--- OrionWorks wrote: > The Kiplinger Letter's recent comments regarding 100 bb'o'crude reserves stashed away under ND certainly caught my eye. I'm puzzled over the fact that I do not personally recall anyone in the Vortex list ever mentioning the existence of this potential natural resource ...
Well, there are two things going on in this report, and one of them is thinly disguised political "spin"... >From a quick googling -- it looks to me like Kiplinger is talking about the Williston Basin. But first - we need to realize that Kiplinger has a political agenda, which they try very hard to keep under wraps; but obviously being "pro-business" often means being "pro-big-oil" and "pro-status-quo" and so on ... Many here, of either political persuasion, might prefer that they be ONLY "pro-business" (small to medium sized business) without being "pro-big-oil" since most small businesses are harmed by high oil costs. That too is another spin but anyway .... Part of this oil field has been in production for over 50 years, so it is not a "new discovery". It is deep oil, from one to 1.5 miles deep; and at $20 barrel it is too costly to extract or even to get a good idea of how much is there; but now at five times the price, almost any oil, no matter how deep, can be exploited profitably. It is very likely that they have simply increased the estimates on how much is recoverable at $100/ barrel. Was the estimate scientific or not? IOW there is nothing here new except new spin on an old story ... or is there something I am missing ? BTW- it is very much in the interest of those who wish to maintain the status quo politically- to make calming and unprovable claims in order to ease the fears of voters about looming problems. Fearful voters favor change. That kind of politically motivated spin has some bearing on the truthfulness of the new estimates. Where exactly did the estimates come from is one question? (did it originate or was it influenced by the White House or not?) We will probably see more such talk (i.e. that "all is well")coming from any candidate in any race - who wishes to convince voters that "staying the course" of the present administration is preferable to change. Convincing voters that we do not face huge problems with energy is part of that tactic. There are many reasons to hide the fact that (alluded to in Jack's recent post) that we are in Iraq primarily to secure the oil, and that the invasion has nothing to do with "war on terrorism". If we wanted a real war on terror we would invade Saudi Arabia. Isn't that where all of the 9/11 hijackers came from? Jones
