14 May

America Is Awash In Oil….Will Obama Allow Us To Get it?

                                       

Dragline excavator in the Baltic Oil Shale Basin - Narva

While our MSM continues to wag their tongues all over Obama’s gayness they somehow, someway, missed the news that an auditor from the GAO testified in Congress and said:

The Green River Formation–an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming–contains the world’s largest deposits of oil shale,”Anu K. Mittal, the GAO’s director of natural resources and environment said in written testimony submitted to the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

“USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions,” Mittal testified.

“The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered,” Mittal told the subcommittee. “At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.

And this may shock you….but Obama issued new regulations on fracking a few days ago. I know…a Democrat wants more regulations? Who woulda thunk it.

So just in time to hear the great news that the world’s largest oil reserves is on this continent…not Saudi Arabia, not Iran, not Kuwait. But here in the United States we get Obama to eff it all up.

Shocking.

Even more shocking is the lack of media coverage:

Searches on “Government Accountability Office” (not in quotes), “shale,” and “mittal” at the Associated Press’s national site return nothing relevant to the energy-related story which will follow. A Google News search on “Anu Mittal,” the person from the GAO who on Thursday testified before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology`s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, appears to return seven relevant items, but it’s really five. The first is a press release from the Luddite (aka Democratic) members of the committee pooh-poohing the importance of Ms. Mittal’s assertions. The other four are from non-major and/or non-establishment press sources: NewserAmerican ThinkerDaily Markets, and the Inquisitr (yes, spelled correctly). Only one other news outlet I’m aware of, Media Research Center’s CNS News, has also noted Ms. Mittal’s testimony.

…Of the outlets which did cover it, two of them gratuitously brought the Iraq War into the discussion. Newser’s Neal Colgrass wrote: “Maybe President Bush should have invaded the Midwest instead of Iraq.” Residents of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming will be amused to learn that Colgrass believe that their states are in the Midwest. They’re not. Similarly, the unbylined Inquisitr report snarked that “While the United States has invaded much of the Middle East in search of lower gas prices, perhaps President Bush should have been focusing his efforts on the Midwest region of the United States during the first Iraq war.” Media bias clearly runs very deep — miles deep, if you will.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Economy, MSM Bias, Oil, POWER GRAB!. Bookmark the permalink. Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 5:00 am
| 542 views

47 Responses to America Is Awash In Oil….Will Obama Allow Us To Get it?

  1. silverfiddle says: 1

    No. He won’t. We need a republican president to do that.

    ReplyReply
  2. Skookum says: 2

    There are multiple reasons why Obama will never allow the country to participate in this bonanza. First and foremost, there would be full employment in flyover country, there would also be the wailing of environmentalists, the draining of America’s wealth to the middle east and other oil producing areas would end, America could participate in the energy wealth production again, America would not be so dependent on Middle East political developments, he and his food stamp programs would’t hold so much power over the American public, America after investing in a few refineries could become energy independent.

    Obama’s Green Energy programs, that so far seem to only benefit his loyalists with American taxpayer wealth that will soon pay off in campaign contributions, will not be a viable source of graft and corruption. The ideas of wind, solar, and algae producing power will once again be the focus of high school science projects, instead of an energy policy.

    ReplyReply
  3. Warren says: 3

    Will the Green River Formation discovery change Obama’s “…only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves” claim? I doubt it. It is one of his favorite lies. So, this link provides information to debunk him.

    ReplyReply
  4. oil guy from Alberta says: 4

    Nothing new to me. I saw an oil shale outcrop in Wyoming over 20 years ago. I still wonder if this extremely valuable resource would ever be utilized.

    Estimates of the oil sands have been upgraded to 3 trillion also. Saskatchewan has a deposit estimated at over a trillion . Sask. has about half of the Bakken formation. Lordy be. They now have a free enterprise government in place. It used to be infested with socialists. Things are a happening. The Keystone XL pipeline should be inevitable.

    ReplyReply
  5. Nan G says: 5

    So, 1/2 of all this oil is recoverable with the technology available to us today.
    Guess what?
    In a couple of years all of it will be feasibly recoverable.
    There is no ”peak oil.”
    Peak oil is a nasty myth.

    ReplyReply
  6. Randy says: 6

    One thing that is not publized is that all of the natural gas fields also have considerable oil. The gas companies believe that the oil in Pennsylvania gas fields will make the wells highly profitable even though the price of gas is low right now! Notice how the price of oil plunged when this announcement was made? Any relationship?

