GAO: Recoverable Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming 'About Equal to Entire World’s Proven Oil Reserves'

(CNSNews.com) - The Green River Formation, a largely vacant area of mostly federal land that covers the territory where Colorado, Utah and Wyoming come together, contains about as much recoverable oil as all the rest the world’s proven reserves combined, an auditor from the Government Accountability Office told Congress on Thursday.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gao-recoverable-oil-colorado-utah-wyoming-about-equal-entire-world-s-proven-oil

I want to start by saying that I am not going to argue this right or wrong.

I couldn't help but notice the hair pulling, spitting and name calling in the

comments that came below it.  I live very near to the vast Oil Sand deposits

around Fort McMurray, Alberta and in fact used to actually live there.

When I was somewhat younger the vast amount of this oil was deemed to be

"unrecoverable".  What was meant was unrecoverable at the oil prices of the day.

As technology developed and the price of petroleum skyrocketed it became recoverable

in deed.  The activity affects everything around here one way or another and I am

some hundreds of miles away.  The point I want to make is as these formerly

marginal recovery methods come in to use they are found to have many unforseen

costs and unforseen consequences.  Some of these were forseen but dismissed as

being unimportant and then they came back to haunt us.  Things like the immense

requirements for clean water.  There are two really BIG rivers in northern Alberta,

the Peace and the Athabaska.  Nobody thought they wouldn't be able to provide all

the water needed.  Nobody thought the used water dumped back into the rivers would

bother anybody.  Well some of these things did not pan out.  The unavoidable and avoidable

environnmental costs are ....well lets say considerably more than we bargained for.

Developing these deposits has provided mega-barrels of oil and spun off a lot of economic

prosperity to this area and those surrounding, even raising property values in cities hundreds

of miles away.  Now we are starting to look at the cost.

My point is that Things In General almost always Cost More than their promoters are willing

to admit and the price of oil is not just payed at the pump.

Your Conservative-Liberal Left/Right Fellow Hobbyist;

dan

I still believe at this point we should be concentrating on reuseable and cheaper fuel alternatives. Right now the current oil reserves in the world is like a checking account in a bank. We're getting no interest on it when we should be looking at something that can give the world a benefit like a savings account. 

Bring on more electric cars and hopefully in the future a fuel resource that can be reliably produced, safely used, and put back into the system.

You know The Flintstones really had the whole thing beat.

The dinosaurs did the work BEFORE they were millions of years dead.

How come we can't go back to that kind of Good Olde Technology?

cheers

Originally Posted By Sigma One (13 MAY 2012 2:10pm)

I still believe at this point we should be concentrating on reuseable and cheaper fuel alternatives. Right now the current oil reserves in the world is like a checking account in a bank. We're getting no interest on it when we should be looking at something that can give the world a benefit like a savings account. 

 

Bring on more electric cars and hopefully in the future a fuel resource that can be reliably produced, safely used, and put back into the system.

Sounds like you're holding on a great idea.  Looking for investors?

Even ARAMCO argues that we've used only a fourth of oil that is available. Thus, claims of trillions of barrels of technically recoverable oil are all true.

The catch is that the energy returns for obtaining such resources are much higher. For example, the light oil from Texas is no longer readily accessible, and what we have is mostly medium and heavy oil, and these more more expensive to process. It gets worse when we look at non-conventional sources. Hence,

"The U.S. Has A Lot Of Shale-Oil. So?"

http://agonist.org/steve_hynd/20120513/the_u_s_has_a_lot_of_shale_oil_so

What makes matters worse is that we don't look at the production capacity involved. The rosiest estimate from the EIA (as reported by Citibank, I think) is that we're looking at an increase of 4 to 6 mb/d in oil production from the U.S. for the next two decades. What's not mentioned is that in order to maintain global economic growth (critical not just for the world but for the U.S., especially the middle class) we will need to increase consumption by around 2 mb/d per annum. Thus, what is obtained from U.S. non-conventional sources may be negated in only three years or so.

Overall, the IEA states that we should get a 9-pct increase in production for the next two decades from all oil and gas resources worldwide, which is fine, except that if energy consumption has to go up by around 2 pct a year to maintain global economic growth, then that production increase won't be enough. Another unfortunate point is that that 9-pct increase rests on the assumption that production from conventional sources won't follow historical flow rates and thus will simply flatten out. This is highly unlikely, given what happened to the U.S. in 1970 and to two-thirds of oil-producing countries, where oil production went down.

