EPA abuses the permit process for an icebreaker

This would easily fit into the plot of Atlas Shrugged, which I watched last night. It seems clear that there is an agenda involved other than ice-breaker exhaust.

Wow! It is hard to understand our leaders. I think if I was a representative of congress I would be on the floor everyday exposing these things and trying to curb the power of the EPA . I am perplexed, and I think lots of Americans are too and are approaching the famous “Tipping Point.”

The fun thing is, on this side of the Atlantic, all that we hear is that the evil anti-science congress wants to strip the EPA off its powers because Reps are against clean air. I constantly correct the misperceptions of my German friends. I am sure most of our journalists are bought or naturally unfit for the job.

That has made my day Anthony, to see you say – “The whole thing is bollocks.”
That describes how I feel every day when I see or hear a BBC news item that covers anything vaguely weather, energy or science related and I find myself tensing up waiting for the inevitable mention of “climate change”…

November 2012 CAN’T COME QUICK ENOUGH. !
And with gas prices going up, I would say the obama isn’t looking out for the US interests. Isn’t that one of the presidents’s jobs, not hurting the US, which this sure is . . . gee, is that an impeachable offense . . ? (a bit of sarc obviously, but still . . .) though the VP likely wouldn’t be any better if he were there . . .

The USA can buy ethical oil from the Canadian oil sands today, instead of grappling with the EPA who prefers Middle Eastern oil.

Two comments:
1. Shell was negligent to not include George Soros in ownership of the leases. That would have expedited the permit approval.
2. I wonder if they will return Shell’s $2 billion lease payment that they put up for the right to explore and drill on the leases. (Probably not, huh?)

All the Silicon Valley Industrial Welfare Socialists; aka the renewable energy “investors” are in Obambi’s pocket. Sarah Palin is from Alaska. What else do you need to know ?

I am a bit perplexed with regards to the “subsidies” that the Luddites want to strip from the oil companies. Are these the same royalty waivers that the MMS uses to entice development of the deep and ultra deep fields in the GOM? If not, please elaborate.

SSam says:
April 26, 2011 at 4:54 pm
I am a bit perplexed with regards to the “subsidies” that the Luddites want to strip from the oil companies.
—————————————————————————
Primarily they are the deductions for intangible drilling costs and the depletion allowance…

Obama’s Gulf of Mexico oil moratorium and subsequent “permitorium” will, within 18 months, result in a loss of GOM crude oil production equivalent to a supertanker load every two days–just what the nation needed…

This is completely unacceptable. Can’t wait for the elections to come around. I will be hitting the streets.

The Obama EPA has taken this to a whole new level but this has been occurring in the USA for decades now. As others have said, how can anyone invest long term capitol in this environment………never knowing when some NGO or local opposition group will successfully destroy all, or part, of your invested capitol? There are MANY socialist European societies that do a better job of encouraging capitol investment than we do. There is a saying in economics………”Capitol goes where it is needed, and stays where it is treated well.” We do not treat it well in the United States.

Why doesn’t Shell just agree to power any needed icebreakers with Veg. Oil, or Cellulosic Ethanol, or some other fuel that the EPA is down with?

elbatrop says:
April 26, 2011 at 5:22 pm
If the US wants oil independence then it had better use less cause it can’t drill its way there, hasn’t been able to for well over 30 years. Isn’t from a lack of trying either.
—————————————————————————
I disagree. We import 10 million bbls of crude a day. There are an estimated 800 billion bbls of shale oil in a play near the Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado borders that the federal government puts off limits for drilling. In the central part of Louisiana, the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale play is now being leased. It has an estimated 70 billion bbls of shale oil reserves. None of this even includes huge reserves still left on the OCS. Do the math…

Uh, and besides, that’s not exactly how this deal came down.
The regulatory status in Alaska is “much different,” he said. Odum said he’s hopeful the delay will be resolved and he appreciates EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson looking at the issue.
Several federal agencies have worked with Shell to help the company in Alaska, including the EPA, which issued a permit on March 31, 2010, according to a statement.
“That permit was subsequently appealed by outside groups, including local Alaskan stakeholders, and overturned by the independent Environmental Appeals Board,” according to the statement. “EPA immediately appealed for reconsideration and we have worked with Shell to address the concerns.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-26/shell-says-slow-u-s-drill-permits-in-alaska-irresponsible-1-.html

The sad reality is that this is NOT isolated. All sorts of groups – EVERYwhere – are impeding energy independence. Whilst simultaneously decrying gasoline and food prices. The intellectual dissonance is stunning.
Consider this one example – http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/04/26/3027935/xto-energy-drops-plans-to-drill.html
Just today. Not isolated by any stretch of the imagination. It goes on, and on, and on….
And they wonder why the US companies leave…..

