Yeah, an important one you should be asking yourselves. How much energy is required to get the oil out of the tar sands, opposed to pumping it from OPEC countries, and shipping or piping it over to the States and Canada?

"Any questions?"

Nope. Self-evident, actually.

Was half-expecting the price to be $10/gal. 'Till I scrolled down; then I was ROLFLMAO!

$40 a barrel's worth, Saskboy. For oil shale anyway, according to the article. Cost for Syncrude is about $35 a barrel, last I heard.

As you're a lefty enviroweenie, perhaps I should explain that "costs" include the cost of the machinery, transporting the raw material, steaming it to get the sand out, buying the fuel to make the steam, getting rid of the sand in a nice enviroweenie approved way, and paying all the guys too.

These costs are not fixed, of course. Lower cost energy sources such as a nice nuclear electric facility in Fort Mac would go a long way to reducing extraction costs.

The Saudi's stick a pipe in the ground and let the stuff dribble into a ship for about $2 a barrel, but at $147 a barrel on the open market, who cares? You're still making money. Which is of course the whole point of the exercise.

So, did I ask myself enough? Was there something eeeevile about using energy to make stuff that I should know about?

Interesting

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY

If the southern socialists win watch drilling restrictions disappear, the economy boom and the whole world become touchy feely.

Just a minor quibble here. At this stage in proceedings, "oil shale" is a resource, not reserves. "Reserves" are resources that have been developed to the point that we can be confident that we can draw on them. Reserves are bankable assets; resources need development to become reserves.

And "oil shale" doesn't really contain oil, as such. It contains kerogen, a mixture of solid hydrocarbons. It is a resource, though, and can and should be developed. Just don't dismiss the challenges as trivial, because they are not.

When the Democrats say we can't drill our way out of this oil crisis they fail to consider that the only other option is to kill our way out it by continuing to keep middle east oil coming to north America.

Which do you prefer?

"How much energy is required to get the oil out of the tar sands, opposed to pumping it from OPEC countries, and shipping or piping it over to the States and Canada?"

The return on investment isn't a bomb going off in a public market. Any questions?

The world's economy, life style(including "eco"-hot-holidays) runs on oil.

Who controls the worlds oil reserves, production ?

Roughly, from memory

66% OPEC
10% Russia
15% Others (Mexico, Norway, ect)
9 % "Big Oil" (Exxon, Shell, BP, ect)

So, besides all the Communist, Socialist & State owned Big Oils, just who also is to blame for $140 oil ? The Warmongers, eco facists, Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Suzuki. And Hummerers.

"How much energy is required to get the oil out of the tar sands, opposed to pumping it from OPEC countries, and shipping or piping it over to the States and Canada?"

The return on investment isn't a bomb going off in a public market. Any questions?

After all, if it saves just one life, it doesn't matter how much it costs. Isn't that usually the position taken by the left? If that's the case, they should be all over this like white on rice.

As an owner of many Canadian oil stocks (whereby we ARE developing our oil sands,) I am all in favour of the commies in the US preventing the US oil shale from being developed.

It keeps the price up, thus making Canadian oil companies more money, thus making me more money.

I am pleased ;)

Ahh,if that bar graph was changes to a line chart, it would have a distinct "Hockey Stick" shape.

Eat yer frik'n heart out Al Gore.

Take a frik'n hike Michael Mann.

Everyone who feels even vaguely uneasy about the rise of the nanny-state should read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. Excellent historical analysis of, to begin with, the clear reality that true fascism has its roots in socialism, and, more importantly, the reality that much of the politics on the left is based on some and mirrors - creating pseudo-crisis to hide a deeper agenda. Look at Dion's new carbon plan - based upon questionable science, but at it's core, it's not even an environmental plan at all, it's an income redistribution plan - to take money from those who have earned it, and to give it to those that haven't. True fascism to the core - government control of everything to impose their vision of the "good society".

The oil sands were being developed during the late 90's (and crying about the labour shortage then) when oil was nowhere near $140/barrel. The companies based their costs to develop the sands at way below what oil is now. This is a bonus that the LPC wants to take away through green shaft.

There may also be some bubble in all this - has happened before - to many commodities (and some none commodities. Pet Rocks, ect)

Anyone here remember the Silver Bubble ?? It was a squeeze by one rich family and some Arabs.

