more oil than the entire Persian Gulf combined.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

This has been speculated about for years, but it's finally coming
together.

Oddly, there is a similar field off the coast of New Jersey at about
the same depth but it hasn't been explored.

Interesting.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:22:35 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

more oil than the entire Persian Gulf combined.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

This has been speculated about for years, but it's finally coming
together.

Oddly, there is a similar field off the coast of New Jersey at about
the same depth but it hasn't been explored.

Interesting.

Our woeful attempt to commandeer Iraq's oil may not have been
necessary after all?

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:51:00 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:22:35 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

more oil than the entire Persian Gulf combined.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

This has been speculated about for years, but it's finally coming
together.

Oddly, there is a similar field off the coast of New Jersey at about
the same depth but it hasn't been explored.

Interesting.

I am dutifully skeptical.... but I sure hope it is true.....

It's very interesting. They've been talking about the potential of
this shale/sand field for years, then they discovered the dome under
it and from what I've been reading it's massive. Then the second
field started coming on line and it's the same size.

They think that a similar field might be under the Canadian shale/sand
field too - that would be huge.

I'm still waiting for them to look into the New Jersey situation -
that has also been talked about for years, but nobody has permission
to do any exploration.

Boone Pickens has stated that according to his estimates, there's
enough natural gas held in the mid-Missouri shale for at least 50
years of use.

Be nice if it were true.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:15:12 -0400, wrote:

It figures they would find another 50 years of oil, just about the
time they say we are not allowed to burn it anymore.

ROTFL!!!

On Jul 14, 11:09*pm, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:51:00 -0400, Gene



wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:22:35 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

more oil than the entire Persian Gulf combined.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

This has been speculated about for years, but it's finally coming
together.

Oddly, there is a similar field off the coast of New Jersey at about
the same depth but it hasn't been explored.

Interesting.

I am dutifully skeptical.... but I sure hope it is true.....

It's very interesting. They've been talking about the potential of
this shale/sand field for years, then they discovered the dome under
it and from what I've been reading it's massive. *Then the second
field started coming on line and it's the same size.

They think that a similar field might be under the Canadian shale/sand
field too - that would be huge.

I'm still waiting for them to look into the New Jersey situation -
that has also been talked about for years, but nobody has permission
to do any exploration.

Boone Pickens has stated that according to his estimates, there's
enough natural gas held in the mid-Missouri shale for at least 50
years of use.

Be nice if it were true.

They think that a similar field might be under the Canadian shale/
sand
field too - that would be huge.

Ummm, we've already tapped the Tar Sands....

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:22:35 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:

more oil than the entire Persian Gulf combined.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

This has been speculated about for years, but it's finally coming
together.

Oddly, there is a similar field off the coast of New Jersey at about the
same depth but it hasn't been explored.

Interesting.

You know, Tom, production has never been our problem. IIRC, we are still
the third largest petroleum producer. It's our insatiable appetite.
Without addressing that appetite, there won't be any magical production
bullet. This country has been the most prospected country on the
planet. We know where the oil is, it's a matter of recovery. Hell, that
Bakken Formation was discovered in the early fifties, but the recovery
technologies (horizontal drilling) is relatively recent. Even now, the
technically recoverable oil from that formation, @ 4 billion barrels,
would only last us about eight months.

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:55:03 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:22:35 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:

more oil than the entire Persian Gulf combined.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

This has been speculated about for years, but it's finally coming
together.

Oddly, there is a similar field off the coast of New Jersey at about the
same depth but it hasn't been explored.

Interesting.

You know, Tom, production has never been our problem. IIRC, we are still
the third largest petroleum producer. It's our insatiable appetite.
Without addressing that appetite, there won't be any magical production
bullet. This country has been the most prospected country on the
planet. We know where the oil is, it's a matter of recovery. Hell, that
Bakken Formation was discovered in the early fifties, but the recovery
technologies (horizontal drilling) is relatively recent. Even now, the
technically recoverable oil from that formation, @ 4 billion barrels,
would only last us about eight months.

Directional drilling has been around since the '40s when Sperry
developed the gyroscope during the war and that technology was applied
to drilling. That technology was improved on in the early '70s with
mud motors (I was actually on the first test bore - Texaco #5 in the
Gulf). The more recent innovation that I'm familiar with is Auto Trek
with the Quantec bits built by Baker/Hughes.

My point is that the field is bigger and more accessible than
previously thought - plus there seems to be a companion field close to
it and the Canadian fields look to have a similar configuration.

If we have the technology and we can access this supply while we build
our "renewable" future and slowly reduce our dependence on fossil
fuels while keeping prices low and buying time to build a more
efficient transmission system (Smart Grid) with more environmentally
friendly energy sources, why not do it?

This rush to IMMEDIATELY stop thinking about our own supplies of
fossil fuels and change to hopefully new sources is silly.

