Any supporting evidence beyond William's claim? Actually he said Gull Island which is within Prudhoe Bay had as much oil as Saudi Arabia. Gull Island is less than one mile in size. The largest oil field in Saudi Arabia is hundreds of miles long. Here is a picture of the island:Also, Williams was told that Prudhoe Bay Oil Field was the largest known in the world, but after it was suppressed, they now lie about its size. Nothing new here.
http://photography.nationalgeographi...nd-alaska.html
Prudhoe Bay oil production has been declining since the 1970's and now the amounts being produced are so low they are concerned that there is enough passing through the Alaskan pipeline (which brings that oil down to the lower 48) to be able to keep the pipeline flowing.
He also claimed that the North Slope of Alaska had as much oil as Saudi Arabia.
It is there- but incredibly difficult and expensive to get at, as I pointed out earlier. This is oil shale with the oil tied up in solid rocks. Think tar sands of Canada only hardened. This is not stuff you can simply drill down to and pump it out.Also you forgot the 2 TRILLION barrel oil field under the Rocky Mountains.
http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/
Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil – or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia. This energy bounty is simply too large to ignore any longer, assuming that the reserves are economically viable. And yet, oil shale lies far from the radar screen of most investors.Plus it will require millions of gallons of water which is a scarce resource in the arid West.Extracting oil from the shale is no simple task. The earliest attempts to extract the oil utilized an environmentally unfriendly process known as “retorting.” Stated simply, retorting required mining the shale, hauling it to a processing facility that crushed the rock into small chunks, then extracted a petroleum substance called kerogen, then upgraded the kerogen through a process of hydrogenation (which requires lots of water) and refined it into gasoline or jet fuel.
But the difficulties of retorting do not end there, as my colleague, Byron King explains:
“After you retort the rock to derive the kerogen (not oil), the heating process has desiccated the shale (OK, that means that it is dried out). Sad to say, the volume of desiccated shale that you have to dispose of is now greater than that of the hole from which you dug and mined it in the first place. Any takers for trainloads of dried, dusty, gunky shale residue, rife with low levels of heavy metal residue and other toxic, but now chemically-activated crap? (Well, it makes for enough crap that when it rains, the toxic stuff will leach out and contaminate all of the water supplies to which gravity can reach, which is essentially all of ‘em. Yeah, right. I sure want that stuff blowin’ in my wind.) Add up all of the capital investment to build the retorting mechanisms, cost of energy required, cost of water, costs of transport, costs of environmental compliance, costs of refining, and you have some relatively costly end-product.”
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 10-17-2012 at 05:03 PM.
Freedom is a state of mind. Nobody can take that from you unless you let them.
The size of the island is irrelevant. Don't you know you can drill in the sea, with no island at all?Originally Posted by Zippyjuan
After all the lies we have been told, I would not be surprised if Exxon failed on purpose by choosing a rocky spot to begin with.Originally Posted by Zippyjuan
I believe Williams. The evidence is in his favor.
Being Anti-Fed Isn't Enough
You have to understand money. Article by Tom Woods:
As I noted not long ago, I find myself in serious disagreement with a portion of the end-the-Fed movement. This is the segment of the movement whose complaints are that the Federal Reserve is “privately owned,” that the Fed does not inflate enough, that interest payments are unjust or inherently unpayable all at once, etc.
This is not nit-picking. I am not interested in replacing the Fed with something as bad or worse. The problem with the Fed is not that it isn’t socialistic enough. The problem with the Fed is that it is a creation of Congress and operates with special privileges granted by the government. If only the Fed were truly private, with no government-granted privileges. Then it could do no damage whatever.
Right on, Tom! Remove government forced monopoly, (i.e. allow Free Competition in Currencies), and unbacked fiat ends by the hand of Free Market, together with welfare state and warfare state! That is the purpose of this amendment!
Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 10-17-2012 at 08:29 PM.
Sure you can drill in the ocean. Happens all of the time. The problem is one of space. You can't physically hide 250 billion barrels of oil in an area that small. It is WITHIN Prudhoe Bay which itself had an estimated 13 billion barrels of recoverable oil. http://www.alaskapipelinejobinfo.com...yoilfield.html
BP is one of the companies with rights to Prudhoe Bay. If the Bay had that much oil, why would they spend over half a billion dollars to drill seven miles down in the Gulf of Mexico for the Deepwater Horizon rig? Why not keep pumping in Alaska if it has that much oil in a place they already have rigs? No- it doesn't add up.When first discovered, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield was thought to contain 9.6 billion barrels of recoverable crude oil. Advances in technology have upped that estimate to 13 billion barrels. The field also contains a significant amount of natural gas with the latest estimate at more than 26 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas. To access these resources, more than 1,114 wells have been drilled (as of the summer of 2006). The field itself is 213,543 acres in size.