[In 1979 the sons of patriarch H.L. Hunt, Nelson Bunker and William Herbert, together with some wealthy Arabs, formed a silver pool. In a short period of time they had amassed more than 200 million ounces of silver, equivalent to half the world's deliverable supply.
When the Hunt's had begun accumulating silver back in 1973 the price was in the $1.95 / ounce range. Early in '79, the price was about $5. Late '79 / early '80 the price was in the $50's, peaking at $54.]Brian Trumbore

A ten fold price increase in one year !! Makes oil's doubling seem like small potatoes, doesn't it ?

So how did the Silver "investment" turn out ?

[Once the silver market was cornered, outsiders joined the chase but a combination of changed trading rules on the New York Metals Market (COMEX) and the intervention of the Federal Reserve put an end to the game. The price began to slide, culminating in a 50% one-day decline on March 27, 1980 as the price plummeted from $21.62 to $10.80.
The collapse of the silver market meant countless losses for speculators. The Hunt brothers declared bankruptcy. By 1987 their liabilities had grown to nearly $2.5 billion against assets of $1.5 billion. In August of 1988 the Hunts were convicted of conspiring to manipulate the market.]BT

Lesson: Bubbles can wreck ya.
Arm
Leg
First Born
Shirt

After the last oil-bubble, things were nasty in places like Oklahoma City and Edmonton. People in those areas said everything was for sale in the mid eighties - shirts everywhere. Will happen again. Guarrenteed.

Oil;
early 70s, 3$
late 70s, $42
late eighties, $17
late nineties, $9

from 3 to 42 to 17 to 9

Turn the oil workers loose and we will see cheap gas again !

http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/education/history/2000/hunt_bros.html

Ron,

The difference is that there is no one player manipulating the market, there is 2.5 Billion people in China and India who were at the bottom of the development ladder who are growing at 6-10% per year, China used to be a net exporter of oil and is now the second biggest importer. Now add Brazil and others.

Do that math.

I don't think that we'll get anything resembling a coherent energy/transportation policy in the US until such time as gasoline rationing returns like a specter from the bad old '70's. As soon as the Democrats discover their popularity melting before the fire they will be in favour of drilling, nukes and anything else. Green be damned!

Falklands Oil
Sask Oil
Quebec Gas
Asian Gas
Sask Oil Sands
BC Nat Gas
Bakken
Alaska
Brazil

Add, stir and PRESTO !! Cheap energy again. Let the good times roll !

That there are several centuries - maybe even millenia - of oil consumption available is certain. It is the cost of recovery, both in dollar and political terms, that will determine how fast they will be developed and which ones will be accessed first.

Oil Shale is significantly more expensive and difficult to access oil from than Oilsands. At this early point it would be very difficult to even estimate it, but near $100/BBL, particularly in the early stages, is not unrealistic. As many think that oil's price should be well below that figure within the next couple of years, it is unlikely that we will see shale oil being commercially extracted anytime soon.

It would be wise however, if the oil shale States and the US Gov't introduced aggressive tax policies to encourage development, much as AB and CDA did for the oilsands at a time when Oil sands oil was not price competitive.

Interesting that the graph doesn't include CDA. I would put the proven (brown area) at around 250 BB bbl and the potential somewhere btwn 3 and 4 trillion bbl.

If companies like Petrobank prove out their new oilsands extraction technologies in the next couple of years the brown area could rise as high as 1.5 trillion bbl very soon.

3Wpetrobank.com/hea-thaitechnology.html

It should also be noted that the unproven 'reserves' of places like Russia and Venezuela and several others are into the trillions as well.

A neighbour in the oil business wrote lately;

"There is one other huge unknown in all of this guessing the future, and that is what Russia will do. Russia has vast oil and gas reserves that have yet to be developed or re-established after being allowed to fall off under the communist regime. There is a fear that developing Russian reserves could establish a dependence on a politically unstable supply. Once again the oil is there, it could be produced in quantities that would drive the price of oil down, perhaps to the historical $18 to $20 per barrel, but do you want the world to be relying on Russian oil and gas? Europe is already on that slippery slope."

And that is just Russia !!

Kate linked to this historical oil price graph a awhile back.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.htm

What is stricking is how cheap the average price of oil is throught the years. Thirty, thirty five bucks maybe. It is the peaks that we remember though!! (Because the media does not harp, year after year, whenever the price is low. No Calamity there)

Perhaps it will be shale that knocks off this latest peak. Or Brazil. Or Bakken. Or Falklands.

