Slashdot Mirror
US Officials Cut Estimate of Recoverable Monterey Shale Oil By 96%
First time accepted submitter steam_cannon (1881500) writes "The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA.gov) is planning to release a major 96% reserve downgrade to the amount of oil and gas recoverable from the Monterey Shale formation, one of the largest oil/gas reserves in the United States. After several years of intensified exploration the Monterey oil shale play seems to have much less recoverable oil and gas then previously hoped. This is due to multiple factors such as the more complex rippled geology of the shale and over-hyped recovery estimates by investors. By official estimates the Monterey Shale formation makes up 2/3 of the shale reserves in the US and by some estimates 1/3 of all crude reserves in the US. Not a drop in the bucket. Next Month the EIA.gov will be announcing cutting it's estimates for Monterey by 96%. That's a huge blow to the US energy portfolio, trillions of dollars, oil and gas the US might have used for itself or exported. Presently the White House is evaluating making changes to US oil export restrictions so this downgrade may result in changes to US energy policy. As well as have a significant impact on US economy and the economy of California."
It's because the majority of Americans don't really get taught proper English in school any more, and they pretty much ignore what teaching they do get. But they still get to pass classes and graduate, because it would hurt their feelings to do otherwise.
I used to work at an outfit where the majority of my co-workers were immigrants, as well as a large proportion of our customers. The worst at English spelling and grammar in both groups by far were the people born and raised in the U.S. I never really knew whether to laugh at that or be depressed by it.
The stupidity of ignoring nuclear fission never ceases to amaze me. Fusion is still a long way from practicality, will always expensive and isn't the clean dream - the massive neutron flux just makes even more radioactive waste. The oil & gas are going to run out one day, be it in 5 years or 50. Renewables are unreliable, expensive and the quantities of rare earths required make for horrible mining pollution as well as covering the landscape with ugly windmills and solar collectors.
High activity nuclear waste is a small volume storage problem and if we hadn't wasted the last 30 years we would have modern fission plant designs far safer than any of the chemical polluting shit we have now.
Fricken' ridiculous.
Peak US oil production begat a rampant speculative market, which in turn sends our oil and gas prices soaring and crashing on a yearly basis. This is always quietly dismissed as seasonal demand so as to coddle speculators and assuage the fears of our politicians. Sustained high crude prices and a rapidly diminishing prospect of respectable foreign policy with regard to the oil market during the Bush administration led many oil and gas producers and their lobbyists to declare a diamond in the rough. This shale oil and gas to be captured through fractionation came at a time when to deem it suspect was nihilistic and we all tacitly agreed it must be true for sake of our own collective future. As our war machine contracted and our focus returned somewhat toward domestic policies and act of sustainability it of course became increasingly difficult to ignore what during the past 8 years was a boon of blank checks and exemptions from the federal government to be applied toward the shale moneytrain. Halliburton certainly wouldnt be the first to fess up, and nor should they as theyd worked hard to secure by hook and by crook some of the most lucrative and reprehensible federal exemptions and contracts in recent history. Shale is good, shale is great.
No. Like an alcoholic stumbling from a hot malt liquor hangover into the nearest gas station we scrambled to find anything to take the hurt away. That we like the rest of the world would have to firm up our collective constitutions and make seriously warranted changes was simply too much. We crawled back into shale oils warm cockle and clutched our crossover SUV for one more year. We looked to the tar sands and their beleaguered machination of destruction and waste as no more than a fine bourbon whiskey we partook of on occasion. Science, like a distant cousin with the bail money for the last bender, is shuffling us along into the rather unpleasant sunlight once again with heavy heart and a morose sigh. We either change or we die, because at this point Science will have existed as much with us as it has without us.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The luddites think its icky and we can all just use windmills. Don't ask me how they think they'll ever get a jet off the ground using solar, but I don't think they've even thought that far into it.
This isn't about ludditism. This is about what year is it? We can fly the planes on biofuels, but we should replace all air within a nation with high-speed rail. Which we should fucking have already, because what year is it? We should be running our planes on biofuels already, because what year is it?
We've had solar panels since the 1970s and they could repay their energy investment in seven years back then. Now it's three. What year is it?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So you're saying that you support expensive energy, and further with that creating misery for those who can't afford cheap energy?
He's saying that "cheap energy" is a delusion - one fostered with temporary geological realities and utter lack of regard for any externalities - and that the sooner you snap out of that delusion, the better for everyone involved.
Ezekiel 23:20
If that truly was a concern for the pro-petroleum folks then why do we export so much of our gasoline and keep our domestic price high? FYI, the Keystone XL pipeline goal is to move the crude oil to refineries on the gulf coast for export.
If we want to take the long view and lower the cost of energy for everyone we need to spend more money toward finding alternative and more abundant sources of energy. This short-term strategy of keeping the status-quo and using the current stock of "cheap energy" does nothing but make petroleum investors rich, further damage the environment, and delay the inevitable to the point where the poor will suffer even more than they supposedly do today.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I'm not sure why people "favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform" should have any such opinion.
That is not what "liberal" means in American English. In America, a liberal is what Europeans would call a progressive or a social democrat. What Europeans call a liberal, would be a libertarian in America. In Australian English, "liberal" means conservative.