Link?

 

Do you remember what was written on the side of the float at the end of Animal House?

Clyde, honestly I'm tired of arguing with you about this, you either believe it or you don't and I don't have the time to deal with it. You picked one source out of four and found an article on the always reliable internet. I guess time will tell.

 

 

I can find links all day to debunk the myth you bought into. How many do you need?

 

I've never had an argument where a guy cites a source and then says the source is not credible because they posted their findings on the web. Beautiful.

Edited August 27, 201214 yr by Clyde

Clyde, your articles are from 2008. If you go back to the early 1400's you will find articles saying the world is flat.

 

Here's an article from 2012 that states a much higher number and even states its a conservative estimate due to technology changes.

 

Bakken Reassessed by U.S. Geological Survey | KULR-8 News, Sports, Weather | - Billings, MontanaLocal Coupons | Local Top Stories

Clyde, your articles are from 2008. If you go back to the early 1400's you will find articles saying the world is flat.

 

Here's an article from 2012 that states a much higher number and even states its a conservative estimate due to technology changes.

 

Bakken Reassessed by U.S. Geological Survey | KULR-8 News, Sports, Weather | - Billings, MontanaLocal Coupons | Local Top Stories

 

 

So I've quoted the last estimate given.

 

Let's agree that the new assessment finds more. Do you really think it's going to 400M or whatever crazy number your guy gave you?

Do you remember what was written on the side of the float at the end of Animal House?

I do. I had a 1978 Thunderbird that had that same inscription after I wrecked it.

I'm no specialists on links, but it looks like Corleone's latest link debunks your debunking link Clyde. Do you have a redebunking link that is more current that Corleone's?

I'm no specialists on links, but it looks like Corleone's latest link debunks your debunking link Clyde. Do you have a redebunking link that is more current that Corleone's?

 

That's what you read? They didn't list a number. MC claimed initially that there would be enough to end foreign dependency. You got that out of the link that said a study is in progress? Really? What did I miss? A guy shows up with a powerpoint presentation and that is gospel?

IF you'll look at the link in post 13 you will see that an independent oil and gas exploration company estimated that the USGS was low and it COULD be as high as 24B. 24B - not 500B as claimed in the original debunked story that all of these "experts" are using.

That's what you read? They didn't list a number. MC claimed initially that there would be enough to end foreign dependency. You got that out of the link that said a study is in progress? Really? What did I miss? A guy shows up with a powerpoint presentation and that is gospel?

 

 

Actually I think you 2 are straight up comedy.

 

Here's what I read that I thought was important.

 

"This is the largest field ever found in America ever," Hamm said. "It's bigger than Prudhoe Bay. Our estimate is that it holds 24 billion barrels recoverable, and we think that's a conservative number. We think that will prove to be on the low side of what we really do get out of it."

In 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Bakken formation could have up to 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil. But they've sent a team of geologists and geochemists back to the Bakken to study rock samples from previous drillings. They normally reassess oil formations after about 10 years, but the Bakken isn't a typical oil formation.

 

 

IF you'll look at the link in post 13 you will see that an independent oil and gas exploration company estimated that the USGS was low and it COULD be as high as 24B. 24B - not 500B as claimed in the original debunked story that all of these "experts" are using.

So, it's not the 400billion, but it's not the 4billion that USGS has to rebut because they miscalculated. I guess my question now is this, is it insignificant, or not?

If the USGS says 4 billion, then 4 years later says nope, 24 billion, what will they say in 4 more years? (no this isn't an algebra problem, it's hypothetical)

Let's all remember this. With our current rough number of 6.5B barrels of oil consumption per year there is no way in hell Bakken will allow us to be energy independent.

If the USGS says 4 billion, then 4 years later says nope, 24 billion, what will they say in 4 more years? (no this isn't an algebra problem, it's hypothetical)

 

Let's play along with that game.

 

The initial post I responded to by MC said it's a fact that we can be energy independent. How many barrels would have to be found in order for that to be true using 6.5B annual barrels consumed by the US?

So, it's not the 400billion, but it's not the 4billion that USGS has to rebut because they miscalculated. I guess my question now is this, is it insignificant, or not?

 

How do we know it's going to be much more than their initial estimate?

Actually I think you 2 are straight up comedy.

 

Here's what I read that I thought was important.

 

"This is the largest field ever found in America ever," Hamm said. "It's bigger than Prudhoe Bay. Our estimate is that it holds 24 billion barrels recoverable, and we think that's a conservative number. We think that will prove to be on the low side of what we really do get out of it."

In 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Bakken formation could have up to 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil. But they've sent a team of geologists and geochemists back to the Bakken to study rock samples from previous drillings. They normally reassess oil formations after about 10 years, but the Bakken isn't a typical oil formation.

 

 

 

 

Again, show me how we should believe it's a FACT that we can be energy independent. Pure fantasy based off of a bad scientist.