Domestic Drilling

UtahBill · May 9, 2011

cpwill said:
i know - how awful of them to let their people keep more of their own stuff.

it's with those damn people. we need to get them back to understanding that they belong to the government, not the other way around.

no, they ARE the government, and they need to stop paying nitwits to run it for them....

UtahBill · May 9, 2011

cpwill said:
well, that's what we get for electing a kenyan muslim. we'll elect a Noble Republican next time around and instantly be back in paradise.
why drill our own when we have a perfectly good military that can just take others? we spent all that money on the dang thing, let's let the military earn some of that money back.

So you are a Kenyan? Only Kenyans get to elect a Kenyan for Kenya...muslim or otherwise.
The word is Nobel, or did you reallly mean noble?
We can't be taking oil from other countries, but we can be taking more money from our rich.
It's the law....

Barbbtx · May 9, 2011

The Mark said:
I suppose it wouldn't work to somehow set it up that none of the oil produced in the USA would be exported?

I have no real knowledge of our production/demand numbers, but I would think that we could, with a boost in production and (if I'm understanding correctly) removal of our oil from the world market, potentially reduce our dependence on imported oil at least somewhat.

I'm not sure if that would be possible, however...I've never looked into this all that much.

I love that idea, but like you, don't know if it's possible.

Barbbtx · May 9, 2011

cpwill said:
like magic!

seriously, there is nothing that replaces oil currently on the market. let's lower energy prices while the technology improves to the point where we can have a viable alternative, instead of choosing to keep ourselves poorer.

opening up domestic supply for drilling would be a jobs bonanza - of jobs that pay higher than the national average. It would lower energy prices, it would increase revenues, it would increase growth, and it would help pull us out of this slump. waiting for windmill-driven unicorns to bring us magical 'alternative' energy isn't a strategy, it's a hope that you keep while working on what you have today.

Increasing Domestic supply would become a powerful foreign policy multiplier. It gives us a world in which the US can use it's monopsony position to tell Chavez to get bent, a world in which we can reduce the strategic importance of the Middle East.

Critics point out that it would take time to get the wells up and running, and that current spikes are caused by speculators - they are partially correct. Futures markets serve as predictors of the price of oil in... well, the future. What do you think those "speculators", those futures traders are going to think about the future price of oil if they see that the supply is going to be massively increasing in said future?

Drilling here gives us jobs. It increases wages. It increases revenues in a time in which we are facing a debt crises. It grows the economy at a time when growth is anemic and we desperately need to get on a more sharply upward-curving track. It reduces our need to control the stability of foreign sources, increases our strength vis-a-vie our enemies, and gives America more control over her future.

Those who say America's best days are behind her? They haven't looked around. There are huge ways in which we could explode upward. We just gotta use them.

That would make a great campaign speech. You runnin'?

Barbbtx · May 9, 2011

obvious Child said:
Which if we drilled now would take 10 years to get the market. Want to compare to that demand compounded from 10 years of double digit growth from BRIC nations?

The pipeline is not that far from where they want to drill. I don't know why people think it would take 10 yrs to get the first drop. For crying out loud we're Americans! Get the red tape out of the way and get to work!

Barbbtx · May 9, 2011

Catawba said:
Very happy we can see who voted they were unaware of both the facts that we passed peak oil in this country 40 years ago and that we are approaching world peak oil now.

1. Alfons
2. Barbbtx
3. Bigfoot 88
4. Cephus
5. cpwill
6. DashingAmerican
7. deltabtry
8. Juiposa
9. lpast
10. tessaesque

Peak oil is a figment of your imagination

Catawba · May 9, 2011

Barbbtx said:
Peak oil is a figment of your imagination

Thanks for your uneducated opinion! :sun

"For many decades the United States has not had a comprehensive energy policy. Now, the

consequences of this complacency have revealed themselves in California. Now, there could be more

California-like situations in America’s future. President George W. Bush and his administration need to

tell these agonizing truths to the American people and lay the basis for comprehensive, long-term U.S.

energy security policy.

