Quote from: Uomo Senza Nome on January 04, 2026, 01:24:09 AMNonsense.

Green River (Wyoming) is in operation today. The US produced 67% of its oil from tight oil in 2024, the number and percent keeps climbing. The US is now far and away the world's largest oil producer and exporter of shale oil. No one else is even close anymore.

Keep in mind shale production today was close to zero 15 years ago and the Peak Oil nutters were all saying we were going to implode and have a mass die off because there was no way to get tight oil out of the rocks. In fact if you research the old forum on the old site it is littered all over with that mess. The naysayers have proven to be incredibly inaccurate about getting oil from rocks.

But nope, trillions and trillions of barrels of oil. Some enterprising folks seem to think they might be able to get up to 4 trillion barrels of oil from Green River. I gave the low estimate because that is what can be done today, with current methods.

No matter what method you use to compute it, it is metric shit ton more than Venezuela will ever have, extractable today, with current technology.

You're still making the same fundamental error, and now you're stacking multiple mistakes on top of it.

You are confusing tight oil (shale oil) with oil shale (Green River kerogen rock).

Those are different resources, different technologies, different economics, and different reserve classifications.

Here are the facts, with sources you can actually click.

1) "Green River (Wyoming) is in operation today" — false

There is no commercial-scale oil shale production in the United States.

U.S. EIA — Wyoming Energy Profile

https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=WY

Oil shale in the Green River Formation is a potential future source of petroleum if technology is developed that allows it to be produced economically.

"Potential future source" is not "in operation."

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3010/

USGS explicitly classifies Green River oil shale as an oil-in-place resource, not proved reserves, and not commercially produced oil.

There are pilot projects and research leases.
There is no commercial field, no sustained production, no EIA production curve, and no refinery slate fed by Green River oil shale.

2) Your "67% of U.S. oil" claim proves my point — not yours

You are citing tight oil, not oil shale (rock). There's a difference. 

U.S. EIA — Tight Oil Explained

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/tight-oil.php

Tight oil:

Is real liquid crude
Comes out of wells
Uses horizontal drilling + hydraulic fracturing
Comes from the Permian, Bakken, Eagle Ford, etc.

Oil shale:

Contains kerogen (rock), not oil
Must be mined or heated (~900°F) to manufacture synthetic crude
Has never been commercialized at scale in the U.S.
*Fracking success does not validate Green River oil shale.
Different physics.
Different chemistry.
Different economics.

3) What "67% of U.S. oil" actually means (numbers, not slogans)

"67% of U.S. oil" means 67% of U.S. production, not reserves — and again, it's tight oil, not rock.

U.S. oil production (2024): ~13.3 million barrels/day

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545

67% of that: ~8.9 million barrels/day of tight oil

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/tight-oil.php

That oil comes from wells.
It is not Green River.
It is not oil shale (rock).
It is not kerogen.

4) Reserves comparison — the part you keep dodging

This is where your argument collapses.

Venezuela proved crude oil reserves: ~303 billion barrels

https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/VEN

United States proved crude oil reserves: ~48 billion barrels

https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/USA

So even if 100% of U.S. production were tight oil (it isn't), U.S. proved reserves still pale in comparison to Venezuela's.

And again:

Tight oil is oil.
Green River is rock.

5) "Trillions extractable today" — still wrong

You are taking the largest theoretical number and pretending it's a reserve.

BLM — Green River Oil Shale Overview

https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-shale

Approximately 4.3 trillion barrels of oil in place

"In place" is not recoverable
"In place" is not economically viable
"In place" is not produced

USGS makes the same distinction and explicitly does not classify this as proved or commercially recoverable oil:

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3010/

If "oil in place" counted as reserves, coal seams, trees, and plastic waste would all be oil fields.

Serious analysts don't do this.

6) Why Green River keeps failing (for over 100 years)

This isn't politics.

It's physics and economics:

Poor energy return on energy invested (EROI)
Massive water requirements in an arid region
Enormous waste streams
High per-barrel costs vs conventional and tight oil
Zero sustained private investment without subsidies
Every serious attempt has stalled for the same reasons.

Bottom line

U.S. tight oil success does not mean Green River oil shale viability

"Oil in place" does not mean reserves

Pilot projects does not mean commercial production

Venezuela has oil

Green River has kerogen rock with a theory attached


You're waving around "67% of U.S. oil" to dodge the real comparison: Venezuela has hundreds of billions of barrels of proved crude oil; Green River has zero barrels of commercial production and zero proved reserves — just rock counted as oil.

Name the commercial Green River oil shale field?

Name its daily production in barrels?

Link the EIA production data series?

Name the refinery running that feedstock?

