The Bakken shale formation in North Dakota holds up to 167 billion barrels of oil with over 1 percent being recoverable using current technologies.The new study released Monday said 2.1 billion barrels of oil presently are recoverable in North Dakota's portion of the shale formation, where oil-producing rock is sandwiched between layers of shale about 10,000 feet underground. The estimates included in the study by the state department of mineral resources are very similar to those of a federal study released earlier this month.
Ah, yes, North Dakota.
As soon as neocons are through conquering North Dakota they'll be able to shift their military machine to the likes of Alaska, Idaho, and Wyoming; perhaps even California and the Florida Gulf Coast too. With luck they'll defeat the latte liberal insurgencies and impose their totalitarian political systems, thereby maximizing their imperial bloodlust for oil and other raw materials. Wealthy leftists will be left clinging to their bottles of Skyy and Grey Goose.
It's the very definition of "nation building."
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Business, Money, Oil, Politics
Comments (8)
Heh. :-)North Dak... (Below threshold)1. Posted by synova | April 28, 2008 4:52 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Heh. :-)
North Dakota is one of the world's nuclear powers.
Good luck with the imperialism, dudes.
1. Posted by synova | April 28, 2008 4:52 PM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on April 28, 2008 16:52
2. Posted by COgirl | April 28, 2008 5:28 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Not sure the technology is really economic, however. It's tough to extract the oil from shale. Besides, the environmental whackos will never go for anything that might help reduce prices at the pump today. It'll take 15 years at least to bring a project like this to market IMHO. That's 7 years to get it through Congress/Washington and the rest of the time to build the pipelines and all the facilities.
If the politicians really cared about lower gas prices, they'd have approved ANWR 5 years ago and there's an outside chance we'd see the oil come to market in a few years. Too late now.
2. Posted by COgirl | April 28, 2008 5:28 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on April 28, 2008 17:28
3. Posted by COgirl | April 28, 2008 5:31 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Oh, and FWIW, the 2 technologies I'm aware of are:
1. Mine and grind the rock and use a centrifuge to extract the oil.
2. In-situ technology still being developed. You drill, heat the bore hole so that the oil can more easily be pumped out. I believe Shell is working on this technology now.
3. Posted by COgirl | April 28, 2008 5:31 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on April 28, 2008 17:31
4. Posted by David | April 28, 2008 7:13 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
If you read the linked article there are dozens of wells that are already producing, which surpised me.
4. Posted by David | April 28, 2008 7:13 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on April 28, 2008 19:13
5. Posted by The Whistler | April 28, 2008 7:25 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
The paleocons are already here guys. :)
COGirl, regarding ANWR, Bill Clinton vetoed a bill that would have allowed drilling there in 1995. I understand that there is about a million barrels a day capacity in the Alaskan pipeline.
If nothing else at $120 barrel we'd have nearly 44 Billion dollars less money leaving the country to buy oil.
How much would that help the economy?
5. Posted by The Whistler | April 28, 2008 7:25 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on April 28, 2008 19:25
6. Posted by hcddbz | April 28, 2008 7:26 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
I wonder if the us stated that we were going to approve all drilling permits if that would not have an immediate affect on oil prices.
We have a number of actors one is speculation, the other is the price of the dollar. Both of these are affected by confidence rather than supply.
SO if the US stated we were going to have stable supply oil within our borders and we would also refine all our own gas. (we import 66 million gallons gasolines) It might have an immediate affect prices.
Largest consumer of oil is the US. Followed by China. It it our National interest to secure oil and work toward advances that reduce consumption through real technology.(chemistry, psychics ) not green bs.
6. Posted by hcddbz | April 28, 2008 7:26 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on April 28, 2008 19:26
7. Posted by 2klbofun | April 28, 2008 9:35 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Yes, there are technologies being developed to heat the oil in-situ in the shale formations. The current technology uses electric heaters drilled into the formation in a matrix pattern. The formation is then heated to ~650F over a period of 6 - 12 months. The irony -- likely the most cost effective way to produce the electricity for a large shale field: nuclear power.
So, we'll build a nuke plant to provide the power to extract hydrocarbons!
7. Posted by 2klbofun | April 28, 2008 9:35 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on April 28, 2008 21:35
8. Posted by JLawson | April 29, 2008 7:19 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
I'm sure there will be some 'endangered' species found that will be used as a reason to block drilling. Perhaps the North Dakota Iceworm?
8. Posted by JLawson | April 29, 2008 7:19 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on April 29, 2008 07:19