On another front, watched Evil Fox news today and caught an interview with an oil guy about EPA plans to list some lizard… which will shut down oil drilling in western Texas.
Sorry, can’t find a link.
But that should help. After all, under Barry’s plan – well, actually his masters’s plans – energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.

“I will set a clear goal as president: in ten years we will finally end our dependence on oil in the Middle East,” said Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama. ”

Don’t get sucked in. Obama’s plan isn’t to reduce oil consumption, only to change vendors. That’s why he’s promising to be Brazil’s best customer. One has to wonder why we don’t spend the money here and not in foreign countries.

My goodness. For this one-time Dem, 2012 can’t come fast enough. I don’t care how bad the Repub nomination turns out to be, this just cannot continue. A bad, blond, back of the head comb-over with pursed lips, and hot-headed sound bites is better than “devastating”.

There appears to be big money to be made by shutting down legitimate industrial activity.
http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/2011/04/telling-grants-from-usa-foundations.html

PaulH says:
April 26, 2011 at 4:43 pm
The USA can buy ethical oil from the Canadian oil sands today, instead of grappling with the EPA who prefers Middle Eastern oil.
__________________________________________________________
From a still frozen Canuck:
Not really, the US, including Obama have called Canadian Oil Sands “Dirty Oil” along with other sources and are delaying/blocking approval of pipelines to ship Canadiab oil to US refineries. So, Canadian, European and Asian countries are looking at shipping oil west and east instead of south as it is getting ridiculously difficult to ship south. It the US doesn’t want our “Dirty Oil” regardless of its origin, then it will go elsewhere and more high paying US refining jobs will be lost. The Obama government is pretty much sticking to the plan they laid out pre-election. A lot of people must not have read his platform before the election as I told a lot of my US cousins to read it before they voted …. but all they heard was the rhetoric and they didn’t read it. Obama is just doing what he said he would before he was ever elected.
So next election …

elbatrop says:
April 26, 2011 at 6:50 pm
…second of all the flow rate is abysmal and will never reach any meaningful levels and the actual recoverable reserves are far less than 800 billion barrels.
———————————————————————————-
You are right about not being able to recover all of the 870 billion barrels of shale oil reserves I referred to. You can certainly, according to experts, recover a third of that amount. That leaves over 200 years worth of oil if it offsets the current rate of 10 million barrels a day of imports (and some of the imports, like those from Canada, are safe and secure.) And, again, that is not counting any other oil reserves either onshore or on the OCS. It can be done if government lets it happen…

Let’s see, Shell share holders just lost $4 billion. I wonder how they will make that up?
End users get the big wazoo once again. Thank you Mr President, may I have another!

Won’t Shell just write it off as a business loss and write it off on their taxes ? Oh I forgot does Shell actually pay any business taxes (I know GE dosn’t) ???

Imagine if the EPA had been around when the Mayflower was preparing to sail.
It would never have left port and would instead have been broken up and tossed in a compost heap.

Does anybody else notice that, once again, opaque and unquestionable “computer models” are used in a government decision as a substitute for facts or evidence in order to expand the power of government? Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment specifying that computer models are not admissible in any court or government decision-making body.

elbatrop posted:
Shale oil isn’t crude oil, its kerogen first of all, second of all the flow rate is abysmal and will never reach any meaningful levels and the actual recoverable reserves are far less than 800 billion barrels.
Source? Because it appears to me we have ~270 YEARS of 100% of our needs locked up in our shale oil reserves. We could be a net-exporter of petroleum on the scale of Saudi Arabia if we really wanted to, and have abundant oil at under $30/barrel (gas down around $1 per gallon) if desired.