    ReplyReply
  7. Common Sense says: 7

    0-bama will never allow this to be developed. Politically he needs his wacho liberal base to vote for him. Time time again he has lied about what he supports when it comes to energy. If America wants an energy policy it will need to replace our current failed president.

    ReplyReply
  8. Ivan says: 8

    What is the point in drilling for oil when it’s just being sold abroad once we drill it here????

    ReplyReply
  9. Marine72 says: 9

    @Ivan: Wow! Stupid is as stupid posts! Try the word: commerce!

    ReplyReply
  10. Randy says: 10

    @Ivan: Last I looked, we have a world economy! Maybe you need to study up a little before you post at this site!

    ReplyReply
  11. Liberal1 (objectivity) says: 11

    Oh, I see, we put our resources into the world commerce pot, and eventually we benefit—trickle down oil resources. Sounds like communism to me.

    ReplyReply
  12. THE DEMOCRATS INCLUDING OBAMA WOUDN’T DARE OPEN THE OIL BOUNTY,
    THEY ARE TOO AFRAID TO LOOSE THE MANY WELFARE PEOPLE WHO DEPEND ON HIM, AND THINK HE , OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS ARE THE ONE WHO ARE SO GENEROUS,AND COMPASSIONATE,
    WHILE THAT MONEY BELONG TO THE PEOPLE,
    IF THEY LOOSE THE WELFARE RECIPIENTS, THEY ARE DOOM, AND THEY KNOW IT DAM WELL.

    ReplyReply
  13. Taylor Marshall says: 13

    I wouldn’t say that all green energy is a “high school science project.” Nuclear, Hydro, and Geothermal hold huge potential and people are starting to utilize them.

    ReplyReply
  14. Nan G says: 14

    @Taylor Marshall:
    Starting?
    Nuclear, Hydro, and Geothermal.
    After Fukishima Germany and other countries began decommissioning their nuclear power plants.
    In Germany this is causing an expensive strain on their grid.
    San Onofre CA is offline and straining OUR grid in California.

    In the USA many hydroelectric plants are being decommissioned.
    One commercial makes a big deal about how awful dams are.

    And in the US when geothermal was tried the drilling and sending down water was blamed for earthquakes.
    Iceland uses geothermal to wonderful effect, however.

    Our main problem here in the USA is that, if Obama’s cronies don’t benefit, it doesn’t happen.

    ReplyReply
  15. Taylor Marshall says: 15

    @Nan. Granted there are fears to be conquered in terms of nuke energy. In terms of the dams, yes there are many who bash them like China’s 3 Gorges one, but they forget that that dam produces enough clean hydro power to light up Boston, Washington DC, and New York City combined.

    As far as earthquakes are concerned with geothermal energy, earthquakes have also been attributed to mining and petroleum and natural gas development so lets not hold a double standard okay. Plus, most of the quakes are very minor ones.

    ReplyReply
  16. Randy says: 16

    @Liberal1 (objectivity): NOw liberal1, this is free trade. The world pays the world price for oil and the cost of transportating it to where it will be used. For many years, the US could buy oil from the world market and transport it here cheaper than develop our own oil sources. Now with high oil prices, it is finally cheaper to develop our own oil and sell it.

    Communism, it is apparent that you libs do not know what it is! Selling oil or any other commodity on a world market is getting the best price for your product is capitolism at its best. Spreading the wealth around by taxing some individuals more to give to others can be communism if all income is considered to belong to the state.

    ReplyReply
  17. Randy says: 17

    Drilling a shallow well and using the 55 degree heat in the well to increase the effectiveness of a heat pump is considered geothermal. It is highly effective when the water table is above 50 feet.

    ReplyReply
  18. Taylor Marshall says: 18

    @Randy, I wasn’t just referring to heating and cooling but also electricity. There are oilmen in Texas who are researching ways to harness the heat in their wells for geothermal energy.

    I am not againt harnessing dometic petroleum resources but I am more in favor of natural gas, even if gasoline was still cheap, it’s not clean. I am with Pickens in that we should use more natural gas in transportation. It has done good things for the air quality in my home town.

    ReplyReply
  19. Randy says: 19

    @Taylor Marshall: I agree with you on cleaner fuel, but we need to allow the economy and technology to dictate how we generate our elctricity and fuel our transportation. We should not be subsidizing energy sources that are not going to be economically viable for decades in the future.