Not a press release.
Not a pilot.
Not a PowerPoint.

Actual production — or you're counting rocks as oil.

But my real question. Because you don't seem to be able to let go of this ridiculous argument. That you can't back up with any facts. And the actual subject at hand, that I tend to think, we probably agree on:

Should the US be taking control of the Venezualan oil reserves?

Quote from: Moab on January 04, 2026, 04:56:42 AMShould the US be taking control of the Venezualan oil reserves?

IMHO, that's a fascinating question... for somewhere else. I'm not a mod here, but that's a question of US government policy. In other words, politics. I thought we don't do that here. 

Quote from: DarkAxel on January 04, 2026, 09:28:55 AM

Quote from: Moab on January 04, 2026, 04:56:42 AMShould the US be taking control of the Venezualan oil reserves?

IMHO, that's a fascinating question... for somewhere else. I'm not a mod here, but that's a question of US government policy. In other words, politics. I thought we don't do that here.

Say, how about those Patriots?  

Maybe you're not a mod, but you think like one.  Thank you for the reminder, DarkAxel.  Everyone please observe forum rules and not delve into politics, or take the discussion down a path that would predictably lead to politics. All too easy in a topic like this one, and especially when disagreement on legitimate matters turns heated.  So let's be extra careful as we discuss this development.  It's obviously a noteworthy event that could conceivably impact people's preps and potential risks (macro and personal) going forward.  Please restrict your thoughts to those topics.

As the Major said.  The topic of the thread is "US Preparations to Invade Venezuela," so it might be good to "stay on target."  

There are a number of interesting side topics besides oil or politics to discuss on this.  Ones that come immediately to mind are level of OPSEC need to pull it off, total lack of MANPAD fire, reaction (non-political) of local population and surrounding countries, effect on illegal drug trade, and how will the cartels respond.

My apologies. I was trying to see if @Uomo Senza Nome and I had any common ground. But he seemed intent on debating rocks vs oil. 

Note taken. No more politics. 😁

Moab, Green River isn't all Rock, you are nuts to thinks so. I went and checked and you were one of those Peak Oil nutters back then. Guess what? It is 2025 We haven't run out of oil.

Tight oil. If we are just talking fracking we are looking at least 300BB in US recoverable reserves alone. The Bakken formation probably has 150BB by itself and 71BB in the Permian Basin.

Here is the Green River oil being extracted from shale in Wyoming.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Photo-Fracking-Drill-Sites-in-Wyoming-Pinedale-Anticline-and-Jonah_fig1_269166957

Why is it called Shale oil? Well that is what it is called. If there some confusion here it isn't on my end, for you to be right the whole rest of the world would have to be wrong and stop calling it that.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2018/may/rise-shale-oil

I do understand they are two different products. You say we can't get oil from rock, 20 years ago we couldn't get oil from shale at a profit either. Guess what? Technology evolves, times change new techniques are developed. Today it costs about $95 to produce a barrel of shale oil (rock) from extraction, which isn't profitable. This is about the same price as it is to produce a barrel of ethanol today, which makes up 10% of most fuel blends.

Ethanol is heavily subsidized of course, for various political reasons. It will probably never be profitable unless the price of oil rises significantly. But when the price does rise shale oil will become profitable as well, even with current technology.

Anyway back to the actual topic of the thread instead of refuting possible political motivations.

There were mostly positive spontaneous demonstrations in the US after the Mudaro arrest. Counter "anti-war" protests are being planned now in the US by left wing opposition and supporters of Mudaro in the US. These tend to get violent so best to avoid them. It is odd since combat operations have ceased to protest military operation that has been concluded? Also Maduro is more popular in the US than in his own country? I lol'd. Collective militia are patrolling the streets to prevent protests in Carcass. There were some.tiny pro Mudaro demonstrations in the city but it seems the government doesn't want people to gather.

I would avoid any areas near where he is being detained by the DOJ pending his trial on trafficking and many other charges.

Delcy Rodriguez is now the interim leader. Not sure how long that will last. She was in the old regime and most of the population despises her.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/04/delcy-rodriguez-tightrope-venezuela-interim-leader

Venezuela has closed their border with Brazil.and isn't allowing (more of) their citizens to leave. Essentially 26% of the population (8m of 30m) has fled the country in the last eight years due to a whole litany of PAW like conditions, including just about everything thing you can think of.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/4/venezuela-temporarily-closes-border-with-brazil-following-us-strike

Venezuela remains a; "do not travel to and leave as soon as possible if you are there" state warning from most countries including the US.

Moab is a geologist?