Sunspot:
Royal Dutch Shell paid about $17 billion in income taxes last year. Of course, their CEO isn’t buddy-buddy with our President, either…

@ Catcracking and danj
Experts say 1/3rd is recoverable huh, cite that since your earlier numbers were easily blown out of the water, then knock a bunch off that due to the reduced energy content to boot. What’s the ROI look like? Pretty crappy isn’t it, and what’s that do to flow rates which you keep ignoring?
As far drilling restrictions go, sorry but not only does US oil production history make any claims of restrictions causing an artificial peak absurd but it also applies in all the other nations which have never had such restrictions. Look at the start dates, rig counts and time frames. US offshore restrictions didn’t even start till late 1969. Funny how in the late 60’s oil was still considered infinite in the US despite being told otherwise then 2 years later the US had its oh crap moment followed by a huge spike in drilling with no results. Not the first time drilling has gone nuts with production declining anyway either, that’s been going on since 1971. This exact same scenario has played out in numerous countries. Flow rate is everything, want high flow rate then you need big shallow easy to get at oil fields and the US used those up. The low hanging fruit is gone. Just to break even the US only has to replace a mere 200,000 barrels per day at current rates each year, it has been unable to regardless of price. Going back to 1971 at that stage to stave off depletion rates it only had to replace a mere 330,000 barrels per day and it couldn’t do that then either even though price went thru the roof in the 70’s. Shale oil has been available and in play the entire time, knock yourself out and give it a shot but its production history tells the story there too. Getting oil out of very hard and not porous rock thousands of feet underground is far easier said than done.

Environmentalists attack on U.S. oil production is not limited to Alaska offshore. Take a look at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R2-ES-2010-0041-0001 which proposes endangered species status for the “Dunes Sagebrush Lizard”. Such a finding could markedly limit future production from long producing fields in Eastern New Mexico (Chaves, Roosevelt, Eddy, and Lea counties) and Western Texas (Andrews, Crane, Gaines, Ward, and Winkler counties).

re: danj says:
April 26, 2011 at 6:00 pm
“There are an estimated 800 billion bbls of shale oil in a play near the Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado borders that the federal government puts off limits for drilling. In the central part of Louisiana, the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale play is now being leased. It has an estimated 70 billion bbls of shale oil reserves. None of this even includes huge reserves still left on the OCS.”
As has been pointed out previously, shale oil is not oil, but a precuror to oil known as kerogen. The energy density of shale oil is comparable to that of a baked potato. In order to be converted into useful oil, the long hydrocarbon chains of kerogen must be cracked into shorter hydrocarbons. This requires a considerable amount of energy in the form of heat.
The shale oil situation is quite different from that of the oil sands of Canada.
Wikipedia: http://goo.gl/bvemH

Sun Spot: Won’t Shell just write it off as a business loss and write it off on their taxes ?
Tom in Florida: Let’s see, Shell share holders just lost $4 billion. I wonder how they will make that up?
Latitude: That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers.
Either consumers or shareholders–or both. There is a widespread naive populism that says ‘Sock it to the plutocrat shareholders,’ not recognizing the extent to which corporations are now effectively owned by the average working stiff. For example, the currently reported holdings of Royal Dutch Shell by CALPERS retirement system is $489,961,936. Check it for yourself at:
https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-pub/SearchController?viewpackage=action&PageId=SearchCatalog&package_code=1861
And the California teachers retirement system (CALSTRS) holds $227,403,000 worth.
http://www.calstrs.com/Investments/portfolio/nonUS.asp
Considering that these are figures from just one state, and just two of the many institutional owners providing benefits to the general public, it is clear that the losses from arbitrary governmental abuse of power will be generally distributed across the population whether at the pump or in the future retirement check.