What we need is not non-conventional sources but trillions of barrels of light oil, and much of it nearer the surface, similar to that of Texas and Kuwait. Unfortunately, the "easy oil" is gone, which is why we are now resorting to shale, tar sands, and even heavy-sour oil from Manifa, and these will be much more expensive. Meanwhile, we need to expect global energy and resource demand to continue increasing, and probably at a faster rate given growing middle classes in BRIC and emerging markets (probably more than half of the world's population). And when conventional oil production starts dropping, as reported not just by the U.S. military and other sources (including top banks, financial companies dealing in the oil business, insurance and oil companies, and even the IEA) but ironically even the GAO back in 2007:

"Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production"

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-283

then we should not expect non-conventional oil production to make up for a decline in conventionals or meet growing energy demand.

Originally Posted By ralfy (10 JUN 2012 9:18am)

"The U.S. Has A Lot Of Shale-Oil. So?"

 

http://agonist.org/steve_hynd/20120513/the_u_s_has_a_lot_of_shale_oil_so

 

What makes matters worse is that we don't look at the production capacity involved. The rosiest estimate from the EIA (as reported by Citibank, I think) is that we're looking at an increase of 4 to 6 mb/d in oil production from the U.S. for the next two decades. What's not mentioned is that in order to maintain global economic growth (critical not just for the world but for the U.S., especially the middle class) we will need to increase consumption by around 2 mb/d per annum. Thus, what is obtained from U.S. non-conventional sources may be negated in only three years or so.

 

 

As I mentioned above it is all about dinosaurs.

cheers

What ralfy is assuming is that just because of growth in countries like China and India there has to be an accompanying shift in the supply curve of oil but that's not how it works.  Mere 'wanting' does not create shifts; it takes things like technology to accomplish that.  No, instead what will happen is that the 'quantity supplied' will increase with price (movement along the supply curve).  If you can't meet that price, you won't be in the market.  That's when suitable substitutes enter.  That 4 thousand dollar replacement battery for an electric car every four years starts looking very tempting.

US could outproduce Russia, Saudi Arabia in oil and gas

http://news.yahoo.com/us-could-outproduce-russia-saudi-arabia-oil-gas-032534592.html

I went to Wyoming once. It was pretty. There wern't much water there.

I lived in Fort McMurray... lots of clean water around upstream ...not as much dirty water downstream.

And it ain't pretty either.  You could make Wyoming look like Fort McMurray!

All you need is water!  Water you don't want to use after!

Originally Posted By danlongman (13 JUN 2012 11:05pm)

I went to Wyoming once. It was pretty. There wern't much water there.

I lived in Fort McMurray... lots of clean water around upstream ...not as much dirty water downstream.

And it ain't pretty either.  You could make Wyoming look like Fort McMurray!

All you need is water!  Water you don't want to use after!

Noted; stream drinkers beware.  Those who have that new-fangled convenience called running water; ok.  Got it!

Silly me.  I forgot that all water comes from a tap.

So all they have to do is put in more taps and there will be lots of clean water.

No that's not right.  Unless you have one of those Brita thingy's the tap does

not clean your water so the water comes from a water purification plant.

I do not know if all the amazing chemical residue from making oil out of oil shale

gets taken out by conventional water treatment but that is the downstreamers problem.

As far as the water SUPPLY goes increasing the number of water purification plants

and taps should provide lots of water for Wyoming, Colorado and Utah. I am surpried

they haven't thought of that since they have critical water supply problems now.

This will be a fantastic boon for downstreamers in Arizona, Nevada, California and

Mexico who will now be able to access all the extra water waste from the oil shale

development which will come from all the new taps and treatment plants.  This will

make them almost as happy as the people who are enjoying the cancer epidemic

downstream from Fort Mcmurray!!!  You worry about a problem and the answer is right in front of you!

cheers

Originally Posted By danlongman (14 JUN 2012 6:58pm)

Silly me.  I forgot that all water comes from a tap.

So all they have to do is put in more taps and there will be lots of clean water.

No that's not right.  Unless you have one of those Brita thingy's the tap does

not clean your water so the water comes from a water purification plant.

I do not know if all the amazing chemical residue from making oil out of oil shale

gets taken out by conventional water treatment but that is the downstreamers problem.

As far as the water SUPPLY goes increasing the number of water purification plants

and taps should provide lots of water for Wyoming, Colorado and Utah. I am surpried

they haven't thought of that since they have critical water supply problems now.

This will be a fantastic boon for downstreamers in Arizona, Nevada, California and

Mexico who will now be able to access all the extra water waste from the oil shale

development which will come from all the new taps and treatment plants.  This will

make them almost as happy as the people who are enjoying the cancer epidemic

downstream from Fort Mcmurray!!!  You worry about a problem and the answer is right in front of you!

cheers

The point is that you post as if new oil production must cause a pollution problem but give no evidence to support your contention; you make the assumption as if it were obvious.  What's obvious to me is that you shouldn't drink untreated water; especially from any stream.  Now if you want to present some facts to back up your contention then that might be worth treating seriously.