Quote from: Uomo Senza Nome on January 04, 2026, 11:55:21 AMMoab, Green River isn't all Rock, you are nuts to thinks so. I went and checked and you were one of those Peak Oil nutters back then. Guess what? It is 2025 We haven't run out of oil.

Tight oil. If we are just talking fracking we are looking at least 300BB in US recoverable reserves alone. The Bakken formation probably has 150BB by itself and 71BB in the Permian Basin.

Here is the Green River oil being extracted from shale in Wyoming.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Photo-Fracking-Drill-Sites-in-Wyoming-Pinedale-Anticline-and-Jonah_fig1_269166957

Why is it called Shale oil? Well that is what it is called. If there some confusion here it isn't on my end, for you to be right the whole rest of the world would have to be wrong and stop calling it that.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2018/may/rise-shale-oil

I do understand they are two different products. You say we can't get oil from rock, 20 years ago we couldn't get oil from shale at a profit either. Guess what? Technology evolves, times change new techniques are developed. Today it costs about $95 to produce a barrel of shale oil (rock) from extraction, which isn't profitable. This is about the same price as it is to produce a barrel of ethanol today, which makes up 10% of most fuel blends.

Ethanol is heavily subsidized of course, for various political reasons. It will probably never be profitable unless the price of oil rises significantly. But when the price does rise shale oil will become profitable as well, even with current technology.

I think I'm beginning to understand our difference of opinion. Your debating a political ideology that the US is energy independant - so we don't need to concern ourselves with geopolitics. Correct me if I'm wrong?

I was simply stating controlling Venezuala is important because it holds the largest oil reserve in the world. I honestly wasn't trying to have a political debate. I thought I was just pointing out the obvious. "Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserve. To not control it would make us very vulnerable." 

Venezuela is also within nuclear strike distance of the United States. Leaving a country with one of the world's largest proved oil reserves politically unstable or aligned against U.S. interests is not a theoretical concern—it is a direct strategic vulnerability. 

So there is more than enough motivation for China or Russia to take it over. If we don't. 

I honestly didn't think I was saying anything controversial. It seems like an obvious fact. "Your neighbor has a machine gun. And your enemy just took over his house." Maybe you should have taken control of the machine gun first?

So maybe we are debating two entirely different things? But it does not appear to me you've made any factual arguments based on any peer reviewed studies or official data that refutes the claim that Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserve. Or even why we shouldn't control it?

Is that the argument your making? That because you think we have more oil reserve it doesn't matter? I'm honestly not sure. 

Just know that my argument is simply that - regardless of Venezuela's place in the largest oil reserves in the world - it's worth controlling. Not that it can replace any oil reserves that we might have. Or that our oil reserves need replacing. 

For me it's a strategic decision. And has nothing to do with your ideas about what the US does or does not have in comparison to anyone else. I don't care about that. 

But I do find it odd that you cite no factual data backing up this claim. Yet refuse to admit your wrong. Which is largely why I've continued this discussion. Even when I'm only arguing a strategic decision. Not a political ideology. 

You don't seem to have the ability to make any factual arguments about your concerns. While at the same time holding fast to some political viewpoint you think I'm attacking. The funny thing is I'm not. But it's hysterical to watch. I get the feeling you haven't changed your mind since about 1982. But I will continue to refute your falsehoods with facts. If nothing else to watch how stubbornly you hold onto ideas with no factual merit.

In answer to your latest argument:

You're still mixing three different things and hoping volume replaces accuracy:

1) Tight oil (fracked crude)
2) Oil shale (kerogen rock / Green River)
3) Speculation about future tech plus subsidies

They are not interchangeable. Here are the corrections, with sources.

1) Your "Green River isn't all rock" claim is meaningless

No one said Green River is literal granite.
What matters is what it contains.

Green River oil shale contains kerogen, not oil.
Kerogen is a solid organic precursor that must be heated to create synthetic crude.

USGS (plain language):
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3010/

"Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock containing kerogen... kerogen is not oil and must be converted to produce liquid petroleum."

That is manufacturing fuel from rock. Not extraction.

Calling this "not all rock" is irrelevant. It is not oil.

2) Your "Green River oil being extracted" link is not Green River oil shale

Your ResearchGate link shows fracking drill sites in Wyoming (Pinedale Anticline / Jonah Field).

Those are tight gas and tight oil fields, not Green River oil shale.

They produce real hydrocarbons already in liquid or gas form, via fracking.

They do not:
- Mine oil shale
- Retort kerogen
- Produce synthetic crude from Green River oil shale

You linked a photo of tight oil and gas drilling and claimed it proves oil shale extraction. It does not.

3) "Why is it called shale oil?" — because language got sloppy, not because physics changed

"Shale oil" in modern usage usually means tight oil.

