I'm certainly no expert on how much that will help the environment. My uneducated guess is the less we have used in the States the better we will be environmentally.

 

I agree with your earlier statement that the mining of coal is an environmental issue. If it must be mined (debatable), I would rather we consume it in our systems that have considerable investment in capture of the carbons and particulate rather than in India and China who have dubious at best environmental records. Their pollution affects our environment and climate.

First, 24B is NOT the number. We won't know the number until 2013.

 

But let's play that game and use that number. If we keep our consumption the same as 2010 (probably will go up when the economy gets going but....) 24B is 3 years.

 

How many barrels do you think the number would have to be if we use 7B annually? Remember, it's not 24B per year. It's not 24B every 5 years. It's (maybe) 24B TOTAL.

 

Would we need to see that number at 350B? 700B?

I used 24B because it was posted in this thread. That number could be 100B or 500B or 2B. You don't know, I don't know, and it doesn't look like the USGS knows.

I'm all for govt $$ being spent in conjunction with private $$ in order to help the country as a whole. This particular issue is worth using tax dollars IMO.

 

However, we can't do it just in the name of $$. I have real concerns about fracking (key strategy being used to get that number higher) on our water supply and ultimately our health. It has to be done the right way.

 

Ultimately we need to get off of oil and due to us being ignorant as a public and due to influence in DC we are way behind in that area.

I disagree. The government should do what it can to encourage research but it should be driven by the private sector.

First of all I never once said the US would become independent on the Bakkan alone. Never, never, ever said that. The estimate I gave were for NORTH AMERICA not the Bakkan alone. Of course Clyde will probably post an article from 1995 to prove me wrong. Afterall he "can find links all day" from the 80's to debunk any myth.

I used 24B because it was posted in this thread. That number could be 100B or 500B or 2B. You don't know, I don't know, and it doesn't look like the USGS knows.

 

While technically it's true that "I don't know" there is no way in hell the USGS is going from 3.5B to 500B or 100B.

So we shouldn't use it?

 

If I had indicated anywhere in my posts in this thread that I was considering not using ANY of the Bakken oil then I could see that being a somewhat intelligent question.

Bitter pill that you expect an entire region to swallow. I see no reason that coal can't and won't be necessary for the remainder of my lifetime. And we don't have to rely on the world's largest sandbox to acquire it.

 

It is a bitter pill. I expect them to fight it. I probably would as well if it was my main source of income.

 

You could be right on the necessity of it. I'd be nervous, though, if I counted on it to live.

I disagree. The government should do what it can to encourage research but it should be driven by the private sector.

 

Semantics. The govt needs to be involved in some manner.

There is enough oil in North Dakota an Montana to make the US energy independent within 5 years. But for some reason we are not tapping it to the extent we could. To me that's criminal.

 

First of all I never once said the US would become independent on the Bakkan alone.

 

Come on. Of course you were referring to Bakken.

If I had indicated anywhere in my posts in this thread that I was considering not using ANY of the Bakken oil then I could see that being a somewhat intelligent question.

 

WOW condescending much?

WOW condescending much?

 

It was a silly question. At least when I infer something from a post there is at least some basis.

 

What did I say that you might infer what you did?

You're right, silly, silly me.

 

 

Again condescending much?

You're right, silly, silly me.

 

 

Again condescending much?

 

Again, I asked a simple question and this is how you respond?

While we're playing "pull a number out of thin air" let's do this.

 

Let's all agree that the world class economist has inside info and the number is indeed 500B.

 

So what?

 

You think that oil is staying in the US?

 

You do know that the companies that contracted with the proposed XL pipeline had contracts for 2/3s of it to go overseas, right?

 

So tell me how we can guarantee that oil stays in the US?

I did something today I had not done since 2007.....put $100 in the tank. And in 2007 I did that in Chicago.

 

I just did that today in Lexington.

 

Prices are as high as the spike of 2007 when the price of oil shot to $140. Its 'only' $96 right now.

 

Something is amiss. Not sure what but the historical oil/gas connection has disconnected or there is a new connection and is supposed to be the new normal.