That Americans face long-term situations such as frequent sporadic shortages of energy, energy price

volatility, and higher energy prices is not the fault of President Bush. The failure to fashion a workable

energy policy rests at the feet of both Democrats and Republicans. Both major political parties allowed

energy policy to drift despite its centrality to America’s domestic economy and to nation security. Energy

policy was permitted to drift even though oil price spikes proceeded virtually every American recession

since the late 1940s. The American people must know about this situation and be told as well that there

are no easy or quick solutions to today’s energy problems. The president has to begin education the public

about this reality and start building a broad base of popular support for the hard policy choices ahead."

"As it is, national solutions alone cannot work. Politicians still speak of U.S. energy independence,

while the United States is importing more than half of its oil supplies and may soon for the first time

become reliant on sources outside North America for substantial amounts of natural gas. More flexible

environmental regulation and opening of more federal lands to drilling might slow but cannot stop this

process. Dependence is so incredibly large, and growing so inexorably, that national autonomy is simply

not a viable goal. In the global economy, it may not even be a desirable one."
Powered by Google Docs

"The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact."
US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015 | Business | The Guardian

Barbbtx · May 9, 2011

What the hell....:2rofll:[video]http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/peak-oil-by-jay-hanson-pt2/2e165f7018e1019c4ea12e165f7018e1019c4ea1-817970415002?cpkey=c34870fce49aa6c65a79c34870fce49 aa6c65a79-924218818974%7Cno%20such%20thing%20as%20peak%20oil %7C%7C&q=no%20such%20thing%20as%20peak%20oil[/video]

obvious Child · May 9, 2011

Bigfoot 88 said:
That is one thing, but only one thing. Speculation is another.

But ignoring that while citing the decline in oil prices is dishonest. Or stupid.

xpiher · May 9, 2011

Barbbtx said:
The pipeline is not that far from where they want to drill. I don't know why people think it would take 10 yrs to get the first drop. For crying out loud we're Americans! Get the red tape out of the way and get to work!

You aren't looking at it right. The time it takes to dill, get enough oil to actually process, and then process has an AVG of 10 years. The red tape has nothing to with it.

Catawba · May 9, 2011

Barbbtx said:
What the hell....:2rofll:[video]http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/peak-oil-by-jay-hanson-pt2/2e165f7018e1019c4ea12e165f7018e1019c4ea1-817970415002?cpkey=c34870fce49aa6c65a79c34870fce49 aa6c65a79-924218818974%7Cno%20such%20thing%20as%20peak%20oil %7C%7C&q=no%20such%20thing%20as%20peak%20oil[/video]

LOL! Couldn't find anything to refute that we passed peak oil in this country in 1971, or that we are approacing world peak oil I see. Its alright, I knew you would not. :sun

obvious Child · May 9, 2011

cpwill said:
what, you mean because they're fungible? how does fungibility change the fact that price (stated simply) is a function of supply and demand?

Fungibility is precisely why your argument is utter crap.

actually I do. and then comes venezuela.

#5 actually.

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

of course not.

Then your argument does not make sense.

wrong. all I am talking about is the ability to either refuse to import Venezuelan crude (which is a market in which we are a de facto monopsony - we are the only ones with a significant refinery capacity capable of turning that sludge into gasoline - light sweet crude it ain't), and that increasing the percent of oil that comes from other-than-the-ME means that fluctuations in that region will effect the oil market less.

Uh. Thanks for admitting you don't know how commodities markets work. Your idea won't work. Venezuela will merely create a number of sham holding organizations and agents to shuffle the heavy sulfur oil around such an import restriction. Or merely sell the oil futures over and over again until the refinery buying the oil from the exercised future holder is CALPRS for all we know. Furthermore, your idea would require the US government to directly bar or place restrictions refineries from buying that crude. That will only increase oil prices. Furthermore, Venezuela will merely cut deals with other nations trading the oil for other items in a barter sort of way it already does with Cuba.

bringing the full American resources that are available online does represent a massive bump in supply.