In the early eighties it was North Sea, Oil Sands, Mexico, Russia.

Bjorn Lomborg commented on shale oil resource back in 2002 in his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist."

Page 128: "The total size of shale oil resources is quite numbing. It is estimated that globally there is about 242 times more shale oil than the conventional petroleum resources. There is more than eight times more energy in shale oil than in all other energy resources combined - oil, gas, coal, peat and tar sands. This stunning amount of energy is the equivalent of our present total energy consumption for more than 5,000 years."

A start ?

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080714.wbush0714/GIStory/

It is the potential of the US that hangs like the sword of Damocles over the Oil Mkts. If the US gov't opened up the ANWAR and the offshore, incented the development of oil shale and other unconventional 'reserves', and provided fast-tracking for new refinery construction and do similar things for caol and nuclear, the price of oil could be almost halved within a year IMO.

Clearly the impediment to this is political and BO and Pelosi and Reid are the three horsemen of the oil apocalypse.

Sovereign Wealth Funds = Oil Speculators.

Small emerging economies ie. the Arab states look at 30-40% that Western governments take out of the price of Oil and go why should we restrain ourselves we have the resources to drive prices and insure ourselves against $10-$20. The Arabs figure if Western governments can screw the consumer they may as well get in on the party.

Iran doesn't have any money to play the game hence all the saber rattling.

"Bush to Lift Executive Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling"

WWW.foxnews.com

Saskboy - here is an eay-to-read site to begin your education.

It addresses the energy return on energy invested.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3810

Not a simple question, but it looks like shale is good at 5:1 for the local US market.

Gord Tulk

Even taking the forward nature of oil markets, development takes years, not months.

The oil sands have been a work in progress for 3 decades. The oil sands are easier than the shale to develope.

Drilling is a hell of a lot easier than it sounds and and even though the utilization rates of the drilling firms isn't as high as they could be, they aren't near unlimited either. Even if they were, it takes time. You don't just pick a spot on the map and state "that's where it is." Even if you target "likely" areas, you get more dry wells than wet ones - and each cost you a fortune.

Hibernia took a decade or more. The North Sea decades.

The oil companies are profiting from high oil and seem to have learned from the over-development that was caused by the manic chasing of new reserves the last time (metals and mining haven't shot themselves in the foot this time either.)

Oil company development budgets are up but more because of costs than the desire to flood the market with new capacity.

And China keeps growing and growing...

I've worked in the Alberta oilpatch for over 30 years, and I've seen history repeat itself a few times. A couple of things should be cleared up about some of these energy sources.

Oil shale is being overestimated to encourage investments, and manipulate the stock market. That's standard operating proceedure for mining. I'm sure the resource is worth going after, but it's not the cure-all some people think it is.

Oil sands are a wonderful resource, but we have to stop wasting so much natural gas to produce it. Natural gas is our most precious resource. It's criminal to waste it on projects like this. They should be using nuclear power to upgrade this resource. Natural gas doesn't belong in cars or buses either.

Using natural gas to produce electricity should be banned as well. Coal is the obvious answer to most of our electrical needs. Nuclear is next. Then all the feel-good stuff after that.

Transportation was designed to burn gas and diesel. Trying to switch now is pointless. The current high prices will change our consumption habits sufficiently to keep things going for a few more decades. It should also discourage the Chinese and Indians from wasting a bunch of reserves.

Forget Russia. They'll be commie again within a few years.

Let the market sort itself out. These prices might be a blessing in the long run.

Reasoned comments dp - especially about natgas. It's tough for me to see people here at SDA blaming the lefties, or worse, 'speculators' for the run up in crude prices. I've worked in oil & gas & power my entire professional life, and it still amazes me when people, even 'conservatives', somehow combine an entitlement mindset (we are 'entitled' to cheap energy) with a gross mis-understanding of commodity markets, and the price discovery mechanism of futures contracts.

Price is the signal that drives rational economic decisions and behaviors. Governments that redistribute wealth or subsidize consumption are certainly not exclusively enviro-whackjobs, but Liberal, Conservative, and NDP.

Because of energy's personal connection - it permits us to live - emotional, and frequently irrational, discussions around it will continue.

