[Vision2020] megaloads

[Ted Moffett]

The Bakken North Dakota et. al. oil you referenced, has currently
estimated reserves of 3.65 billion barrels (
http://www.oilshalegas.com/bakkenshale.html ), though this estimate
may increase; but still a small fraction of the size of the Canadian
tar sands proven reserves.

Of course with oil recently over 100 dollars a barrel, 3.65 billion of
them is not chump change.

Canadian proven oil reserves, which is mostly from the tar sands, is
currently listed as the second largest proven oil reserve in the world
by nation (175 billion barrels), second only to Saudi Arabia (264
billion barrels), according to 2010 estimates from the CIA:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html

It is obvious that Canada represents the largest secure and close
source of oil for the US, given global proven reserves.  Other nations
also want Canadian tar sands oil.  The race is on!

Note the US is 14th on the CIA list, with a mere 19 billion barrels of
proven reserves.  This fact coupled with rates of US oil consumption
(2009 CIA estimate US daily oil consumption at number one in the world
among nations: 18,690,000 barrels:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world
factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html ) indicates the US cannot "drill baby
drill" its way to oil independence, at least not with current proven
US reserves and our fantastic rate of consumption.

The ANWR Alaskan oil reserves are potentially 10 billion barrels (
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/execsummary.html
), small compared to Canadian tar sands reserves.  There is
potentially undiscovered recoverable outer continental shelf oil, some
of which is in Canadian waters (
http://www.boemre.gov/revaldiv/RedNatAssessment.htm ), of an average
estimate of 85.9 billion barrels, which is still well below Canadian
tar sands reserves.

But the US has oil shale deposits in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado, the
Green River formation et. al., that if shown to be commercially
recoverable, could place the US as having the largest oil reserves in
the world by nation.  It is seriously debated that this US resource
will ever be commercially developed on a large scale, for a number of
reasons.

But if the US does not kick the oil addiction, with new technology
possibly rendering development of this massive deposit more feasable,
I wonder?  This resource might push the peak-oil crisis a bit further
into the future for the US.  But given global oil consumption will
increase significantly in coming decades (
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/oil_quench.html ), the
days of cheap oil are probably over, even with developing all possible
sources, given current energy consumption patterns.

Coal gasification or to liquids and natural gas are other fossil fuel
options to oil, with the US possessing the world's largest coal
reserves and large natural gas reserves.  Why the US does not use more
natural gas for cars and trucks is a good question.   The Pickens
Plan, with natural gas, solar and wind as solutions to US oil
dependence, is not receiving the support it requires. Pickens is a
Texas oil billionaire republican Bush supporter who appears serious
about the US quickly ending its dependence on oil, though it's hard to
square his history with his energy plan (
http://www.hcn.org/wotr/don2019t-trust-this-texas-billionaire ):
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan

It is rather obvious that there are numerous energy/technology
solutions both fossil fuel and alternative that are not being expanded
at the rate required to avoid high energy costs from dependence on oil
in a world of increasing consumption and more expensive extraction...
And that there are those in positions of great economic and political
power who benefit from not promoting massive expansion of energy
alternatives to oil.

Article below on the feasibility of developing the gigantic shale
deposits in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado:

"Is Oil Shale America's Answer to Peak-Oil Challenge?"

http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf

A quote from the article:

"More than 700 billion barrels of US oil shale resource occurs in
concentrations richer than currently produced Alberta tar sand."
-----------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 5/22/11, Janesta <janesta at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why bother with Tar Sands?
>
> Money ~ Pink Floyd
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkhX5W7JoWI
>
> Janesta
>
>
> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 4:01 PM, bill bonte <bbonte at palouse.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello Visionaries,
>>
>> I have been sitting here for the past several months, trying to understand
>> the megaloads question.
>> I understand that the governor and the political establishment in Boise
>> are
>> all for the shipment of megaloads and more through Idaho by any route. I
>> understand that the Port of Lewiston will make money on the deal.
>>
>> Beyond that, I don't understand who benefits from this deal.  It seems
>> like
>> an overwhelming negative, fraught with problems for just about everyone
>> and
>> everywhere they pass.  Who is making money on this deal?  That's what I
>> want
>> to know.  Why isn't there universal outrage?
>>
>> By the way, there is an oil boom in North Dakota.  Evidently proven
>> reserves rival Iraq.  Why, then bother with tar sands?  Link to oil boom :
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703795004575087623756596514.html
>>
>> Bill Bonte
>> Moscow, ID
>>
>>