Development of the field began in 1969 and oil first made its way down the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) on June 20th 1977.
When it came online, Prudhoe Bay averaged over 1.5 million barrels of oil & gas liquids per day for more than a decade. Output started to decline in 1988 and as of 2005, the average daily production is approximately 450,000 barrels. This amount equals 5% of total U.S. production.
Perhaps you can share evidence of his being right about 250 billion barrels of oil at Gull Island or the North Slope of Alaska. And McCain being president. And the massive oil fields announced in Northern Russia. And Indonesia- both totaling over 250 billion barrels extractable oil combined for 2008/ 2009. (Indonesia is a net oil importer- they could use the revenues!) And the Middle East being bankrupt. He throws a lot of stuff out there and gets lucky once in a while. He is no expert.
Freedom is a state of mind. Nobody can take that from you unless you let them.
The ocean floor is 2/3 of the earth's surface. It is NOT a small area. If you have an exit point in Prudhoe Bay, it does not mean that the underground field must be limited to the size of the island or the bay. As I said before, you don't even have to have an island, nor a bay for that matter.
It is called CONSPIRACY. You might have heard of the word. Look it up. It has been the moving engine of a wicked world for a few thousand years.
Northern Russia has massive estimates. The announcements might have been canceled after the disclosure. However the precise price swing from $150 to $50 per barrel was spot on. Was that a coincident too? "Coincident" is the excuse of fools and liars. There is no such thing.
Middle East is in the process of going bankrupt. He is no expert, neither does he claim to be one. He simply repeats what he was told.
Let me try again. Ocean big. Prudhoe Bay not big. Gull Island inside Prudhoe Bay. Very small. Prudhoe Bay has 13 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Saudi Arabia has 250 billion barrels of oil and their biggest field is over 200 miles long. It is impossible for this place inside Prudhoe Bay to have more oil than a 200 mile long reserve. 250 billion barrels hiding in Bay with only 13 billion barrels? Not possible.The ocean floor is 2/3 of the earth's surface. It is NOT a small area. If you have an exit point in Prudhoe Bay, it does not mean that the underground field must be limited to the size of the island or the bay. As I said before, you don't even have to have an island, nor a bay for that matter.
Google Map: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&qs...ed=0CCsQ8gEwAA (the little "7" shape in the middle of the bay is Gull Island).
Let's see the evidence.The evidence is in his favor.
"Buy my DVD and find out all about it!" (or his book- he said "they would do to me what they did to JFK" if he kept trying to sell his book.) He also said "they" forced him to shut down his website. He is still selling.He is no expert, neither does he claim to be one. He simply repeats what he was told.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 10-18-2012 at 05:01 PM.
Freedom is a state of mind. Nobody can take that from you unless you let them.
Ron Paul: "If you had sound money, you would not have deficits, because you cannot print money."
This is the key, politically and economically speaking. Everything else is fluff and different degrees of a lie.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul...-far-gone.html
'Fool's Gold' Standards
IMF is planning to produce "gold backed" SDR's as a new global currency. It is a fraud in the making. Just like the original Federal Reserve Act of 1913 called for gold backing of the dollar, only to quietly remove and outlaw such backing later, so is the plan of the banksters regarding SDR's. It may initially be backed by "gold" to sucker people in, but because of the monopoly, it will soon become NOT redeemable in gold, to perpetuate the fiat fraud on global scale. The true solution is to kill the immoral monopoly by legalizing Free Competition in Currencies, as demanded by Free Market, which is the purpose of this amendment (please see the top post).
Ron Paul, in "Why Monetary Freedom Matters," reinforces Salerno's caution on true reform, a market determined money, versus reforms, that while perhaps better than a "false trust in fiat money" will leave too many opportunities for monetary mischief. Paul states, "As far back as the Gold Commission (1982), I've made the case for gold." But he wouldn't close down the central bank: he would legalize competition in currencies, repeal legal-tender laws, and eliminate all taxes on silver or gold purchases, and allow private mints. In essence, his proposal is similar to what F. A. Hayek (1976, 1978) had talked about. Why don't we denationalize money, legalize competition, allow free markets to work, and allow free-market banking to work?
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/cochran-j1.1.1.html
Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 11-13-2012 at 05:30 PM.
I would be utterly shocked if it was EVER redeemable in gold, even from the onset. It will only be said to be "backed by gold" to instill CON-fidence, with nobody--not government or individuals--ever having the ability to say, "OK, here's my bill, where's my gold?"