". . . But the past does not exist independently from the present. Indeed, the past is only past because there is a present, just as I can point to something over there only because I am here. But nothing is inherently over there or here. In that sense, the past has no content. The past -- or more accurately, pastness -- is a position. Thus, in no way can we identify the past as past." p. 15

". . . But we may want to keep in mind that deeds and words are not as distinguishable as often we presume. History does not belong only to its narrators, professional or amateur. While some of us debate what history is or was, others take it into their own hands." p. 153

Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History (1995) by Michel-Rolph Trouillot

Friday, April 11, 2008

North Dakota Bakken Formation Oil Potential

This report of an estimated 4.3 billion barrels in that rock of the Bakken Shield has Ed Schulz all a'twitter. (Ed Schulz, a 'progressive' talk show host from Fargo, North Dakota, has taken the noon to 3 p.m. slot here on Air America; his voice and mannerisms, such as knocking on his desk, so resemble limbaugh's that for quite a long time I thought the broadcast band had reversed itself and instead of this station I'd gotten WABC -- Oh, and Randi Rhodes is gone like the new AA people wanted. What a disaster these liberals have made out of what is supposed to be a progressive radio network).

From Business Week:

[ The Bakken shale formation encompasses some 25,000 square miles in North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. About two-thirds of the acreage is in western North Dakota, where the oil is trapped in a thin layer of dense rock nearly two miles beneath the surface. ]

However, this oil in in shale rock, 2 miles below the surface. How recoverable it is, despite what Schulz is saying, is questionable -- cost, technology, etc.

Nevertheless in an oil gluttonous world it could be significant. But would this be good for anybody, really? Environmentally and even locally? Would North Dakota get any benefit from the extraction? Look at what's happened in places like Nigeria, for instance. The local people get worse conditions of living, not better. And in the end they're left with a destroyed environment.

In any case shouldn't we be pouring all our resources into alternative power, not in prolonging at terrible cost of pollution and economics this system that is a failed system? At this point it's a power monopoly of massive corruption and destruction. This isn't going to be reversed because the oil is under North Dakota, Montana, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Schultz is all yippydippy at the idea that the state can control this extraction and own its own oil refinery. Sooooo, who has the resources, blahblahblah to do this? You know those names, the ones that have taken over Iraq, and this isn't giving the Iraqis any income or benefit. Shoot, they have oil shortage.

Schultz comes across as uneducated and uninformed. He's not considering any of these issues.

Shoot, we were taught about that oil back when I was in middle-school in North Dakota We always knew it was there, so this isn't even really news. What is news is that Senator Dorgan (D) insisted on getting an up-to-date geologic assessment of these deposits.


Foxessa said...

Senator Dorgan's talking now.

He's a great talker.

On this subject I can't agree with him. He's all in favor of drilling more oil out of the Gulf -- when that region has been toxified from the oil industry almost beyond recovery already -- not to mention the venting of human waste from cruise ships and the resort industry, plus the drainage of all the other toxins into the basin from an enormous part of North America.

Instead of pushing as hard as possible to come up with another system, even Dorgan wants to prolong the life of this one as much as possible.

Love, C.

Renegade Eye said...

Our local antiwar coalition bought 30 60 second spots on AA for near $1000. From surveying the crowd through the moderator asking how they heard of the demo, word of mouth and leafletting won.

Interesting about the oil discovery.

Foxessa said...

Ren -- It's impossible for AA to have any real impact anywhere because it is so inconsistent and incoherent in its policies and scheduling.

Now here in NYC AA's put on Al Sharpton for 2 hours in the evening and he has little credibility with few people, and those he brings on are far less credible than he.

Additionally we all know, who pay attention to these things, that anybody can have a show on AA, but YOU have to pay for it. This model will never make the network grow or be self-sustaining as a commercial network, which the owners, whoever they are, are staunchly determined to have it be.

The left does not financially support its own, unlike the models of the right and the neoCONS. Limbaugh bled millions annually for over 6 years before that show began to have an effect and attract paying advertising. The same with Fox. Indeed, if I have this correct, Fox is currently in the red.

Love, C.

Graeme said...

I don't listen to AA. I have never liked it.

Some state dems were talking about a state owned oil refinery. That is a positive step, but like you said, it is far down there. and more oil certainly isn't the longterm solution.

Foxessa said...

Also, who will actually design, and build that refinery? Who has the technical know-how and equipment necessary? Halliburton and Bechtel.

Oil refineries are expensive to build and operate, which is why, They Say, we've had fewer and fewer online since the 70's.

Bismark and Schultz are pie-ing in the sky-ing Big Time if they think the state will retain control of that oil refinery.

Love, C.