FoxNews also ran the story[3] about Shell abandoning drilling this summer in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas off Northern Alaska because the EPA will not give them a critical air permit. Part of the story refers to the Trans Alaska Pipeline and how 30 years after it was built, it is running 660,000 bbl per day, < 1/3 of capacity, due to production declines from the existing North Slope fields.
Production on the North Slope of Alaska is declining at a rate of about 7 percent a year. If the volume gets much lower, pipeline officials say they will have to shut it down. Alaska officials are blasting the Environmental Protection Agency.
Why shut the pipeline down? I think it is because that over the length of the pipeline, the oil has to move above a critical velocity so that it stays warm via head loss from its viscosity. If the oil cools below its pour point, the pipeline will turn into an 800 mile long candle.
So lets suppose that we close the TAPS and lose 600,000 bbls of oil per day. What does that mean in energy loss? Let’s put it into wind turbine equivalents. One 1.5 MW wind turbine equals about 20 bbls of oil per day at the name plate rating or about 6 bbls of oil per day assuming typical energy factor for usable wind availability[1]. So closing the TAPS will be the energy equivalent of loosing 100,000 wind turbines. Over the course of 800 miles, that would be one wind turbine every four feet. Given needed separation between turbines, that would be a windfarm 800 miles long and 20 miles wide.
As of today, there are fewer than 35,000 wind turbines installed in the USA with nameplate capacity of < 45,000 MW.[2] So closing the TAPS, a 30 year old asset running at 1/3 of its capacity, will result in the loss of energy production equal to over 2 times all the wind power currently installed with GAO-knows how many billions of taxpayer subsidies. All because the EPA will not issue the air permits to allow drilling.
For the want of a permit, a pipeline may be lost.
For the want of a nail….. a war was lost.
Of course it depends on whose side of the war you are on.
[1] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/01/giant-7-megawatt-sea-fan-announced/#comment-634470
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States
[3] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/25/energy-america-oil-drilling-denial/

Can you blame companies for outsourcing. Obama and company are turning every US industry into villains from oil, oil services, pharma, coal, banking until they took it over, insurance, wall street, software, semiconductors, autos until they took them over, construction, timber, nuclear, and mining. Even their pet projects of wind mills, solar panels, high speed rail, have fled or are fleeing the country — and the fleeing continues even through the recession. If the government were not spending 10% of the GDP in deficit each year, our economy would be shrinking by about 7 to 8% per year. What businessman in his right mind wants to put up with the legal threats and the unstable, costly, and lengthy permit processes?
Those EPA folks apparently don’t realize that at the end of the day they are paid by Private Industry.

It’s called lawfare. The deliberate obstruction of a project by every means available within the letter of the law, regardless of the intent of the law. Sierra club are experts at it. They don’t necessarily need to get a cease operations order, only to slow things to a molasses in January pace so that the investors will complain that there’s no return, and seek developments elsewhere.

Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.
These same environmental groups appear to be unfazed by the large number of Russian icebreakers that operate in Arctic waters throughout the year.

[snip – just a bit to much over the top to be posted here – Anthony]

With oil exploration comes risks and occasionally some splills. Each time it is hailed as the worst evil in the worls yet the banking industry very nearly brought about the collapse of civilization as we know it and they’re already back to their old ways of double dealing and big bonuses. When will the worlds governments get their priorites right.
The world is brimming over with governmental organizations placing restrictions on the lives of ordinary people and each time without deference to the people who voted them into power.
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. ”
Thomas Jefferson

Understandably, by now wealth creation itself always threatens the essentially parasitic Communist/Totalitarian throwbacks because it suggests their basic lack of importance to other people within a society and to Humanity in general. Also, as effective infants, it more primarily gratifies them to vandalize, destroy and impede the workings of the wonderous and beneficial things others have produced, in contrast to spreading and encouraging their development and use.

The ultimate goal is to nationalize the oil industry they way they’re nationalizing the auto industry and the health care industries. About all we can do is to write our congress critters – even the liberal ones – and educate people about the real reason why gas prices are going up – and vote, of course.

How many times have I said this?—
GET RID OF THE EPA
Then America could start to make things again instead of driving jobs overseas.

While most commentators understandably and rightly discuss the impact of US energy and environmental policy on the US economy, it is worth noting that a number of countries in the Americas are suffering from high oil prices and do not have the wealth of the USA to allow them to pay. And they have noticed that the real culprit in oil price rises is not little Libya and its war but big USA and its resrictions on energy exploration and development. Not surprisingly they are now much keener on links with Venezuela and a slowly liberalising Cuba, not to mentin Brazil and Nigeria as oil producing and exporting countries. How easily does the USA lose influence in its own economic area!

