Donate SIGN UP

US to become worlds' biggest oil producer

Avatar Image
pdq1 | 23:55 Mon 12th Nov 2012 | News
16 Answers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20304848

Is it possible we could become self sufficient in oil if we used the same methods?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 16 of 16rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by pdq1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well it does require fracking, which caused minor earthquakes when we tried it.
Question Author
Yes but wasn't that close to Blackpool There must be many secluded areas in Britain that would be unaffected.
There is a suggestion that we have Shale gas reserves - not sure about oil though.

http://www.bloomberg....5-years-to-start.html

"Energy Minister John Hayes said last month the U.K. plans to allow companies to resume shale gas exploration this year to take advantage of “an exciting opportunity.” Exploitation of the U.K.’s shale-gas reserves may meet 10 percent of U.K. demand for more than 100 years, according to the Institute of Directors"

The one example of shale gas exploitation that happened in the UK was up at Blackpool, and that lead to small scale earth tremors which is worrying. The US is a continent, and as such has a far larger area to explore and drill and frack in areas that are remote from built up areas.

So, not sure to what extent the UK can or wants to exploit shale gas reserves...
Shale oil has huge reserves far more than conventional oil.
The problem with getting it is the cost at least 5x the cost of conventional oil production. Let us see how the US car drivers react to being told 'gas' is going up by 500% to 1000% .
We were self sufficient in oil ,North Sea , but instead of keeping it for ourselves we sold it for a quick profit. If we had kept all the North sea oil/gas for our use only we would have had enough to last over 300 years.
In answer to your question , no, our shale oil reserves are a tiny fraction of the USA's and all under densely populated areas.
Even shale oil is limited , the entire worlds known reserves will only last at the most 300 years, not even a blink of the eye in the history of mankind.
Eddie - I assume Shale Oil and Shale Gas are different reserves, as conventional Oil and Gas reserves are? linked but seperate? If so, do you have any links to Shale Oil reserves specifically? I have had a quick google but cant find anything much...
the UK is about a tenth of the size of Texas but with more than three times as many people. So you'd need a lot more oil in a lot less space and have a lot more trouble getting at it.

Still, there may be oil rigs already in position

http://inlinethumb63....305888S600x600Q85.jpg
Actually, along with the fairly new fracking (fracturing a "tight" geological structure with hydraulic pressure) the thing that makes new U.S. production reasonably priced is the use of directional drilling. One well is drilled and from that single stem several other subsurface spokes are drilled making the one vertical hole extremely productive.

Living here in the western U.S. a geologic structure now named the "Bakken" was found under a previously explored structure and it's immense. Not only that, but friends who are petroleum geologists suspect that there's an additional production zone under that zone.

All of this is around 10,000 feet below the surface.

But have no doubt, the driving factor in all this is the price of crude oil. Currently between $80 to $90 (US) per barrel, it makes it profitable to find and produce. If a glut were to develop or, if a return to reccessionary economy happens, the resulting lessening in demand could cause the price of oil to plummet.

Our highest prices reached $3.90 a gallon late this last summer. Right now the average is probably in the $3.20 range. It's been dropping significantly in the last few weeks, but primrily due to the above described lack of demand.

The satisfying aspect of this exploration is that it isn't under the purvue of the Federal Government, since almost all of the production comes from private land owners who have held on to their mineral rights since the land was homesteaded by ancestors in the late 1880's. As our Norwegian descended neighbors would say "Uff da... good on them"! Millionaires are being made almost daily after years of farming or ranching for a living and all the uncertainty involved in that...
-- answer removed --
I must admit to being totally clueless about oil, economics and geogology but can I just say how much I love the word 'fracking'
Here is the Wilki link Shale oil and shale gas are explained
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale
Thanks ofr the link Eddie
no matter what fuel source we use the big companies that supply fuel from the oil companies at source to the utility companies to the end user also the government and its vat income, have got used to revenue levels that they will not let drop by any significant amount.

so yes it may secure our energy sources and make us less reliant on overseas supplys but it wont bring costs to the end user down by any significant amount.
It's not just VAT either.

Just watch, there will be wind turbine tax soon when they realize revenues to pay foreigners has dropped
We have no chance while politicians continue listening to the idiotic environmentalists. Same reason we cant start digging for coal and opening coal fired power stations again
-- answer removed --

1 to 16 of 16rss feed

Do you know the answer?

US to become worlds' biggest oil producer

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.