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:21:05 -0400, Captain Yogi of Woodstock wrote:


Directional drilling has been around since the '40s when Sperry
developed the gyroscope during the war and that technology was applied
to drilling. That technology was improved on in the early '70s with mud
motors (I was actually on the first test bore - Texaco #5 in the Gulf).
The more recent innovation that I'm familiar with is Auto Trek with the
Quantec bits built by Baker/Hughes.

Not directional drilling, horizontal drilling. The shale formation is @
140' thick, 2 miles down. Tricky target. We used to directional drill
to cover more territory from one location, but horizontal drilling is new
to me.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/02/mul...fracturing-of-
horizontal_29.html

My point is that the field is bigger and more accessible than previously
thought - plus there seems to be a companion field close to it and the
Canadian fields look to have a similar configuration.

If we have the technology and we can access this supply while we build
our "renewable" future and slowly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels
while keeping prices low and buying time to build a more efficient
transmission system (Smart Grid) with more environmentally friendly
energy sources, why not do it?

This rush to IMMEDIATELY stop thinking about our own supplies of fossil
fuels and change to hopefully new sources is silly.

Hey, I can't disagree with anything you say. It isn't going to be *one*
solution, but a multitude of solutions. Nuclear, wind, solar, oil, and
even coal, will play a part, but ultimately, cutting down on our appetite
has to also be a part.

Captain Yogi of Woodstock wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:55:03 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:22:35 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:

more oil than the entire Persian Gulf combined.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

This has been speculated about for years, but it's finally coming
together.

Oddly, there is a similar field off the coast of New Jersey at about the
same depth but it hasn't been explored.

Interesting.
You know, Tom, production has never been our problem. IIRC, we are still
the third largest petroleum producer. It's our insatiable appetite.
Without addressing that appetite, there won't be any magical production
bullet. This country has been the most prospected country on the
planet. We know where the oil is, it's a matter of recovery. Hell, that
Bakken Formation was discovered in the early fifties, but the recovery
technologies (horizontal drilling) is relatively recent. Even now, the
technically recoverable oil from that formation, @ 4 billion barrels,
would only last us about eight months.

Directional drilling has been around since the '40s when Sperry
developed the gyroscope during the war and that technology was applied
to drilling. That technology was improved on in the early '70s with
mud motors (I was actually on the first test bore - Texaco #5 in the
Gulf). The more recent innovation that I'm familiar with is Auto Trek
with the Quantec bits built by Baker/Hughes.

My point is that the field is bigger and more accessible than
previously thought - plus there seems to be a companion field close to
it and the Canadian fields look to have a similar configuration.

If we have the technology and we can access this supply while we build
our "renewable" future and slowly reduce our dependence on fossil
fuels while keeping prices low and buying time to build a more
efficient transmission system (Smart Grid) with more environmentally
friendly energy sources, why not do it?

This rush to IMMEDIATELY stop thinking about our own supplies of
fossil fuels and change to hopefully new sources is silly.

Hope and change is silly? Why that's un American.

Eisboch has recently acquired a guitar of investment quality that he is
willing to sell me at a very attractive price. When I get more info on
it, can I email you and solicit your opinion?

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:41:47 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:21:05 -0400, Captain Yogi of Woodstock wrote:


Directional drilling has been around since the '40s when Sperry
developed the gyroscope during the war and that technology was applied
to drilling. That technology was improved on in the early '70s with mud
motors (I was actually on the first test bore - Texaco #5 in the Gulf).
The more recent innovation that I'm familiar with is Auto Trek with the
Quantec bits built by Baker/Hughes.

Not directional drilling, horizontal drilling. The shale formation is @
140' thick, 2 miles down. Tricky target. We used to directional drill
to cover more territory from one location, but horizontal drilling is new
to me.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/02/mul...fracturing-of-
horizontal_29.html

You say tomato, I say tomahtoe. :)

My point is that the field is bigger and more accessible than previously
thought - plus there seems to be a companion field close to it and the
Canadian fields look to have a similar configuration.

If we have the technology and we can access this supply while we build
our "renewable" future and slowly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels
while keeping prices low and buying time to build a more efficient
transmission system (Smart Grid) with more environmentally friendly
energy sources, why not do it?

This rush to IMMEDIATELY stop thinking about our own supplies of fossil
fuels and change to hopefully new sources is silly.

Hey, I can't disagree with anything you say. It isn't going to be *one*
solution, but a multitude of solutions. Nuclear, wind, solar, oil, and
even coal, will play a part, but ultimately, cutting down on our appetite
has to also be a part.

I agree with you - consumption has to also be a part of the solution.

And here's the odd part - I think that most folks would agree with us.
I mean if you and I can agree, and we're a little apart in the
political sense, why can't the morons running the country see that and
work find the solutions we need?

I don't get it.