You gotta love the way the Democrats ban this stuff to keep their Green credentials intact knowing full well that the Republicans will lift the ban the moment they get back in.
Democracy is just a big joke really.

Oh – but SSam (SSam (April 26, 2011 at 10:46 pm)) – the shale oil is still a solid, and due to the high organic content – its a ‘rubbery’ solid. So even if one CAN frac it, it still needs to be heated up to convert the solid kerogen to a more liquid form (oil).
Lots of research still required. Which is why its sooo disconcerting that the Obama administration canceled the research plot licenses.
Its all just astonishing to me.

Shanghai Dan says:
April 26, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Source? Because it appears to me we have ~270 YEARS of 100% of our needs locked up in our shale oil reserves. We could be a net-exporter of petroleum on the scale of Saudi Arabia if we really wanted to, and have abundant oil at under $30/barrel (gas down around $1 per gallon) if desired.
————–
That article kind of misses the point which isn’t a reserves issue, but a rate of production issue and cost. How many barrels of oil a day can be produced from the oil shale reserves and how much does it cost per barrel.
The article it links to says intial costs would be $70-$95 a barrel and so to make a profit you would need the oil price to stay above that for the duration of the operation. It suggests that it might come down with time, but you wouldn’t invest $billions in the hope that it might come down over time.
The only way to stop the US being dependent on Middle East oil is to use less oil.

I used to snicker at all the Manchurian Candidate comments about Obama, now I find the scenario quite possible. The man is total disaster and is bringing this country to its knees. Please don’t show him the Queen of Diamonds.
I wish Donald Trump would dump the Birther thing, stop “converting” to Social Conservatism and just hammer the Democrats and Barry on the economy, immigration, and China non stop, for a year and a half. Getting the nomination is not even important, just to have someone who has the balls and the experience to tackle this administration head on and set an agenda for the Republicans is plenty beneficial.
That being said I think this country is more than ready for a real outsider with business acumen to take the helm. Green technology was all fine and dandy when gas was under $2 and unemployment was under 6% an we all felt warm and fuzzy about saving baby seals and owls. Now we’re feeling the reality of what Green Energy means, high unemployment, skyrocketing fuel and food prices, and a fascist regulatory scheme that wields total and arbitrary power.
Even Democrats I know are tired of Obama, only the far left ideologues and dupes who will fall for his lies again will vote for him.

You could always import all your energy :- http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/04/cashing-in-carbon.html

Smokey says:
April 27, 2011 at 6:42 am
Nice map.
The zone on the West coast is unlikely to contain much in the way of oil so there’s not much point looking there.
The East coast has the posibility of containing some oil, comparable to the quantities found off of the Atlantic margin in Ireland, France and Spain. In other words not a lot.
GOM around Florida is possible I guess, but as much of the trapping is a result of salt movements and reservoired sands from the mississippi I’d imagine you’d have limited success. That’s not to say you won’t find any, but you’re unlikely to find anything close to what the US needs in terms of production to stop it being dependant on the Middle East.
Sorry, but it’s just not there to find.

“”””” SSam says:
April 27, 2011 at 7:59 am
LearDog says:
April 27, 2011 at 5:00 am
“Oh – but SSam (SSam (April 26, 2011 at 10:46 pm)) – the shale oil is still a solid, and due to the high organic content – its a ‘rubbery’ solid. So even if one CAN frac it, it still needs to be heated up to convert the solid kerogen to a more liquid form (oil).”
Which is why numerous tactics are used to liquefy it. CO2 injection (solvent), steam injection, or firing and cooking it in place etc. “””””
Well Occidental Petroleum has that “in situ” process, where they simply set fire to some of that shale, and the heat from that liquifies the rest so they can pump it out of the ground; don’t even need to dig the shale up. Of course that rubbery shale “oiul” is a perfact application for free solar energy from the sun. You simply sink long “heat pipes” down into that shale, and then you put a solar mirror system on the top to concentrate sunlight continuously during the day) onto the top of the heat pipe to be transported by the pipe down to the shale. So what if it takes five years for the sun to warm the shale oil rubber up to the melting point; it’s free, and readily available in places that have oil shales.