Even the EIA explicitly warns about this confusion:

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/shale-oil-and-oil-shale.php

"Shale oil and oil shale are different...
Shale oil is crude oil produced from shale formations.
Oil shale is rock containing kerogen that must be processed."

So no, "the whole world" is not right and me wrong.
You are ignoring the government agency that tracks oil for a living.

4) Your reserve numbers are wildly inflated and not supported by EIA or USGS

You claimed:
- 300 billion barrels recoverable in the U.S.
- 150 billion barrels in the Bakken
- 71 billion barrels in the Permian

Those numbers are not proved reserves.

EIA (U.S. proved crude oil reserves):
https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/USA

Approximately 48 billion barrels proved.

USGS estimates for tight oil are technically recoverable resources, not proved, not guaranteed economic at all prices, and not reserves.

You are again swapping categories.

Resources do not equal reserves.
Technically recoverable does not equal economically recoverable.

This is Energy 101.


5) The "technology will evolve" argument does not rescue you

This is where your analogy collapses.

Tight oil succeeded because:
- Oil already existed as oil
- Energy return on energy invested stayed viable
- Costs dropped with scale

Green River oil shale has had:
- Over 100 years of attempts
- Repeated economic failure
- No commercial-scale production
- Unresolved water, waste, and energy return problems

USGS and EIA still classify it as non-commercial today.

Hope is not a reserve category.

6) Your ethanol comparison hurts your case, not mine

You just admitted:
- Ethanol is not profitable
- Ethanol is heavily subsidized
- Ethanol only survives via mandates

That is not evidence of viability.
That is evidence of political life support.

If your argument is "oil shale can work if subsidized forever," then you just conceded it is not economically viable energy.


Bottom line (again, because you keep dodging it)

- Tight oil is oil
- Green River oil shale is kerogen rock
- Fracking photos do not equal oil shale production
- Resources do not equal reserves
- Speculation does not equal production

You keep pointing at tight oil success to defend oil shale failure, inflating resources into reserves, and linking fracking photos as proof of kerogen extraction.

This is the third time I've asked this with no answer. 

Name the commercial Green River oil shale operation.
Name its daily barrels.
Link the EIA production series.
Name the refinery running that feedstock.

Until you can do that, this isn't a debate about energy — it's you counting rocks as oil and hoping technology saves the math.

But again, I don't really care about your faulty arguments on who has the most oil. Or what "oil" really is. For me it's a simple strategic question of whether or not we should control Venezuala? Given their oil reserves, it's stretigic distance from the US, and the easy to see motivations of our adversaries. Why wouldn't we? 

Quote from: Crimson_Phoenix on January 04, 2026, 09:33:35 PMMoab is a geologist?

If you find any factual errors or have anything to add to what I've said - please state them? I'm more than open to discussion and changing my mind. It's the one true value of communicating. 

Moab, it you with the politics, not I. You have been promoting the idea that the US is running out of oil as a motivation for geo politics. I'm saying they aren't, at least not within the next 100 years or so.

You keep pointing to EIA numbers as though they are factual. They aren't. EIA numbers are garbage. That is far too easy to show. The last time they did a comprehensive assessment of proven oil reserves in the US was 1995. At that time, according to them, there were 22BB of proven oil reserves in the US. Since that time we have pumped well over 22BB and now we have more than twice as much? Clearly there must have been newly discovered oil right? Nope. No new discovery of oil fields. Everything is exactly where it always was.  Nice to eat your cake and have it too. Once you explain that, suddenly most of your questions will answer themselves. Tight oil is oil, but it is oil from shale formations.

For the 3rd 4th? time, when I said the were getting oil from shale from Green River I was talking about fracking. Fracking is fro' da shale.from.shale. Can't believe I have to spell it out yet again. I can repeat it a few more times or use a bigger font if it.will.help. However the amount of deposits there are enormous.

Kerogen rock CAN be turned into oil either in situ or above ground but the costs are too high currently. Just like tight oil was 18 years ago. Now we get most of our oil from tight oil or shale. The idea that it won't be economically viable in the future I understand is spoken from a position of ignorance, but that doesn't change how the world works. As soon as something becomes profitable, it tends to happen.

I have no idea what you are talking about with machine guns and nuclear weapons and whatever other whimsy you are talking about with your rambling WOT. But, wow, amazing way to crash and burn a thread. Good job. I can see why the traffic here is through the roof.

Locked for Admin Review: Politics

After admin review, we've decided that the thread will stay locked for 48 hours; all parties are admonished to get it back on-topic when it reopens; further off-topic arguing will result in some personal time-outs being awarded.