Thiebear Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 http://www.nypost.com/seven/05292008/business/montana_governor_is_sitting_on_an_oil_mi_113005.htm May 29, 2008 -- HELENA, Mont. - Here's some very good news about oil that the manipulators on Wall Street don't want you to know: there could be as much as 40 billion barrels of crude lying untouched in eastern Montana. That's billion with a "b" - as in a ball-breaking amount for those speculators who are purposely pushing oil higher for their own selfish reasons. Who says? Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer does, adding that his state - with fewer than 1 million residents - would be thrilled to bail the US out of its current energy predicament. While on a visit to Wyoming and Montana, I popped in on Schweitzer, the Democratic governor, who was more than happy to answer my questions about the rumors of huge oil deposits in the so-called Bakken area of his state. Right now, the US Geological Service estimates that there are 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken region, which also reaches into North Dakota. "They are always conservative," said Schweitzer, who greeted me in his office dressed in jeans, a white shirt and a string tie. "There will be more. It'll probably be more like 40 billion." It's so much, in fact, that a discovery like that - or even hints of such a find - could ruin speculators' chances of getting the price of oil much higher than it already is. In fact, just the knowledge of such big oil deposits - together with a drop off in fuel use because of the recession and the inevitable development of alternative energy sources - might cause gasoline prices to fall substantially in the future. As it is today, Americans are being cheated on the price of oil. I've been writing about this for the past couple of years and now even a do-nothing Congress is getting concerned, although its ire is misplaced. Wall Street speculators, aided by cheap money from the Federal Reserve and an ill-informed press, have kidnapped oil in much the same way that the Hunt brothers cornered the silver market in the 1970s. So now: Florida, Anwar, California, Montana: Billions. Colorado Shale = Saudi Arabia worth Solar towers = check Refinaries newer = check AND we get squat and a puzzled look from Congress as to how to "afear" the people a bit more with inaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 I'm sure there is some endangered species there that is more important what you pay a the pump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Theibear, why complain? You voted for an oil tycoon's (who said "we ought to be paying over $2 a gallon for gas" 18 years ago) son for pres. and now you're outraged? Just bend over and take it brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 I'm sure there is some endangered species there that is more important what you pay a the pump Hey, you finally get it Sarge! I'm so proud of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 http://www.nypost.com/seven/05292008/business/montana_governor_is_sitting_on_an_oil_mi_113005.htmRight now, the US Geological Service estimates that there are 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken region, which also reaches into North Dakota. "They are always conservative," said Schweitzer, who greeted me in his office dressed in jeans, a white shirt and a string tie. "There will be more. It'll probably be more like 40 billion." Interesting stuff, but that part is not very convincing. What does this guy know that the USGS doesn't to make him think their estimate of RECOVERABLE oil is off by a factor of 10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Interesting stuff, but that part is not very convincing. What does this guy know that the USGS doesn't to make him think their estimate of RECOVERABLE oil is off by a factor of 10? I am skeptical as well. So the estimate is off by a factor of 10 just because some politicians SAYS so? Sorry, I don't buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 I am skeptical as well. So the estimate is off by a factor of 10 just because some politicians SAYS so? Sorry, I don't buy it. However, if people do buy it, the futures on oil go down quickly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Interesting stuff, but that part is not very convincing. What does this guy know that the USGS doesn't to make him think their estimate of RECOVERABLE oil is off by a factor of 10? Perhaps the flow rate for the wells drilled,perhaps a better understanding of new drilling techniques? To be fair the USGS only had geological data to prognosticate with,not flow rates of oil....which are about due to be released. Of course both are speculation based on interpretation of data. I did a thread awhile back if you want more detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 Thiebear, why complain? You voted for an oil tycoon's (who said "we ought to be paying over $2 a gallon for gas" 18 years) son for pres. and now you're outraged? Just bend over and take it brother. This post is so 2006. Congress makes the rules son... And unfortunately i voted for the new ones also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chow184 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 ummm when they start drilling let me know so I can buy some some stock in whatever new oil companies start up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 This post is so 2006. Congress makes the rules son... And unfortunately i voted for the new ones also. That's kind of ignoring the "factored in" trouble in the middle east (two wars), the crash of US dollar's affect on oil prices due to the 9 trillion dollar debt, and a failed energy policy by the current admin, isn't it? It's ok, Hanity doesn't want to talk about that either . But are you naive to think that oil prices will come down just because of where the oil comes from? Do you think that oil companies will be motivated to drill here now, when they're enjoying record breaking profits year after year? What incentive do they