@ smokey
while you are playing correlation games to establish causality what did world oil demand do when the economies and banking system crashed in 2008? what did commodity prices do? please learn some economics
Yes Obama and his continued monetary policy of his predecessor can be blamed but not for the reasons you are using. In fact if you had any honesty about this you’d be far more pissed, in fact everybody should be but that is another thread for an econ forum. When your govt conducts financial warfare on you its definitely reason to be pissed.
here’s what oil shale looks like:
http://ostseis.anl.gov/images/photos/oil_shale-600.jpg
It’s a solid, in most places in the US it is buried and buried several thousand feet underground(read way too deep to be mined). It has an energy density not much better than a baked potato. It isn’t crude oil by a long shot. It has crappy characteristics and like the tar sands of alberta it must be processed into a synthetic crude, by the time you are done if you have a net energy gain you are lucky, nobody has been able to pull that off yet with any consistency. Its even worse that the in situ oil sand processes being used. Yes there are some small places where it is close to the surface, just not very many in the US. In europe some places it can be mined and ground up and burned directly, the US doesn’t have those kinds of shale formations though.
Again, flow rate is everything, doesn’t matter how big the reserve is, if it cannot be extracted at a high enough rate it does almost nothing to mitigate the decline rates of our existing crude oil fields. Plus you are also trading leverage downwards as you go along. Economically leverage is everything, these low quality hard to deal with and extract reserves can easily do more damage than you get in return, this is why they are economically infeasible. The US will see coal being turned into liquid fuels long before shale is, its much more feasible and the returns are far greater.

Funding Sources: per Discover the Networks:
Pew Charitable Trust gives (gave) grants to EarthJustice, Center for Biological Diversity and Environmental Defense Fund.
Surdna, and The Compton foundations send grants to Alaska Wilderness League.
Does one know how many individuals – not foundations and uber rich- support these groups? Do they really represent the little guy? Or are they just names under which the “Progressives” hide?

Meanwhile the numericly challenged White House castigates the bad, bad oil companies for their obscene profits. Not that the administration understands the term, but after expenses, taxes, etc. Shell’s profit margin is under 7%, while administration “green technology” buddy Jeff Imhelt’s GE’s profit margin is 11% much from wind turbines and other govt mandates benefiting corporations playing to the agenda, and major campaign contributor Google gets 34% margins. But the oil companies, they’re bad, bad people.

David Middleton says:
April 27, 2011 at 9:26 am
So they’ve increased the undiscovered volumes.
This means they haven’t found anything, but they think there is more to find than they thought there was. Still haven’t found anything though.
Believe the myth if you want, until they actually find find 100+ billion bbls of oil it’s as good as saying they think there 100 unicorns left to find.

Smokey says:
April 27, 2011 at 8:54 am
A lot os “estimates” there. What is the proven reserves for the US then?
It’s 21 billion.
Compared to 267 billion for Saudi, 143 for Iraq, 138 for Iran, 108 for Kuwait and 98 for UAE.
All those estimates mean nothing unless you find it and get it out of the ground.
If the IPCC said they estimated it had warmed by 2 degrees in the last decade you’d laugh and rightly so! Same applies to the estimates you quote.

In oil country gov bomb the terrorists to create a stable world and a steady flow of oil under the worst of circumstances, in cold country gov gets in bed with the terrorists and offsets the stability of the world to strangle the flow of steady oil under the best of circumstances.
Only to a terrorist funding organization could that make sense.

If you think I was over the top, maybe you should do some research on the Center for Biological Diversity and just what they have been up to the last 20 years! BTW, you might have some difficulty if you just relay on google.

@ steve e
OPEC middle east nations all doubled their reserves at the stroke of pen back in the mid 1980’s. Their quotas are based on reserves.
Saudi Arabia has been claiming 260+ GB of oil ever since, it doesn’t change no matter how much they produce.

