Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (136477)	6/13/2004 12:29:28 PM
From: quehubo	Respond to of 281500

<<The more distant future will be shaped by how much various nations have inflated estimates of their reserves.>> If Shell has joined other producers by being nailed for overstating reserves, what chance would there be that OPEC nations would not be lying just as much? If OPEC could keep enough oil on the market to keep prices at $30 they would have done so over the last year.

To: carranza2 who wrote (136477)	6/13/2004 4:19:55 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Respond to of 281500

George Will Should Stick To PNAC World Dominance. He is absolutely clueless on oil. >>>Oil over $40 a barrel accelerates exploration for new fields, and development of known but technologically inaccessible fields, including some fields four miles below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, where there may be at least 25 billion barrels. High prices may also prompt development of hitherto economically unfeasible sources, such as U.S. oil shale and Canadian tar sands. Tim Appenzeller, writing in National Geographic, says tar-sand deposits in Alberta "hold the equivalent of more than 1.6 trillion barrels of oil - an amount that may exceed the world's remaining reserves of ordinary crude." Alberta, a future Saudi Arabia? Perhaps. Full-throttle production of oil from tar sand is not economical. So far.<< TOYALLY WRONG! KC