Which at the most liberal estimate is 10 years.

gosh then I guess we'd better start drilling as soon as possible so that we are positioned to provide a resource whose' demand is guaranteed to go up.

And that means prices go down how again?

it certainly doesn't - not any more than we would or wouldn't have been before.

That does not make logical sense (Like all your posts!). Getting off oil at least for transportation needs would dramatically reduce the price of oil and thereby revenue to Russia, Venezuela and Iran (and Saudi Arabia which is a two sided problem).

Chavez is more dependent on us than we are on him.

But not in the way you are thinking. Chavez needs the US committed to oil to keep prices high. If the US dramatically reduces its oil demand, Chavez will fall.

Iran and Russia benefit more from being suppliers of a rarer commodity - we become a major supplier, we reduce their market share, we reduce their benefit. Russia wants to play games with Eastern Europe? US companies can speed up production and help ya'll out with that.

Except that being a major supplier won't change prices with the amounts we bring and the total aggregate demand. All you have done is create some more jobs and keep American demand right where Russia wants it. Furthermore, the cost of getting oil to Eastern Europe far outweighs the benefits.

windmills and solar replacing Oil in the near future is a pipe dream

You do realize that oil is primarily used for transportation fuel no with industrial uses for byproducts? Wind and solar are base grid power sources. Not the same thing. We can replace petroleum based transportation networks with a mix of natural gas and electric fuels. That alone would dramatically reduce oil demand and basically annihilate the large revenues to Russia.

choosing not to exploit our reserves is the economic equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot. It slows us down and allows others to pass us for no particularly good reason.

And that kids is another reason why you learn what powers what. Or you'll end up looking like Cpwill who just confused base grid power with liquid fuels.

obvious Child · May 9, 2011

xpiher said:
NAFTA isn't free trade at all.

There is no such thing as free trade. If we had free trade we could sell Japan F-22s and Britain could sell Iran nukes. It's all managed.

Mayor Snorkum · May 9, 2011

xpiher said:
You obviously aren't taking into account the environmental cost of getting said energy,

What environmental costs? Disturbing a mosquitoe breeding ground is something only Wendy Pleakley can realisticly object to.

Other than that, there's a termto describe that part of Alaska, a term not much in use today.

It's a wasteland.

It won't make gas go below $3/gallon because of the rate of increase in demand around the rest of the world. All you do is force alternative energy sources to be more expensive by comparison.

Just in case you missed it, a drop from $4.00 a gallon to $3.00 a gallon is a 25% drop.

And since "alterantive" energy is an uneconomic wet dream anyway, that sidetrack is irrelevant.

Only people on the left can argue that drilling won't reduce price and with the same mouth insist that a 25% drop is irrelevant.

Mayor Snorkum · May 9, 2011

obvious Child said:
Which if we drilled now would take 10 years to get the market. Want to compare to that demand compounded from 10 years of double digit growth from BRIC nations?

In other words, if you people hadn't worshipped mosquitoes more, ten years ago, when Bush first took office, the oil from Alaska would be now coming on line...

Here's a clue for you:

The oil is there.

Here's another.

Everyone knows it's there.

Here's a third.

IT WILL BE DRILLED.

May as well be now, for us, instead of later, for the Chinese to pay off the debt your president is saddling our children with.

Mayor Snorkum · May 9, 2011

obvious Child said:
It also keeps us tied into the oil commodity market which benefits Iran, Chavez and Russia. Oh wait. You didn't think about that did you?

So you're arguing that not drilling, and thereby buying oil from Iran, Venezueal, Russia, et al, won't keep us "tied" the commodity market?

In the real world, there's no other alternative.