I promised myself I wouldn't do this because i know you cannot argue with Believers.

However, my first point was that this type of petroleum recovery requires a vast (big river's worth)

amounts of fresh water.  There already is a water crisis in the areas of the US where this oil shale

lives.  In Northern Alberta there are two Really Big Rivers which barely supply enough water to

the plants in an area where population and agriculture are at a minimum...it is basically empty

in US terms.  This could be a problem. Small but critical point.

For my second point I think the difficulties of removing mercury, heavy metals and the many carcinogens

from waste water is well documented although I do not know if they do science stuff in some of them

publications.  Water treatment and associated problems have many thousands of entries if you google

those words.  If you do not want to just do not eat paint.  Do not eat yellow snow.  Or clean it and consume it.

If you disagree that is fine.  Head on up to Massena, New York, a lovely town.  Pull a mess of fish out of the St.

Lawrence river.  (Caution: public health care is loose on the North bank, however you might need it.)

Fishing is fairly good there.  Following prudent hygenic practice cook and eat the fish.  Hell, make it the

staple of your diet because no body else around does. Ever.

This waste can be treated but it is EXPENSIVE otherwise NYC would pump water straight of the Hudson

instead of the elaborate water system is has.  There is plenty of fresh water nearby.  Not like Wyoming.

Around there they already do not have enough.

The oil is there.  You can get it out. You might not want to pay the price.  That is all I was trying to say.

You are welcome to feel that this is not worth treating seriously without documentation to please your

world view just do not eat paint even if it has been "treated".  I wouldn't know what to do without you.

cheers

Originally Posted By danlongman (17 JUN 2012 3:39pm)

I promised myself I wouldn't do this because i know you cannot argue with Believers.

However, my first point was that this type of petroleum recovery requires a vast (big river's worth)

amounts of fresh water.  There already is a water crisis in the areas of the US where this oil shale

lives.  In Northern Alberta there are two Really Big Rivers which barely supply enough water to

the plants in an area where population and agriculture are at a minimum...it is basically empty

in US terms.  This could be a problem. Small but critical point.

For my second point I think the difficulties of removing mercury, heavy metals and the many carcinogens

from waste water is well documented although I do not know if they do science stuff in some of them

publications.  Water treatment and associated problems have many thousands of entries if you google

those words.  If you do not want to just do not eat paint.  Do not eat yellow snow.  Or clean it and consume it.

If you disagree that is fine.  Head on up to Massena, New York, a lovely town.  Pull a mess of fish out of the St.

Lawrence river.  (Caution: public health care is loose on the North bank, however you might need it.)

Fishing is fairly good there.  Following prudent hygenic practice cook and eat the fish.  Hell, make it the

staple of your diet because no body else around does. Ever.

This waste can be treated but it is EXPENSIVE otherwise NYC would pump water straight of the Hudson

instead of the elaborate water system is has.  There is plenty of fresh water nearby.  Not like Wyoming.

Around there they already do not have enough.

The oil is there.  You can get it out. You might not want to pay the price.  That is all I was trying to say.

You are welcome to feel that this is not worth treating seriously without documentation to please your

world view just do not eat paint even if it has been "treated".  I wouldn't know what to do without you.

cheers

All valid concerns I'm sure but there's already more than enough regulation to prevent disaster.  These concerns are not enough to challenge let alone condemn this new technology given the application of current law and the decades of non-cntroversial use of this technology.

Now the only question left is who is the 'real believer' here who's blind to reality?  I challenge you to prove it's not you by exploring the information that disposes of claims that fracking is harmful.  I think you will not because as you have correctly observed, 'believers' won't acknowledge facts.

I lived in Fort McMurray from 1990 til 2000.  This is where the technology to do this stuff

was developed.  My point is once again once again once again these things cost more than

the proponents indicate.  The kindest way I can describe what they did up there which I saw

with my own eyes and which has recieved extensive media coverage is that they made a very

big expensive mess which is costing more to clean up than anyone thought possible.

I have described the many economic benefits which have come from this development.

My baby sister is a project manager for Suncor and I have many friends and relatives whose livelihood

depends upon this extraction.  My own home has skyrocketed in value because of my proximity

to this development.  The other costs are becoming apparent and the people who promoted

these projects spoke exactly like you do parroting the promotional material put out by the developers.