This ain't the preserve of the moonbat, nor environmentalist. Besides, I thought Harper had pledged to remove the tax on tax within gasoline prices. Wonder how that turned out...

BTW, the current primary driver of crude levels is the Israeli foreign minister's recent comments, and the small detail of sending a squadron of F-15's to Greece. I think June 6th 1981 was the last time the Israelis sent out that large an air presence. This trip to Greece seemed to be just for kicks, and a little sightseeing :-)

It would be wise however, if the oil shale States and the US Gov't introduced aggressive tax policies to encourage development, much as AB and CDA did for the oilsands at a time when Oil sands oil was not price competitive. Posted by: Gord Tulk at July 14, 2008 12:22 PM

That's not tax policy Gord. That's taking from taxpayers, and giving it to business.

Central Planning picking winners and losers Comrade...

I am a little confused at the message here. Is it: "Sure you got shafted under the Bush administration, but it would've been way worse if the democrats had been in" ?

Oddly, none of this shit hapened until Bush abandoned his quest for Osama and decided, instead, to chase after Saddam.

Personally, I'd rather have 89 cent gas than play colonial gamers with Iraq.

soothsayer

High gas has nothing to do with Iraq (which is pumping out better-than-pre-war output.)

A decade ago China was a net exporter of oil. Now it is second only to the US as an Importer of oil. Just what do you think that has done to prices?

The very short effect the Iraq war had on price is long gone. There certainly is a level of premium built in for the Iran situtation, the usual crap in Africa and the degradation of output from Hugoland but Iraq ain't in that game.

hardboiled

Good comments except on Futures which have de-coupled from equity valuations as no one beleives the curve.

I've read that the recent oil price increase has more to do with sagging world confidence in the US dollar than anything else. Gold has been strong, which generally means that the dollar is weakening. The inflation we've been seeing seems to support that idea as well. US debt and the various credit crunch and subprime mortgage problems in the US are big problems for the banks, and the US dollar by extension. Anyone who thinks that mounting US debt is not going to eventually catch up with them/us is delusional. And Canada is joined to the hip with the Americans, just look where our exports go.

Even if the shale oil were developed, I wouldn't think that the price would come down very much, but that's only my opinion. The recent natural gas increase of 45% is based on what, exactly? Is it anything more than leveling the playing field to keep energy prices similar?

As I was told many years ago (during the 70's so-called "oil crisis") by a prominent, world-class energy and engineering expert, "There's no shortage of energy in the world. The problems are entirely political."

"No shortage" is probably accurate Dave. But even the most stubborn person has to admit that oil isn't going to last forever. They're not making it anymore, so unless we stop using it, it will eventually be gone.

Since the human race probably won't last forever either, a lot of people see no need to conserve. I used to think that way, but since my kids have grown I'm not so willing to put a time limit on our comfortable existence. The high price of oil is the best way to slow down consumption and stimulate research.

All the BS about climate change is just making most of us more skeptical. It's pretty hard to be indecisive when a tank of gas costs a day's pay.

Imagine the possible chaotic state of the world's oil market if Saddam had not been contained.

First Kuwait then Saudi Arabia then UAE then Oman then Iran then ...

Tyrant ranting and in control of 66% of all oil :(

Tom's Shell forgot the first law of banking: "Never take as collateral something that eats."

hardboiled - correct that every government party to date has been guilty of these socialist policies (wealth redistribution, etc.), but as Jonah Goldberg documents in Liberal Fascism it is because the Left established the structure in place. Unless we have a government willing to eliminate this fascist structure, nothing will change no matter which party gets in.

We tend to try to deal with the symptoms instead of the cause, which is government meddling in business, the economy, education, employment, people's private lives and just about everything else. This is state/government worship and an aspect of fascism. Of course we now have so many generations brought up and nursed on this, that it is unlikely to find enough people able and willing to cease screaming for some form of government intervention. Example at present is the cry on both sides of the border for the government to do something about the high prices at the pump.

The major media and political leadership continue to ignore the new oil rush in the 50 year old oil field in the Williston Basin of eastern Montana, western North Dakota and Saskatchewan; maybe over 400 billion barrels of oil there. Recently local newspapers in Pennsylvania have been reporting on a land rush there. Why? For mineral rights, since the same technology that has reopened the Williston Basin Bakken Formation oil field (http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2008/06/bakken-oil-formation-and-national.html), has reopened the Marcellus Shale Formation (http:// geology.com/articles/marcellus-shale.shtml) to exploration for natural gas.