    ReplyReply
  20. Taylor Marshall says: 20

    @Randy. Unfortunately you cannot always rely on the free market to make the best decisions for the environment or even for the country. There is a reason we put a trade embargo on Cuba, if you just asked people out of the good of their hearts to boycott Cuban products so as not to support the Cubans or the Soviet Union do you really think that would have been effective? I think not.

    ReplyReply
  21. Taylor Marshall says: 21

    Letting the free market decide is how Al Quaida was able to get so much petroleum money from the United States. We should have put an embargo on their products years ago. If we had then those twin towers might still be standing. Sorry to be brutally honest but that is the truth.

    ReplyReply
  22. Taylor Marshall
    if we look at many generations behind which survived out of oil and electricity,
    you see the life ages way higher, in those times, and you look now how it is, and notice how many sick humans with need to be monitor by doctor,
    I think we have to look elsewhere for the pollutions problems, and not discard what worked for many generation and improve to a high level of protection for humans
    the problems lies at the chimical inserting every level of life, not the know asset here in aboundance,
    also the ripping of those lands from foreigners taking the treasured land full of precious mineral like the CHINA IS DOING IN AFRICAN COUNTRIES AT THIS TIME , IN EXCHANGE OF CHEAP PROGRESS WHICH ENRICH NOT THE PEOPLE WHO STILL DEPEND ON GIVEN BY THIS AMERICA COMPASSIONATE
    PEOPLE, IN ALL THESE YEARS CHINA COULD NOT EVEN FEED HIS OWN PEOPLE BUT THEY FIND MONEYS TO BUY HERE EVERYTHING THEY CAN PUT THEIR HANDS ON,
    THEREFOR LIMITING THIS COUNTRY BIT BY BIT ON KEEPING HOLD ON THE OLD RESOURCES,
    HELP BY A GOVERNMENT IN BED WITH TH ARABS OIL, IN BED WITH CHINA BY FORCE OF THE BORROWING MONEY TO BE USED FOR THEIR SPENDING SPREE CRAZE OF ANYTHING AS LONG AS THEY HAVE THE FUN TO SPEND AND BRAG THAT POWER THEY HAVE ON THE BACK OF
    THE PEOPLE AND THEIR MONEY, WHILE THE AWOL SPENDER DOESN’T TOUCH ONE PENNY OF HIS OWN MONEY HE INVEST BY HAVING THE FIRST SEAT ON THE MARKET GETTING HIM RICHER THAN WALL STREET MONEY MAKER WHEN HE IS THROWN OUT OF HIS JOB,

    ReplyReply
  23. Taylor Marshall says: 23

    Don’t get me wrong Randy I think free market economics play their part. They are a big reason why South Korea is better than North Korea and a reason why places like India, China, and Brazil are taking off. But no system is without it’s flaws. So there comes a time when I think there ought to be embargos or incentives to do what is good for foreign policy or the environment.

    ReplyReply
  24. Randy says: 24

    @Taylor Marshall: The truth is that we didn’t let the free market work. The US put considerable restrictions on how US energy could be developed while the rest of the world was free to pollute any way they wanted. I say lakes of oil residue in Iraq that would not have been allowed here in the US. National Geographic showed oil contamination all over the former Soviet Union. The restrictions on fracking and other restrictions on energy productions in the US is what allowed the terrorists to fund the attack on the trade center.

    Environmental activists are causing real harm in the world. They pretend that they are concerned about the whole world, but they ham string the US and other countries that have common sense controls on energy production. A good example is drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. There is extremely large quantities in the Gulf. The US is not allowed to drill since there may be an oil leak. Cuba and others are free to drill in their areas and drill laterally to take out US oil. Cuba is not restricted to US environmental law. As a result, do you really think that the Chinese rigs scheduled to drill on the edge of Cuban-US waters will not contaminate US beaches?

    The Kyoto protocol is another environmental issue that is deceiving. It had nothing to do with climate change or any other environmental issue. Caring individuals like you were duped into believing that the protocol would halt global warming. What it was really designed to do was to force industry from industrialized countries to 3rd world countries who were not part of the protocol. There was no net world reduction of pollution. It was another” spread the wealth around” issue. The difference is that jobs would go overseas and the lax environmental rules in these 3rd world countries allowed even additional pollution.

    The free market works well when the playing field is level on government restrictions. Free market does not mean that environmental rules are to be eliminated, but they need to be scientifically vetted not political issues.