I said it before the oil is there and you can get it.     en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands

It requires an enormous amount of clean water.  They do not have anywhere enough water in the areas

these proposed developments.  They currently have no place to get it from.

If they were to some how get this water once it is used it has to go somewhere.  That somewhere is downstream.

  www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2009/02/06/edm-fort-chip-cancer.html 

There are only a few hundred people in this vast area studied.  Downstream form the US oil shale deposits

there are many millions.  Nobody thought this would happen.

A lot of people believed the tobacco companies when they fought the AMA.

This sort of thing has happened so many freaking times a lot of people are just like the alcoholic

who says to himself...."this time it is gonna be different...nothing bad will happen."

As a personal note besides the above family connections I had a car accident with a Physician who was

studying this cancer development.  Nobody got hurt but I got to know this gentleman.

He said something very bad was happening downstream

I am tired of this

Originally Posted By danlongman (18 JUN 2012 3:27pm)

I lived in Fort McMurray from 1990 til 2000.  This is where the technology to do this stuff

was developed.  My point is once again once again once again these things cost more than

the proponents indicate.  The kindest way I can describe what they did up there which I saw

with my own eyes and which has recieved extensive media coverage is that they made a very

big expensive mess which is costing more to clean up than anyone thought possible.

I have described the many economic benefits which have come from this development.

My baby sister is a project manager for Suncor and I have many friends and relatives whose livelihood

depends upon this extraction.  My own home has skyrocketed in value because of my proximity

to this development.  The other costs are becoming apparent and the people who promoted

these projects spoke exactly like you do parroting the promotional material put out by the developers.

I said it before the oil is there and you can get it.     en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands

It requires an enormous amount of clean water.  They do not have anywhere enough water in the areas

these proposed developments.  They currently have no place to get it from.

If they were to some how get this water once it is used it has to go somewhere.  That somewhere is downstream.

  www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2009/02/06/edm-fort-chip-cancer.html 

There are only a few hundred people in this vast area studied.  Downstream form the US oil shale deposits

there are many millions.  Nobody thought this would happen.

A lot of people believed the tobacco companies when they fought the AMA.

This sort of thing has happened so many freaking times a lot of people are just like the alcoholic

who says to himself...."this time it is gonna be different...nothing bad will happen."

As a personal note besides the above family connections I had a car accident with a Physician who was

studying this cancer development.  Nobody got hurt but I got to know this gentleman.

He said something very bad was happening downstream

I am tired of this

 

 

Well it sounds rather anecdotal to apply to an entire industry; and I have no idea what the laws are governing water use are in Canada, but here in the U.S., the EPA is downright dictatorial.  Bottom line: T-A-N-S-T-A-A-F-L (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch).  You can't eat without leaving some crap somewhere.  It's all about cost/benefit, and how to best mitigate unintended consequences.  Now I'll grant you that anywhere there's no ownership, then you have the phenomenon of 'Tragedy of the Commons'.  One sure way to mitigate that is to have property ownership where possible.  People tend to take care of their own homes but renters not so much.

Well thanks.  Anecdotal or not this is what i had found without even trying.

The news report about medical issues was not anecdotal.  There is megatons of information

available just by google.

At the risk of blowing a blood vessel the problem boils down to three things:

1) Where is the water going to come from? It simply is not there or anywhere near there.

2) How many dollars is it going to cost to make the waste water not just usable but not actively hazardous?

3) That countryside is pretty.  Movie stars like to own it and hang out. How much of a mess are you going to put

    up with and/or how many dollars are you willing to spend to clean it up?

Not exactly earthshaking questions as far as complexity. How much$$$$.

How much cost and how much mess?

We have discussed unforseen consequences before I do not need to stress that for political reasons the would-be

developers will minimize the problems, whistling past the graveyard.  Those who oppose it politically (and please note

that when this commenced I stated I was not opposed) will scream bloody murder without regard to what may be safely

done.  The Fort McMurray example is a ridiculously close parellel only a few hundred miles and a few years ago.

For that reason alone it is idiotic to ignore it.

Who are these people who keep telling us there is plenty of cheap oil just lying around when so many are saying the opposite?

Why, to date, has it never been as cheap as they said it would be?  To this last we have an answer.

Originally Posted By danlongman (18 JUN 2012 10:00pm)

Well thanks.  Anecdotal or not this is what i had found without even trying.

The news report about medical issues was not anecdotal.  There is megatons of information

available just by google.

At the risk of blowing a blood vessel the problem boils down to three things:

1) Where is the water going to come from? It simply is not there or anywhere near there.

2) How many dollars is it going to cost to make the waste water not just usable but not actively hazardous?

