “so there’s probably much more recoverable in the future.”

The United States uses about seven billion barrels of oil a year.
The survey reveals a 25-fold increase from the last United States Geological Survey assessment of the Bakken Formation in 1995, which estimated that 151 million barrels could be extracted. Richard M. Pollastro, a research geologist with the agency who led the assessment, attributed the change to advances in drilling technology and an improved understanding of the formation’s geology.

Hmm…despite the words from Byron Dorgan, who wants to place bets on whether the Democrats will vote for drilling in North Dakota?

Well, if they do not drill it in a few years, it will be available after the advent of peak oil. Not drilling it is somewhat similar with hoarding. BTW, how much oil can this provide the US? How long will this oil last us? I do think humanity can solve the energy crisis given enough time. It is somewhat similar to Yu-Gi-Oh! episodes I have watched earlier when Yugi played “Swords of Revealing Light” to stall (it prevents an oppenent from attacking from 3 turns) and draws the correct cards to win. Will we draw the correct cards, or will humanity get shorted (die-off). Unfortunately, I think a die-off scenario is a realistic possibility especially in underdeveloped countries. Moreover, solar technology doesn’t seem quite developed. I am worried about the short supply of the requisite silicon, and the I do not like the material the thin-film technology is made out of; tellurium (First Solar) and indium (Nanosolar) are rather rare.

Rig, I’m not taking that bet…Roanoker

Let Saudi Arabia run out of oil first.

Well, based on the article, let’s do some complex math…:stuck_out_tongue:

4.2 Billion/7 Billion = less than 1 year.

But, that isn’t the point. You mentioned Saudi Arabia in your other post. About 11% of the oil we use comes from the Middle East. Most of our oil comes from the Americas. If the Democrats would quit obstructing the use of our natural resources, we could drill ANWR and this new found reserve and it would help quite a bit while other technologies mature.

Yeah, I am not really excited and I didn’t even read the article. This news does not allow me to shake off the possibility of a die-off.

www.dieoff.org

If a die-off happens, everything that I believe in will mean nothing. And we could argue about how the Democrats refused to drill for oil and how Republicans did not fund alternative energy research before we starve to death.

Trust in the Lord Ribozyme. We won’t starve to death…unless it is God’s will…in which case, I hope you are ready. Personally, I believe that technological answers are a lot closer than people think.

Here…to brighten your day, I offer you a report about one of the companies I represent.
eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=QNE3SGFBRLT0YQSNDLSCKHA?articleID=206801669

It seems to put this in a broader perspective, the news about the Bakken formation seems to only make it a minor detour to the road to Olduvai Gorge. But if the worst case scenario happens, do not worry about me because I have a plan to avoid all that suffering. But do worry about the notion of “social justice” of being rendered meaningless. What good is “social justice” when it is not possible to feed everyone or prevent poverty? It is an empty concept when the world reverts humanity back to equilibrium -below the natural carrying capacity.

But if the Olduvai theory were correct, it would have been better in retrospect if my parents aborted me. At least, I will not observe the disastrous consequences of the hubris of *Homo sapiens *for misusing the intellect it evolved by ignoring the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. But Homo sapiens did not primarily evolve their intellect to make accurate observations about the world, but such an intellect was a means that give it an advantage in propagating its genes. Please *Homo sapiens *please… develop the technology to take advantage of the proton-proton chain reactions occurring 93 million miles away. Well, it couldn’t be done here because the initial step of that reaction occurs slowly.

The human species may be seen as having evolved in the service of entropy, and it cannot be expected to outlast the dense accumulations of energy that have helped define its niche. Human beings like to believe they are in control of their destiny, but when the history of life on Earth is seen in perspective, the evolution of Homo sapiens is merely a transient episode that acts to redress the planet’s energy balance

dieoff.org/

And a link to the Olduvai paper:

dieoff.org/page224.htm

But why should the human species be confined to the supply of oil available on Earth? Why not make it rely on the almost unlimited amount of protons at the heart of Sol? Such an energy source is practically unlimited (although it is impossible to beat the two laws.)

:yawn:

The only thing I agree with in the quote you provided is this:

Human beings like to believe they are in control of their destiny

We aren’t. I am concerned about your posts, as they are becoming more and more nihilistic. I was that way when I was 12 (too much Sartre). I pray that the Lord will help you understand His will, and that you will be open to the signs.