have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 ummm when they start drilling let me know so I can buy some some stock in whatever new oil companies start up You are a bit late,they have been drilling for awhile. Perhaps there are still bargains to be had,of course oil might bust too,just part of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 That's kind of ignoring the "factored in" trouble in the middle east (two wars), the crash of US dollar's affect on oil prices due to the 9 trillion dollar debt, and a failed energy policy by the current admin, isn't it? It's ok, Hanity doesn't want to talk about that either . But are you naive to think that oil prices will come down just because of where the oil comes from? Do you think that oil companies will be motivated to drill here now, when they're enjoying record breaking profits year after year? What incentive do they have? If oil is going up due to speculation, finding more speculates down. "Ignoring random Hannity herring" Your right US oil companies wouldnt want to get their own oil locally for almost nothing. Its a Democrat in Montana pointing this out.. I don't care what the little letter after their name is.. So your saying 2 wars in 18 years and 9 trillion debt is keeping Congress from thinking of + passing anything to allow drilling/discovery. got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Question for the "don't drill and refine here" liberal crowd. If oil is going to be drilled for and refined somewhere, wouldn't it be much more environmentally friendly if it was done in the country that has the strictest pollution laws? Not to mention the money and pollution not spent shipping it back. Wouldn't drilling and refining (with brand spanking new refineries) here in our back yard be the best possible option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 If oil is going up due to speculation, finding more speculates down."Ignoring random Hannity herring" Your right US oil companies wouldnt want to get their own oil locally for almost nothing. Its a Democrat in Montana pointing this out.. I don't care what the little letter after their name is.. So your saying 2 wars in 18 years and 9 trillion debt is keeping Congress from thinking of + passing anything to allow drilling/discovery. got it. Got what? I don't call manipulation of the market "speculation". And no I think that it doesn't matter what Congress does or doesn't do, oil prices aren't going to come back down, they're going to go up. It's a fantasy to believe that drilling here will make oil prices come down. That's the "herring" that you're looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Question for the "don't drill and refine here" liberal crowd.If oil is going to be drilled for and refined somewhere, wouldn't it be much more environmentally friendly if it was done in the country that has the strictest pollution laws? Not to mention the money and pollution not spent shipping it back. Wouldn't drilling and refining (with brand spanking new refineries) here in our back yard be the best possible option? It would be Koolblue, if the Bush admin hadn't of gutted the Clean air act of 1986, in the first 30 days of it's first term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 It would be Koolblue, if the Bush admin hadn't of gutted the Clean air act of 1986, in the first 30 days of it's first term. Again: Bush is gone, and has been a lameduck for 2 years now. Look forward. >>>>> forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 It would be Koolblue, if the Bush admin hadn't of gutted the Clean air act of 1986, in the first 30 days of it's first term. I understand that, but why hasn't it been fixed. Why is the issue of a refinery being built the same as global warming or the environment? You would think envo friendly people would be asking to have them built here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 I understand that, but why hasn't it been fixed. Why is the issue of a refinery being built the same as global warming or the environment?You would think envo friendly people would be asking to have them built here. personally I have no problem with drilling and refining here. I used to because I live on the west coast of FL and it wouldn't take too many spills to ruin our white sandy beaches. The pollution standards, requiring retrofitting (and new installation) air pollution reducing equiptment were removed in favor of higher profits for those companies that produce the pollution. These companies were amongst the highest contributors to the Bush campaigns (along with oil companies). "The Bush administration plans to open a huge loophole in America's air pollution laws, allowing an estimated 17,000 outdated power stations and factories to increase their carbon emissions with impunity. Critics of draft regulations due to be unveiled by the US environmental protection agency next week say they amount to a death knell for the Clean Air Act, the centrepiece of US regulation. The rules could represent the biggest defeat for American environmentalists since the Bush administration abandoned the Kyoto Treaty on global warming two years ago. But the energy industry welcomed them, saying they were essential for maintaining coal-fired power stations. The regulations are being challenged by 13 states including New York. If adopted, they would represent a multi-million dollar victory for energy corporations, most of whom are significant Republican contributors, and who were consulted in the drafting of the administration's energy plan by vice-president Dick Cheney in 2001. Under the current rules set in 1977, industrial sites built before the Clean Air Act are exempt from its controls until they are upgraded in any way, beyond "routine maintenance", that increases emissions. At that point companies have to install filters and other controls or face penalties. Under the draft rules corporations can do far more than "routine maintenance" - investing in old plant up to 20% of its total value at a time - without having to spend money on anti-pollution equipment. The