David Middleton says:
April 27, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Ireland seems to think it has 130 billion barrels of oil on it’s atlantic margin, 100+ dry wells would suggest that while they’ve got a World class source rock there’s just not much in the way of oil trapped there.
Undiscovered estimates are just guesses to keep people investing. Doesn’t actually mean you’ll find anything or that it’ll actually be commercial.

Dennis Nikols, P. Geo. If we are serious about energy independence then we need to do several general things. 1. Get busy with increased development of convention crude in places like the Williston basin and enhanced recovery techniques. 2. start developing resources like coal and keragon shale as sources of fuel liquids. 3. Natural gas is another source. 4. increased efficiency is always good. 5. lots of possibilities in recycling like tires and other stuff and bio-waste. 6. Hire me to advise you.

“Energy Independence” is an emotional delusion pushed by people who either do not understand where our energy comes from or basic economics.
While increasing exploration and drilling domestically will help reduce the price of oil it cannot replace foreign sources of cheap light crude like Saudi Arabia. The known reserves of light crude do not exist domestically. More expensive forms of petroleum like shale or coal to liquids will not be used until it is economical to use them. Natural gas is another possible far in the future replacement for oil but the market can determine this on it’s own and at an economic price. I am all for domestic exploration and drilling but am under no delusions, we need every foreign source of oil on the market that we can get and should be looking for more.
Increasing efficiency is another myth, as it just causes people to use more energy,
The Efficiency Paradox (Peter Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT)
We already have the best energy plan available – the free market.

1) The main cause of recent high oil prices is inflation caused by Obama’s reckless deficit spending, a worthless “stimulus” (well it stimulated the price of oil!) and the Fed’s “quantitative easing”,
Dollar Index
2) The second is the Obama administration’s restrictions on domestic oil drilling and production.
3) The third is the turmoil in the middle east, especially oil producing states like Libya

Oil Facts:
– Only 14% of U.S. oil imports come from the Middle East (EIA)
– Only 40% of U.S. oil imports come from OPEC (EIA)
– The largest supplier of oil to the U.S. is Canada (EIA)
– The second largest supplier of oil to the U.S. is Mexico (EIA)
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm

Carbon isotope effects in the open-system
Fischer–Tropsch synthesis
Yuri A. Taran a,*, George A. Kliger b, Vyacheslav S. Sevastianov c
a Institute of Geophysics, UNAM, 04510 Mexico DF, Mexico
b Institute of Petrochemical Synthesis, RAS, Moscow, Russia
c Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry, RAS, Moscow, Russia
“1. Introduction
The Fischer–Tropsch synthesis (FTS), which generally
can be defined as the heterogeneous catalytic reduction of
oxidized carbon compounds by molecular hydrogen, is
widely accepted as a process potentially responsible for
the presence of organic compounds in meteorites, submarine
hydrothermal systems and igneous rocks (e.g. Lancet
and Anders, 1970; Shock, 1990; Salvi and Williams-Jones,
1997; Yuen et al., 1984; Foustoukos and Seyfried, 2004;
Horita, 2005). This ‘‘inorganic’’, ‘‘abiotic’’ synthesis has
also been considered to be important in global geologic
processes including production of methane and petroleum
and finally, as a source of prebiotic compounds on the early
Earth (Szatmari, 1989; Charlou et al., 2002; Sherwood Lollar
et al., 2002; Horita, 2005, among others).
6. Conclusion
[…] “On the other hand, there are no doubts that the abiogenic synthesis
of organic matter on the modern and early Earth does and
did exist and in a large extent is and was realized by the
FTS-type processes in crustal environment (moderate temperatures
and pressures and local or regional appropriate
redox conditions).”
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by Russian Academy of Sciences
and personally by N.A. Plate´, Director of Institute of Petrochemical
Synthesis and E.M. Galimov, Director of the Vernadsky Institute
of Geochemistry. We thank S.N. Khadgiev for the permission
to use facilities of the Catalytic Synthesis Laboratory. The authors
are grateful to W. Bandy for polishing English, E. Cienfuegos and
E. Dubinina for H-isotope analysis, A.N. Shuykin and E.I. Bogolepova
for the assistance. This paper benefited from careful reviews
by T. McCollom and an anonymous reviewer. Many thanks to J.
Horita for very important suggestions and a great patience when
editing the first versions of the manuscript.