Seriously, why should I care about “social justice”? I am a utilitarian, but I do not know what exactly “utility” is. However, Karl Popper tried to phrase the question differently: he tried to formulate our demands negatively. (This is similiar to the process of falsification in science) We ask ourselves what isn’t utility. I suppose people starving to death and poverty isn’t compatible with a utilitarian ethic. My defnition of social justice is the lack of poverty. Ask yourself what good is charity if we do not have the means to feed people and prevent their suffering? Social justice is meaningless if we lack the means to prevent suffering and poverty.

But without energy how can we power a managerial state? If this cannot be done, social justice is meaningless.

I prefer the old Adam of strife and carnage to the new Prometheus of peace and human rights. Better a world torn apart by Husseins and Qaddafis, better a war to the knife between the PLO and the Likud Party, between Zulus and Afrikaaners, than a world run by George Balls and Dag Hammarskjölds, because a world made safe for democracy is a world in which no one dares to raise his voice for fear that mommy will put you away some place where you can be reeducated

It is from the Wikipedia entry of managerial state. I guess, we will start destroying ourselves in a zero-sum game from the natural resources left on this hellhole. I guess the world will realize the democracy and human rights are simply rhetoric in zero-sum games. Unfortunately, it seems likely that we will have that scenario envisioned in the aforementioned quote.

Even if there is near as much oil the U.S. has few refineries and the oil most likely leaves the Country. That would hinder the lowering of the price of gasoline and the availability.

Never know though. If we become desperate enough we will be seeing refineries going up almost “overnight.”

Not with Democrats in charge…

So you are going to play partisan politics now?

Alternative energy should be the highest priority now. I wish the next President would raise taxes and CUT entitlement programs to found solar R&D, pay off the debt to China (thank you Republicans and Bush for this) and form a new energy infrastructure. Are you happy Norquist?.. the beast is starving

Strange things that a liberal would say.

I’m not playing partisan politics. It is a simple fact that Democrats are against drilling for more oil and they oppose new refineries. You mentioned the building of refineries. :shrug:

Alternative energy is coming along just fine. However, it won’t reach fruition in time to fulfill all of our energy needs.

Forming or researching for new energy infrastructure is important if we want to seek to be energy independent. However, oil is still cheap. There is no real incentive to find other energy alternatives. Rising tax ain’t gonna do it. You sound like a socialist.

So you are against raising taxes, but you do not care about cutting social programs. I guess you care more about the poor hedge fund managers instead of the poor people. Why didn’t you object with cutting social programs?

This is a problem that needs to be adressed or else…

Well, in my last post, it shows that I do not adhere to an ideology dogmatically. I am willing to cut social programs during times of crisis, but you are unwilling to raise taxes calling it socialism. But, I always loathed ideology and religious faith because I prefer pragmatism.

I am willing to give up such ideology when it threatens itself. I remember reading *The Singularity is Near *and Citizen Cyborg which are books about transhumanism. (Kurzweil makes some weird predictions that I do not believe, and I do not consider him to be a “rational” person when he discusses certain topics.) I used to fervently believe in such a philosophy because I was convinced that the advancement of technology can fulfill the utilitarian ethic by eliminating poverty, reduce suffering, and enlightening the citizens of the world. If we run out of energy, such dreams would not be fulfilled. The thoughts about peak oil make me extremely nihilistic as faith that technology will rectify social injustice will be sundered. It also makes me ask why I should even bother living if those hopes go up in a conflagration.

So you are for raising taxes and giving them to the poor? So you are willing to take my hard earned money and give it to someone who has no job or makes barely enough to survive? That my friend is socialism. The reason why we have people in social funded programs, is because as a country, we allow it to happen. The government says, “it is okay let me take care of you.” They say, “there are alot of people who make more money then they need. Let me take it from them and give it to you.” That is what the 2 dem. candidates are saying. That is socialism, and you want that. But then again, you tink the government owes you something.

I am a utilitarian and as a utilitarian I do believe the government should expend resources to prevent suffering. But I use a utilitarian moral framework because I rejected the notion of a benevolent God because of the potent problem of evil argument.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.