figure of 20% is highly controversial, and in some places in the document has been replaced by an "X". Elsewhere the figure has been left, apparently as an oversight. The rules do not impose a time limit for the investment, allowing a firm to make successive upgrades to an old power station, oil refinery or factory - replacing it piece by piece, and spending hundreds of millions of dollars - as long as each upgrade costs less than a fifth of the plant's total value. "The companies could completely rebuild their plants by gaming a gimmick that is designed to be gamed," said John Walke, of the Natural Resources Defence Council, a pressure group which leaked the draft."This is a massive giveaway," Mr Walke said. "The Bush administration, using an arbitrary, Enron-like accounting gimmick, is authorising massive pollution increases to benefit Bush campaign contributors at the expense of public health." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Ive been telling you all this for a few years. Schweitzer is the man! I'd be campaigning for him if he had run this time for Pres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Question for the "don't drill and refine here" liberal crowd.If oil is going to be drilled for and refined somewhere, wouldn't it be much more environmentally friendly if it was done in the country that has the strictest pollution laws? Not to mention the money and pollution not spent shipping it back. Wouldn't drilling and refining (with brand spanking new refineries) here in our back yard be the best possible option? What the hell are you talking about? Liberals are not keeping anyone from drilling anywhere. Republican oil men like your man Bush is keeping the price up by continually importing oil. Republicans owned congress and the presidency for a very long time, yet no new refiners and no new drilling. $$$$$$$$$ Oil companies are recording RECORD profits. Why would they invest money into technology and equipment to drill here and lower the price of their product? They want to walk the line of supply and demand and make as much money as they possible can. They have this country by the balls because we absolutely have to use a certain amount of gas. You need to get to work afterall and power that nice new suv. The price of your food is directly related to this as well because of transport. They bought up the land but they don't use it for a reason. It's like the diamond companies when they buy up the diamonds and hide them away in their vaults to keep the price high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 I don't see how people can put oil men in the Whitehouse and then complain that the Governnment doesn't do enough to get gas prices lowered...and then blame the problem on Democrats even though Republicans had virtually free reign for 6 years and did nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 I don't see how people can put oil men in the Whitehouse and then complain that the Governnment doesn't do enough to get gas prices lowered...and then blame the problem on Democrats even though Republicans had virtually free reign for 6 years and did nothing. You mean like this: Senate Votes to Open Oil Drilling in ANWR Wednesday, March 16, 2005 E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION WASHINGTON — A closely divided Senate voted to approve oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, a major victory for President George W. Bush (search) and a stinging defeat for environmentalists who have fought the idea for decades. By a 51-49 vote, the Senate (search) on Wednesday put a refuge drilling provision in next year's budget, depriving opponents of the chance to use a filibuster to try to block it. Filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome, have been used to defeat drilling proposals in the past. "This project will keep our economy growing by creating jobs and ensuring that businesses can expand," Bush said in a statement. "And it will make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, eventually by up to a million barrels of oil a day." Environmentalists for years have fought such development, contending it would lead to a spider web of drilling platforms, pipelines and roads that would adversely impact the calving grounds of caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the refuge's coastal plain. Republican Sen. Ted Stevens (search) of Alaska, who has fought for 24 years to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil companies, acknowledged it still could be "a long process" before a final drilling measure clears Congress. Lawmakers must agree on the final budget. Long, bitter battle A decade ago a Republican-led Congress used a parliamentary maneuver to get an ANWR bill successfully past a filibuster, only to have it vetoed by President Clinton. From the Daily KOS: 2003: Wednesday | March 12, 2003 GOP one vote short of ANWR drilling This is coming down to the wire. An internal GOP memo that circulated Tuesday in the Senate expressed confidence that 49 senators now plan to vote for drilling in the refuge, starting a scramble in search of the remaining lawmaker who would be needed to get the provision through as part of a budget measure. "Dick Cheney has been working madly to secure the 50th (vote)," said the staff memo developed in the offices of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. Lets put an end to this: You got OILMEN in the office: this is what you get. They don't want drilling. OHH And see the signature below: Party Lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 http://www.nypost.com/seven/05292008/business/montana_governor_is_sitting_on_an_oil_mi_113005.htmSo now: Florida, Anwar, California, Montana: Billions. Colorado Shale = Saudi Arabia worth Solar towers = check Refinaries newer = check AND we get squat and a puzzled look from Congress as to how to "afear" the people a bit more with inaction. You forgot Alaska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 You forgot Alaska (anwar) was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.