Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!
Unions Send Doctor Bills to Taxpayers: Steven Greenhut
Unions Send Doctor Bills to Taxpayers: Steven Greenhut - Bloomberg
WALL STREET'S WORST NIGHTMARE: The 'Millionaire Madam' Is Getting Ready To Make A Deal
WALL STREET'S WORST NIGHTMARE: Millionaire Madam Says She's Ready To Make A Deal
Terminated CBO Whistleblower Shares Her Full Story With Zero Hedge, Exposes Deep Conflicts At "Impartial" Budget Office
Terminated CBO Whistleblower Shares Her Full Story With Zero Hedge, Exposes Deep Conflicts At "Impartial" Budget Office | ZeroHedge
CH, nothing personal, but this is one of those articles I gotta comment on. Let's really look at this. Where is the "myth"? If you pay attention to the numbers, the "myth" is that unproven resources will have any real effect on current prices.
As such, I must repeat this pertinent quote, on page 2 near the end of the article."To be sure, energy companies couldn't profitably recover all this oil — even at today's prices — and what they could wouldn't make it to market for years:"
There's a harsh dose of reality. Now who's perpetuating a "myth". They go on to cite the main problem as being lack of access to lands in AK and the Outer Continental Shelf based, respectively, on policy decisions in 1980 and 1982...nevermind the fact that the other resources cited could be drilled IF it were economically feasible to do so.
OK, to the numbers. From the chart published w/ this article
0.6% of the oil is "proved" reserves
11.35% is "technically recoverable" in their words
22.7% is oil shale...controversial (even in a dyed in wool, free market, pro resource extraction red state like Utah), my words. And often too expensive to be economical...see Green River formation.
65.3% is "undiscovered resources" in their words.
Finally, with the numbers provided, anyway you do the math, I can't figure where the "60 times" number comes from.
The "myth", to me, is thinking we can base an energy policy on "technically recoverable", "undiscovered resources" and using potentially too expensive and controversial technology. Should these resources play a role, ABSOLUTELY, but it should not be the primary feature. The boom in ND shows domestic oil currently is considered important in current energy policy.
Will increasing drilling will actually reduce prices? During the current boom with unexpectedly high production ND, it hasn't happened. So yet again, we get this shocking faith in industry scientists, with a verifiable interest in profiteering, from the people who dismiss word of the overwhelming majority of independent academic scientists on such issues as climate change. It's just isn't reconcilable to me.
There will be a new day in November. No more slow walking permits and bashing oil companies. Stop the wind (flatus) coming out of the Administration.
There will be a new day in November. No more slow walking permits and bashing oil companies. Stop the wind (flatus) coming out of the Administration.