The Marcellus Shale Formation runs from New York into West Virginia along the Appalachian Mountains. This old oil and gas field may contain more than 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The same new techniques are also being used to recover gas in the previously thought to be exhausted Barnett Shale Formation in Texas (http://geology.com/research/barnett-shale-gas.shtml); horizontal drilling and pressure cracking of the rock formation to collect the gas.

As American citizens hear nothing but doom and gloom about energy and see over $4.00 per gallon at the pump, there are signs that with this new technology old oil and gas fields are being recognized as offering an immediate energy bridge until offshore fields are ready to produce and we have developed alternative fuels to the point where petroleum and natural gas is reserved for fertilizer production and other basic needs.

One thing that American citizens should not allow to happen is for congress to seize on these previously ignored breakthroughs as an excuse to not drill offshore or in ANWR. Members of congress, in particular Democrats, are already misrepresenting (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121391719487790187.html) the government sale of other land oil leases to stall action on permitting drilling offshore.

Does the Democratic leadership place party over country; would appear so.

"Example at present is the cry on both sides of the border for the government to do something about the high prices at the pump......."

...and blogs and the MSM that blames it on ideology, BIG BUSINESS, or da eeeeveeel arabs.

It's alot easier than looking in the mirror. Or looking for leadership in 'conservative' politicians.

Warwick:

Granted getting new oil to market is a multi-year process. But the signal that would be sent if the US got serious about expanding production and refining capacityas well as existing proven energy alternatives - nuke/coal would be felt in the market immediately as there is a lot of hoarding and long-term hedging going on.

dp - check out the petrobank site. Its THAI technology uses almost no NG. And shell is working on an electric heating process (nuke-powered?)for its properties in the peace river area.

Warwick (again) Iraq is just now getting to pre-invasion levels, but the real story will be the big upswing in production from Iraq over the next decade as it resumes production levels on a par with Iran or better. remember there has been little new development there for almost 20 yrs (since the start of the Iran/Iraq conflict.

dp - we will not run put of oil for several centuries which is as good as "never" in my book.

And I would not rush to count out Russia or the 'stan countries as they are amazingly commerce-oriented outside of the kremlin and other political houses (the largest John Deere farm equipment dealer in the world is in Kazakhstan BTW). Think the China of today rather than Breznev's USSR.

Hardboiled: Tax incentives help boost the introduction of new technology and a more rapid commercialization of it. Had AB and the feds not provided them Fort McMurray would still be a backwater wilderness instead of the present and future engine of the Cdn economy.

They are only a picking winners and losers central-planning situation if the gov't expressly picks one compnay over another which was not the case in the development of the AB oilsands.

I would give this guy my business just because he does have a sense of humor about the situation.
Fact is, we all know that the tree huggers have turned most of Canada into one giant park. An expensive park with so many restrictions, you don't get welcomed, your interrogated with a body search as a courtesy.

They have done there level best in the US as well to stop any development in any place deemed sacred by there movement. Unfortunately for them (green wacko's) when need outstrips fantasy. Need always wins in the end. People cannot live on phony unproven ideals.
We will either find a cheap way of extraction or find a substitute, faster than I think most individuals think. We cannot be paying for western hostile Saudi Mosques or other whabatists institutions from our oil money.

By the time the domestic reserve is gone we will have new sources. The Islamists will be back on camels. If not fighting among themselves for the few scarce assets left, with a horde of people to feed.

It will go down eventually depending on events on its own. We cannot allow our enemies to hold this type of power over us threw the mega dollars given them for this commodity. Used to buy weapons to kill us or fund propaganda against western safety. Use it or lose it to a stronger people.

Just my opinion.

More shale - this time in ... QUEBEC !!

How will Dion spin this !?

I say Good ! Could be good for Canadian unity, no ?

[Believe it or not, one of North America's hottest energy plays is the lower St. Lawrence river, where they are drilling for natural gas under picturesque Quebec towns, century farms and that big rock with a hole in it.

In three short months, the Quebec gas rush has turned a pair of unknown companies into 10-baggers - that's the Street's name for stocks that jump ten-fold, as Questerre Energy and Junex have done.