3) That countryside is pretty.  Movie stars like to own it and hang out. How much of a mess are you going to put

    up with and/or how many dollars are you willing to spend to clean it up?

Not exactly earthshaking questions as far as complexity. How much$$$$.

How much cost and how much mess?

We have discussed unforseen consequences before I do not need to stress that for political reasons the would-be

developers will minimize the problems, whistling past the graveyard.  Those who oppose it politically (and please note

that when this commenced I stated I was not opposed) will scream bloody murder without regard to what may be safely

done.  The Fort McMurray example is a ridiculously close parellel only a few hundred miles and a few years ago.

For that reason alone it is idiotic to ignore it.

Who are these people who keep telling us there is plenty of cheap oil just lying around when so many are saying the opposite?

Why, to date, has it never been as cheap as they said it would be?  To this last we have an answer.

You ask questions that are best answered by the engineers who draw the challenge.  It seems you're discussing Canada so I can't comment but we've got it covered here.  Tombstone, Arizona can't even get adequate drinking water because a storm has destroyed their system of pipes and the EPA won't allow them to do repairs with any heavy equipment.  They even have been told to use horses for access to the affected area.  I don't see any of the challenges you speak of here in the States.

You doubt the truth of cheap oil?  I don't know why because no one is asking the government to lay out a dime!  That alone is telling.  Now if they were looking to the federal government then I would doubt the claim too.  Clean up?  I don't know why you'd think the oil companies wouldn't be tapped for that.  Look what happened to BP; they got raped and didn't bat an eye.  I think you're creating phantoms where none exist; at least beyond Fort McMurray which I did google with not much result.  Blow a gasket if you want to but I think you've let your imagination run away with you.

There still isn't any water there.  For another close by example:

Take a look at the abandoned lead/zinc mines in Montana to see where the promoters vanished

and left a mess that no one can clean up. At least not yet because no one wants to pay for it.

I really do not think you understand the amount of destruction we are dealing with here.

Mostly they are planning to strip mine this stuff not drill for it.  West Viginia is another example

of promises made and big messes in their wake.  I use Fort McMurray as an example because the

recovery methods proposed are similar and McMurray is happening right now.

I can't believe you couldn't find information on google on Fort McMurray Oil Sands or Tar sands.

By typing that i got 3.6 million hits that is more than Lindsay Lohan.

Originally Posted By danlongman (18 JUN 2012 11:30pm)

There still isn't any water there.  For another close by example:

Take a look at the abandoned lead/zinc mines in Montana to see where the promoters vanished

and left a mess that no one can clean up. At least not yet because no one wants to pay for it.

I really do not think you understand the amount of destruction we are dealing with here.

Mostly they are planning to strip mine this stuff not drill for it.  West Viginia is another example

of promises made and big messes in their wake.  I use Fort McMurray as an example because the

recovery methods proposed are similar and McMurray is happening right now.

I can't believe you couldn't find information on google on Fort McMurray Oil Sands or Tar sands.

By typing that i got 3.6 million hits that is more than Lindsay Lohan.

 

What exactly are you advocating?  Should we give up all mining operations everywhere in the world?  Should we go back to a nomadic lifestyle picking berries along the way and feasting on the occassional carrion?  This is civilization and you eat, sleep and thrive under the technological abilities of the human mind to fashion the environment to fit our needs.  This harping is like a fish complaining about always being wet.  If it's any consolation, your time of misery won't be any longer than you can bear.

The World is Changing Minute by Minute

... Horizontal drilling and fracking have made oil shale and tar sands rich sources of oil and natural gas, so much so that the United States may prove to possess the largest store of fossil fuel reserves in the world -- in theory, with enough gas, oil and coal soon never to need any imported Middle Eastern energy again. "Peak oil" is suddenly an anachronism. Widespread American use of cheap natural gas will do more to clean the planet than thousands of Solyndras. ...

http://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2012/07/12/the_world_is_changing_minute_by_minute

The Minneapolis paper had a similar article about that several weeks ago.  Supposedly, the U.S. could achieve genuine energy independence by around 2030. 

Originally Posted By ActionJack (12 JUL 2012 7:16pm)

The World is Changing Minute by Minute

... Horizontal drilling and fracking have made oil shale and tar sands rich sources of oil and natural gas, so much so that the United States may prove to possess the largest store of fossil fuel reserves in the world -- in theory, with enough gas, oil and coal soon never to need any imported Middle Eastern energy again. "Peak oil" is suddenly an anachronism. Widespread American use of cheap natural gas will do more to clean the planet than thousands of Solyndras. ...

http://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2012/07/12/the_world_is_changing_minute_by_minute

 

Guess I'm about to be betting on this...