    ReplyReply
  25. Taylor Marshall says: 25

    Well it is a fact Randy that air pollution causes health problems and that when you use more natural gas powered buses and fewer diesel fueled ones it results in cleaner air.

    ReplyReply
  26. Randy says: 26

    The @Taylor Marshall: The issue here is define polution! A good example of nonpollution is arsenic in drinking water. Arsenic is naturally occuring in domestic water supplies and has been for all of history and before. The EPA reduced the levels to 50 PPB a few years ago requiring major expenses to domestic drinking water treatment plants. There is no scientific data that arsenic is a danger at 100 ppb. The standard was changed because new equipment can now detect to 50 ppb and below. Does new detection equipment make arsenic a hazard?

    Some chemicals are used as medicine. At higher levels, they are poisons. The dose is the poison. Pollutions are the same. The dose of the chemical is the pollution. Environmentalists crys wolf when they detect a chemical in the air, water and food. Rarely, do they address the concentrations. Most uneducated people understand that certain chemicals are bad, but are not familiar with the action at various concentrations. Calling a chemical pollution is ignorant if one does not know the concentration. That is why calling .038% CO2 in the atmosphere a pollutant is ignorant and why the environmental movement is losing ground on their climate change issue.

    ReplyReply
  27. Taylor Marshall says: 27

    Well tailpipe emissions from gasoline engines were definately polluting the air and harming more children with asthma, as well as the elderly and even the unborn, and their health improved when we started using more natural gas vehicles.

    ReplyReply
  28. Randy says: 28

    @Taylor Marshall: Show me the studies! Gasoline is cleaner than ever. How about the formaldehyde that is generated with ethanol fuel? Just because someone says exhause is pollution does not make it so. It is the levels that make it so!

    ReplyReply
  29. Taylor Marshall
    on 27, I bet you can say this was BUSH CREATIVITY AT WORK AS MANY OTHER,
    IT’S ABOUT TIME WE START TO CREDIT THE PRESIDENT BUSH, FOR ALL THE GOOD THINGS HE DID,
    AS OPPOSE TO THE 2008 OBAMA ELECTION WON ON THE BUSH HATE CARD,
    ALONG WITH THE RACE CARD, WHICH LET OBAMA GET AWAY WITHOUT ANY VETTING LIKE WE SAW IN THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES VISCIOUS VETTING LIKE NEVER SEEN IN THIS AMERICA BEFORE.
    THIS NOVEMBER HOPEFULLY WILL SHOW THE REAL VETTING OF OBAMA, JUST LIKE THE OTHER HAD,
    THERE IS NO REASON TO MISS IT THIS TIME AND ASK FOR THE REAL BIRTH CERTIFICAT, AS THE FIRST QUESTION.

    ReplyReply
  30. Taylor Marshall says: 30

    Here you go Randy http://www2.scnow.com/lifestyles/2011/oct/07/air-pollution-may-causes-problems-women-and-their–ar-2522438/

    http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/air-pollutants-and-childrens-iqs

    Now you can either go digging and digging until you find something that is going to tell you what you want to see, or you can accept the fact that natural gas burns cleaner than gasoline and diesel fuel. I live in a region where we have seen improved air quality from more natural gas powered buses. I live here.

    ReplyReply
  31. Taylor Marshall says: 32

    @Ilovebees

    I never said that Bush never did anything good. I think all presidents have done good things and bad things. And for the record I am not a dem or a rep, I am an independent. Why follow some stupid party when you can formulate your own philosophy?

    ReplyReply
  32. Taylor Marshall
    yes good, but you still will vote in NOVEMBER, HOPEFULLY FOR THE RIGHT ONE,
    WHICH IS THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, THIS WOULD MAKE YOU A RIGHT INDEPENDANT
    DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR AMERICA,
    IT’S REFRESHING TO NOTICE YOUR KNOWLEDGE, AND I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING IT FREELY,
    NO STRINGS ATTACH

    BEST TO YOU

    ReplyReply
  33. Randy says: 34

    @Taylor Marshall: Taylor, these are not studies based on scientific evidence. They do not list levels of exposures that cause specific issues. These are estimates based on guesses. They are not scientific studies. They study populations and try to minimize confounders. Unfortunately, they are not very accurate. This is like the radon studies. The EPA determined that radon causes lung cancer in populations at a certain rate. What they failed to reveal to people like you who eat up these studies is that they never identified the number of smokers involved in the study. When you look at the results for the lung cancer rates in the study population, they equaled the same rate for lung cancer in a normal populatin if there were smokers in the population. Yet, home owners spent millions of dollars each year putting in equipment to reduce radon levels. In the mean time, we folks in Colorado are exposed to higher levels of radon every day with no discernable effects.