The speed of the ascent, and the sudden appearance of large dealers on financings that traditionally got done by boutique house, speaks to the increasingly competitive dynamics of this energy market.

This story opens on April Fool's Day, when Denver-based Forest Oil announced promising results after a year-long drilling program in the St. Lawrence lowlands and Gaspe peninsula. What's known as Utica shale rock formations turned out to be chock full of natural gas, conveniently located near existing pipelines.]Globe&Mail

How will the LPC spin this !? No thanks, too much grin ouse gazz ?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080610.WBstreetwise20080610160713/WBStory/WBstreetwise

*Ten Bagger * - I like that term !!

It is obvious the US Congress is bought and paid for. They are gutless, corrupted and evil. I have thanked the Gods all my life that Canada borders the USA and not China or Russia but they have made some bad ... BAD choices and their direction now is very dark.

In the 70's oil crisis we could have dedicated resources to become completely free of middle east oil. We've had 30 + years to do this yet here we are being utterly shafted by OPEC, the speculators and the FED (printing more and more money just makes oil more and more expensive). Likely the biggest threat Iran poses to the US and the West right now isn't its nuclear potential but its threat to ONLY trade oil for Euros. Bombing the schnot out of them likely will NOT change that attitude.

One point that I didn't see in any of the posts above is that Canuckistan now supplies close to 40% of the USA oil needs. Of course it wouldn't have to if Congress grew a set of balls, told their big oil bosses to shove it and allowed the proper extraction of some of the world's larget known reserves right here in North America. Won't happen w/o a revolution. Sad!

The BekkenPlay (about half of it is IN Canada), Quebec (new), Falklands (rumoured to be huge but?), the ocean off Brazil - all good .... Nobody has mentioned Hibernia (1,11 & 111), White Rose, Hebron-Ben Nevis east of Nova Scotia or the Canuckistanian Arctic.

You can add another trillion or so barrels from those sources and with those, enough gas to almost replace all the HOT AIR coming off Washington and Ottawa!!

*Ten Bagger * - I like that term !!

triple bagger is a "very ugly person" :-)))))

"Canuckistan now supplies close to 40% of the USA oil needs"

More like 10% (2 million barrels a day out of 21).

Even if the US would immediately start drilling offshore, ANWR, Bakken and also turn oil shale into actual oil, they will at most ramp up production by 1.5-2 million barrels a day by 2018. They would still have to import 10 million a day, assuming consumption remains constant.

The days of oil gushers are long gone, except perhaps in some areas of Iraq. Even in Saudi Arabia, reputedly having gazillions of barrels, the last major field developed, Khurais, needs to be pressurized by sea water, which is brought in from almost 100 miles.

There is tons of oil left, but it is harder, therefore slower to produce. This is the real challenge: how to maintain a growing world economy on what appears to be a flat oil production.

Worldwide, we need to bring 5 mbpd of new production every year, just to keep the total output constant. Major producers like Norway and the UK are in full decline, this has to be made up by new production somewhere else. And it is getting harder and much costlier to do it.

The main issue with oil shale is the same as for the tar sands, only worse: you need huge energy inputs to produce it. Right now there is some debate on how much. If you need more than the energy of a barrel of oil to produce a barrel, then it is a loser, no matter what the cost of oil is.

The best and quickest solution, at this time, is conservation. If the US average car & truck fuel consumption was reduced by 10%, they could instantly save a million barrels a day - that's the entire output of the Alberta oil sands.

If we keep insisting on using oil like there is no tomorrow, then we must expect to pay more for it.

GreenNeck,

nice try, but the break even point to produce oil shale was about $40 per barrel. In other words, as long as its above forty, it's economical to produce.

The only reason it hasn't been since the price rose over forty was political.

Or to put it more bluntly, "GreenNeck's", who didn't have to worry about the family's trucking business going under and content to allow others feel the pain so that they could get their narcissistic saving-the-world fix while comfortably sipping their latte mocha frappucinos in those nice cushy Starbucks chairs,

pressed their political leaders to keep legislation in place to stop any and all development.

And a prediction:

A backlash of epic proportions awaits those politicians who choose to cater to the eco-facist chattering classes, rather than the real needs of Ma and Pa Mackenzie.

GreenNeck-

What is the rate of change in petroleum demand in the US since March of 2008 until today?

