Yes, we can.

[scaeagles]

I disagree.

A recent discovery in North Dakota (which goes into South Dakota and Montana as well) called the Bakkan Formation could replace all of our imported oil for about 40 years.

It is estimated at between 175 and 500 billion barrels. At the low end, say 200 billion, that replaces the 14 million barrels of oil we import daily for 39 years. One oil field, all by itself. Let alone off shore and Alaskan oil.

That's one hell of a long time to continue developing other technologies, which I'm all for and no one of conscience is against.

So in 10 years, if nothing is done, and oil is running at $300/barrel, again, someone will say "we can't do that - it will be 10 years until we could even get oil from it", we have no one to blame but those who will not permit it to be done.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

A recent discovery

It isn't a recent discovery. Oil in the area has been known for 50 years, the debate has been about how much is there.

in North Dakota (which goes into South Dakota and Montana as well) called the Bakkan Formation could replace all of our imported oil for about 40 years.

True, only if currently unknown technology is dropped in our laps.

It is estimated at between 175 and 500 billion barrels. At the low end, say 200 billion, that replaces the 14 million barrels of oil we import daily for 39 years. One oil field, all by itself. Let alone off shore and Alaskan oil.

Again, true. There is a huge amount of oil. And per the very reports that gave the estimate of quantity you mention, only about 3.6 billion of it is in a form that is recoverable with currently known technology. So, now instead of 40 years of oil (by current usage) we are down to 257 days of oil.

It is kind of like saying we'll always have fresh water because there is a huge amount of it in the troposphere. Perhaps true, but we have no good way to get it.

Plus, they are already ramping up production of drilling in that region (therw it isn't particularly controversial) since high prices make it worth their while. So if these drills alone can provide all of our needs for 40 years, then obviously drilling offshore in the gulf and in ANWR can't possible do anything to reduce energy dependence since we've already solved that problem.

That's one hell of a long time to continue developing other technologies, which I'm all for and no one of conscience is against.

Except that, to get the benefit you see claim for that field we will have to wait for the benefit of other technology, which a lot of people aren't for and many of conscience are against.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

It isn't a recent discovery. Oil in the area has been known for 50 years, the debate has been about how much is there.

True, only if currently unknown technology is dropped in our laps.

Again, I should have been more clear. Recent developments I have read about horizontal drilling techniques have made the oil there come into play recently. It has been known about for a long time.

[wendybeth]

I've read about the new drilling tech specially developed to tap those fields, and I've also read that the oil reserves are quite a bit larger than first thought. As oil prices have risen, it's motivated companies to put capital into such ventures, and there has definitely been serious interest in developing alternatives as well. We will never be independent until we are able to wean ourselves of of oil, and things have to get pretty bad before companies and people are willing to look for viable alternatives. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what Obama means and yet again, much ado about nada here.

Geeze, Scaeagles- where have you been these past eight years with Dubya at the helm? You can't understand anything that Obama has to say, but you seemed to have no problem with George? I certainly can't recall you ever going after him like you do Obama, and the man can't string together a complete sentence.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Geeze, Scaeagles- where have you been these past eight years with Dubya at the helm? You can't understand anything that Obama has to say, but you seemed to have no problem with George? I certainly can't recall you ever going after him like you do Obama, and the man can't string together a complete sentence.

It isn't about putting a sentence together or making a mistake, WB. I haven't brought up Obama saying he's been to 57 states during his campaign - or at least I don't think I have - as that's simply a misstatement. This is policy. I think his policies are bad. I think some of GWB's policies are bad and have stated so as well.