    There is a difference inscientific studies and just plain epidemiological studies. Scientific studies have controls. epi studies do not! Now, go out and find me a real scientific study complete with controls!

    ReplyReply
  34. Taylor Marshall says: 35

    @Randy. I honestly do not see the point. You are just going to see what you want to see and dismiss anything you don’t want to see as biased or lies. It’s called selective perception and it’s very common in politics. I live in Atlanta, GA where I have seen the positive results with my own eyes. And my cousin lives in Denver and she tells me the air quality has improved ever since they built the metro rail. SHe loves the metro rail and says many others there do.

    ReplyReply
  35. Taylor Marshall says: 36

    @ILoveBees It’s no problem, I do not mind sharing my knowledge or answering questions. I look at the issues and think about the pros and the cons and come to my own conclusions.

    ReplyReply
  36. Taylor Marshall says: 37

    They performed experiments in this study, and you can e-mail the professor I am sure. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110706094329.htm

    ReplyReply
  37. Taylor Marshall
    yes good, I can see you found another person of knowledge to debate with on this subject ,
    RANDY IS ONE MOST ABLE TO EXCHANGE ON THE SUBJECT, HE HAS BEEN IN IRAK
    WITH HIS TROOPS FOR A WHILE AND ALSO SPREADING HIS KNOWLEDGE ON SIMILAR FACTS,
    CONCERNING THE LAND AND HOW TO MANAGE IT THE RIGHT WAY ,WITHOUT POLLUTING IT
    BY OVER FEEDING IT, ALONG WITH MANY OTHER FREE INFO TO THE PEOPLE OF IRAK,
    WHILE THE WAR WAS STILL THREATENING HIS BRAVES SOLDIERS

    ReplyReply
  38. Taylor Marshall says: 39

    Nation-building is not the job of the United States military.

    ReplyReply
  39. Taylor Marshal
    yes, there is many thing the military do to help the people there and AFGHANISTAN,
    WHAT YOU THINK IS NOT THEIR JOBS BUT THEY MEET MANY DEMANDS WHICH ARE RQUIRED OF THEM WHILE THEY FIGHT THE ENEMIES, THESES WAR HAVE MADE MILITARIES DO MULTI TASK FOR THOSE COUNTRIES, WHO SHOULD BE FOREVER GRATEFUL TO THOSE WHO GAVE MORE THAN THEY COULD TO TEACH THE PEOPLE TO SURVIVE AND EVOLVED,
    AND MANY LEFT THEIR BLOOD AND BODY PARTS, IN THERE, THE BRAVEST OF AMERICA,
    WHILE THE PEOPLE HERE ARE FREE TO DO THEIR LIFE CHORE.

    ReplyReply
  40. Taylor Marshall says: 41

    Well let the other organizations do the nation building and leave the military to defense. We have so many problems to tackle here at home and yet we are spending all this money trying to help other countries.

    ReplyReply
  41. Taylor Marshall
    yes and I understand that you are grateful to have those MILITARY
    FIGHTING TO KEEP YOUR FREEDOM, SO YOU CAN VOTE IN NOVEMBER,
    FOR THE BETTERNESS OF AMERICA TO FIX ALL THOSE PROBLEMS YOU ARE TALKING OF.

    ReplyReply
  42. Taylor Marshall says: 43

    I am grateful, but I really do not understand why we are still in Iraq now that Saddam is gone. Shouldn’t we be focusing more of our troops on the bigger threats and shouldn’t we be spending more money at home?

    ReplyReply
  43. Taylor Marshall
    there is many thing that failed to have been done yes,
    closing the borders is one of them for sure

    ReplyReply
  44. Taylor Marshall says: 45

    Yes, I agree we need better border security, in El Paso Texas they have caught people of over 150 different nationalities trying to enter the United States from Mexico. Not all of them can be friendly nations.

    ReplyReply
  45. Taylor Marshall
    incredibly scary for the CITIZENS , and we see many crimes happening too,

    ReplyReply
  46. Taylor Marshall says: 47

    Well Bees we are a big country, when you are a big country it’s hard to secure your borders.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>