Second question, is the total number of barrels per day in the prior change figure greater than or less than the total demand from China and India combined, for one year?

Stumped?

Do your homework over, again. And no excuses about the dog.

Oilshale would only be viable if it could be surface mined like the oilsands.

Horizontal drilling, and somehow turning it into liquid so it can be pumped to surface, will be tremendously expensive. Each horizontal section will cost in the high six figure range. The production zone of each section will be very limited because the shale will not flow into the drilled section. If they use steam or some other method to move the shale, the net yield will be fairly low.

Nobody wants to address these issues right now because we all want something positive to cling to. There could very well be some new technology that will solve all these problems, but until then the costs will be prohibitive.

There will be plenty of projections, estimates, and proposals. Don't get too excited, it's all about finding investors and manipulating the stock market.

Greenneck's right. Conservation is the key. That and somehow keeping the Chinese from getting control of more reserves. The middle east needs to be buttoned down, one way or another. And we need to get our heads out of our asses, and quit talking about selling oilsands to the Chinese.

"In other words, as long as its above forty, it's economical to produce."

As long as you and Phantom and other non-thinkers constantly leave off important parts of the equation (ie. costs of waste disposal and energy production for oil extraction) you'll always have economical oil. Keep reaching for those stars, you'll touch one.

Biff:

The 40$ figure is obsolete. The main factor in that price is energy, which has more than doubled since that figure was published. I'm not saying you can't produce it. I just say it won't be cheap, and you won't get millions of barrels a day, at least not after possibly decades of investment.

You also assume anyone advocating oil conservation must be a latte-sipping urbanite, without any evidence. FYI, this guy lives in rural Ontario, and drives a truck for construction in summer, and plowing snow in winter. Hard to do those jobs with a scooter. I know first-hand about the effects of fuel costs. Luckily I grow most of my food and heat with wood.

I'm a realist. Blaming tree huggers for all energy supply problems is a cop-out. Other countries don't face such restrictions and experience terminal oil production declines. In any event, Mr. Bush okayed offshore drilling. I for one am all for it, and hope they will allow drilling ANWR in Alaska too. It will finally make the cornucopian idiots shut up, and look like the fools they are when it makes hardly any difference.

As for your prediction about a backlash against the 'eco-fascists', this is a foregone conclusion, especially if the economy tanks.

Porter:

Not stumped at all. Anyone can find that.

Year over year, about 4%, or 800,000 bpd. And consumption is China/India has been flat during the same period.

So your question should be, why haven't prices dropped in the face of lower demand? I for one say they will go back to 70-80$, but the US banking woes will have to be resolved first. Right now oil acts as a safe haven, just like gold.

Gord Tulk wrote: THAI technology uses almost no NG

Opti/Nexen's process is also not mostly NG dependent. But you gotta have oxygen - which means a honkin' big air separation plant.

Which means literally tons of waste nitrogen. What would you do with all that waste N2 - just vent it?

All that waste nitrogen could probably be sold to tire shops. Isn't that the latest scam? Some shops are charging extra to fill tires with pure nitrogen. I think I'm sticking with the free 76% version.

dp: nitrogen molecules are much larger than oxygen molecules. That means there's less leakage from the tire and they stay fully inflated longer. Lower tire pressure from leaks means poorer handling and increased fuel use. Nitrogen is routinely used in racing cars, not air.

cgh: Yes, the military uses it in airplane tires as well.

I'm still doubtful that tire shops can deliver on their promises. Who's to say they won't use regular air? Just like some bottled water companies that use water straight out of the tap.

GreenNeck-

I never said you were going to be stumped, but the question was the amount of the drop in demand since March in the US, as compared to total demand for China and India. The 4% figure is close enough for the drop in demand in the US since March, but the level of demand per annum from the other two is far less than that.

Look at GSCI fund growth for the source of everyone's crude price problems.

Back later.

dp:

Unless Air Liquide is defrauding them the tire guys are really filling them with N2. The tire shop in my neighbourhood filled my tires from a AL tank labelled "Nitrogen".

N2 is very good for low profile tires on large diameter alloy wheels as they do tend to leak more than traditional steel wheels - expansion and other factors being the contributors.

GreenNeck-

Here's the point I was trying to inelegantly make, not written by me. (paragraph 3, of # 2)

http://seekingalpha.com/article/85553-confirmatory-bias-and-oil-investing?source=headline1