[Hellstryker]

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

Thoughts? I'm honestly very pissed off about this. I don't want to be using oil 200 years from now. Or 100. Or hell, even 50.

[iamzack]

North Dakota and Montana... Well, it's not like anybody lives there.

[Blue Lion]

There is ton's of technically recoverable oil everywhere, whether or not that oil is profitable is another story.

[tinfoil]

technically recoverable

Aha, the catch. Until you guys can figure out a way to get power without oil my province is going to do just fine. 

[Nuclear1]

Ignore the oil. Get us on something better.

But most importantly...

Leave Montana alone.

[Hellstryker]

Ignore the oil. Get us on something better.

But most importantly...

Leave Montana alone.

My thoughts exactly.

[Enigmatic Entity]

How long would 3.65*10^9 barrels last at the current rate?

[Scotty]

about a day.

[watsisname]

According to wikipedia, world consuption in 2006 was 86 million barrels per day.  So 3 or 4 billion would barely cover a month.  Sad, really.

[Galemp]

The sad part is, after the apocalypse, when we start rebuilding, all readily available fossil fuels will have been used up with no means to produce more, thus dooming humanity to a pre-industrial civilization for at least a million years.

Why yes, I do read Orson Scott Card. Why do you ask?

[peterv]

Merde! I thougt that this is the after the apocalypse period    I think i'll have to check this Orson Scott Card guy.

[Daniel P]

Merde! I thougt that this is the after the apocalypse period    I think i'll have to check this Orson Scott Card guy.

meh, I am a optimist. 

Just hope for the best.

[IronBeer]

Personally, I believe that if the government seriously cared about advancing us from fossil fuels (or at the least petroleum), they certainly have the power to do so. How? Through the use of tax credits and/ or tax breaks. Give fat tax breaks for car companies that develop natural-gas or electric cars. Offer tax breaks for people to buy and own them. Furthermore, the government could encourage (aka subsidize) the use of nuclear power. Environmentalist whining nonwithstanding, nuclear energy is the single best source of electrical energy we have. Yes, disposal of nuclear waste is a concern in the States, but that's due in large part to the fact that our nuclear capabilities are embarrassingly behind those of Canada and some members of the EU. France gets at least 50% of their power from nuclear, and they even have a reactor that can reprocess nuclear waste. Furthermore, I read in Popular Science about a type of "plasma incinerator"- it can take any fuel so long as it's not in elemental form, produces syngas (which actually fuels the electric generator) and a glassy, obsidian-like slag as a byproduct.
*Whew* In short, if people seriously wanted to move on from oil, we could. But we aren't. And in light of the way things are, I for one am pleased that such a large accumulation of oil is likely present.

[MP-Ryan]

The US has a ridiculous amount of untapped oil.  It's called the Strategic Reserve.

Don't worry, resource exploitation in every other country won't be ending anytime soon.  The US will conserve its own resources last.  Which is precisely why the US isn't the country we should all be relying on for developing alternative energy sources - there's very little incentive for the R&D money required to do so when the large oil corporations are raking in billions a year in oil profits (and billions more in subsidiary companies that pick up lucrative DoD contracts).

/cynicism.

[Charismatic]

Anyone hear of the Air car?

IIRC www.aircar.com

[Wobble73]

Time to cover the Sahara and other global deserts with Solar cells and feed the power equally to each nation. 

*Edit* What's the carbon footprint on a solar cell again? */Edit*

[Black Wolf]

Not without superconducting cables it's not

What we need is big huge solar farms coverting water into hydrogen, and some kind of safe hydrogen storage system. Then there's maybe a place for desert based solar arrays (or dessert based for flavour).

Anyway, 4 billion barrels is nice, and worth having sure, but it's not really big news. The Saudi's have, what nearly 300 billion? Find an order of magnitude more than this (i.e. 30 - 40 billion) and you start affecting the oil debate in some small way. But with modern geophysical methods the way they are I'd be very surprised if there were too many more recoerable oil fields at that scale out there, particularly not onshore and definitely not in countries like the US (i.e. first world, long oil producing history etc.)

[iamzack]

Don't the Saudi's, like, refuse to tell anyone how much oil they have?

Meh. I think the government should stop subsidizing fossil fuels, at the very least... Let gas prices be outrageous. Maybe people will get off their fat asses and walk to the store. Though, what with the size of suburbs these days, the ice cream might all be melted by the time they walk home.

Public transportation could do with some improvements, too.

My city doesn't allow you to put solar panels on your roof. They're ugly or something.

[BloodEagle]

My city doesn't allow you to put solar panels on your roof. They're ugly or something.

 

Kill your public officials. Now.

[Flaser]

The sad part is, after the apocalypse, when we start rebuilding, all readily available fossil fuels will have been used up with no means to produce more, thus dooming humanity to a pre-industrial civilization for at least a million years.

Why yes, I do read Orson Scott Card. Why do you ask?

We should just go straight nuclear, and use hydro as an intermediary step to power the research&dev site.

Not without superconducting cables it's not

What we need is big huge solar farms coverting water into hydrogen, and some kind of safe hydrogen storage system. Then there's maybe a place for desert based solar arrays (or dessert based for flavour).

Anyway, 4 billion barrels is nice, and worth having sure, but it's not really big news. The Saudi's have, what nearly 300 billion? Find an order of magnitude more than this (i.e. 30 - 40 billion) and you start affecting the oil debate in some small way. But with modern geophysical methods the way they are I'd be very surprised if there were too many more recoerable oil fields at that scale out there, particularly not onshore and definitely not in countries like the US (i.e. first world, long oil producing history etc.)

Actually hydrogen is nowhere near as dangerous as every man on the street likes to make it out. It's pretty safe in fact. Most people on the Hindenburg died from jumping out...the few survivors stayed on the ship until it landed (OK. drifted to the ground) and got off with minor injuries.

However hydrogen is *not* the answer, because its energy density is so low. It's way too bulky to haul around, it takes up too much space.

Personally, I believe that if the government seriously cared about advancing us from fossil fuels (or at the least petroleum), they certainly have the power to do so. How? Through the use of tax credits and/ or tax breaks. Give fat tax breaks for car companies that develop natural-gas or electric cars. Offer tax breaks for people to buy and own them. Furthermore, the government could encourage (aka subsidize) the use of nuclear power. Environmentalist whining nonwithstanding, nuclear energy is the single best source of electrical energy we have. Yes, disposal of nuclear waste is a concern in the States, but that's due in large part to the fact that our nuclear capabilities are embarrassingly behind those of Canada and some members of the EU. France gets at least 50% of their power from nuclear, and they even have a reactor that can reprocess nuclear waste. Furthermore, I read in Popular Science about a type of "plasma incinerator"- it can take any fuel so long as it's not in elemental form, produces syngas (which actually fuels the electric generator) and a glassy, obsidian-like slag as a byproduct.
*Whew* In short, if people seriously wanted to move on from oil, we could. But we aren't. And in light of the way things are, I for one am pleased that such a large accumulation of oil is likely present.

You *can't* burn fissionable like that. Reprocessing is a valid method, but it takes great caution and planning, especially since any reprocessing plant will be - by their nature - producing plutonium, the stuff that modern nukes are made of. They're a highly sensitive sites as far as nuclear proliferation and national security are concerned.

Still, I'm all for them, as they increase the lifespan and usability of fission fuel by several magnitudes. However if reprocessing *is* enacted, then the whole deal has to be handled with the care and respect it deserves.