Mayor Snorkum · May 9, 2011

xpiher said:
Of course, thats why people are having their farms destroyed by natural gas drilling :doh

Then stop opposing drilling off shore....

Barbbtx · May 9, 2011

xpiher said:
You aren't looking at it right. The time it takes to dill, get enough oil to actually process, and then process has an AVG of 10 years. The red tape has nothing to with it.

I found this

Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Timing of first production

At the present time, there has been little exploration and development activity in the coastal plain region. The EIA report Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Updated Assessment suggested that between 7 and 12 years were required from an approval to explore and develop the coastal region of ANWR until first production. The study further noted that the time to first production could vary significantly based on the time required for petroleum leasing once approval to develop ANWR has been given. Environmental considerations and the possibility of drilling restrictions also could significantly affect projected schedules.
Following the earlier study, this analysis assumes that passage of the current legislation in 2004 will result in first production from the ANWR area in 10 years, i.e., 2013, assuming that the first lease sale occurs 22 months after enactment, as required by H.R.6 passed by the House of Representatives.

Catawba · May 9, 2011

The Oil Problem

"The global production of conventional oil will soon reach a peak, and subsequently decline, due to resource limits. This peak in conventional oil production will have severe economic consequences.

As the production of conventional oil declines, the world will increasingly use oil from non-conventional sources. Already, small amounts of such oil are used, and there are very large quantities in the world, but, by and large, these oils are more expensive than conventional oil, and the global economy will suffer as greater proportions are used.

More importantly, the decline rate of conventional oil will be fairly rapid, about a 3% fall each year, and present calculations indicate that it is unlikely that non-conventional sources can come on-stream fast enough to offset conventional’s decline. In this case, if demand does not fall in parallel, severe world oil shortages are inevitable.

The Production Peak

Oil production from a region reaches peak, and starts to decline, once falling output from the large, early fields cannot be replaced by production from smaller, newer fields coming on stream.

To-date, nearly 50 countries are already past their resource-limited oil production peak. These countries include the USA (in 1971), Indonesia (1977), the Former Soviet Union (the ‘economic’ peak in 1987 disguising the resource mid-point), and the UK (in 1999)."
Oil & Gas Situation

Barbbtx · May 9, 2011

Catawba said:
LOL! Couldn't find anything to refute that we passed peak oil in this country in 1971, or that we are approacing world peak oil I see. Its alright, I knew you would not. :sun

That was my first hit. It's really not worth argueing about. You want us to stop drilling. You say we are running out, I say we have plenty and we are finding more all the time. We are finding new technologies to get to it. I really don't care if we're at peak oil. Sounds like fear mongering to me. Much like global warming.
What did you think of the video? I still don't know what to make of it.

xpiher · May 9, 2011

Barbbtx said:
I found this
Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

We were talking about once production started :doh

Mayor Snorkum said:
Then stop opposing drilling off shore....

Prove that another BP won't happen.

Mayor Snorkum said:
What environmental costs? Disturbing a mosquitoe breeding ground is something only Wendy Pleakley can realisticly object to.

The environmental cost of getting natural gas is poisoned water supplies and ruined farm land. The environmental cost of getting oil from tar sands is 1000s of gallons of tainted water plus 1 barrel of oil to produce 2-3 barrels, not to mention the massive amount of CO2 emissions. But, if you don't give a **** about the environment why not just look at the fact that it takes 1 barrle of oil to price 2-3 barrels. Talk about a waste of energy, thus the profitability of the entire process.

The US could cut its dependence on fossil fuel to virtually nothing in a 5 year period by littering the Midwest with wind farms. But thats not profitable because wind is free.

Only people on the left can argue that drilling won't reduce price and with the same mouth insist that a 25% drop is irrelevant.

Or I was being generous with the affect of the middle east turmoil on the price of gas? Drilling is unsustainable. It will only show short term drops in price, and not by much unless the government drills the oil in the US and only sell the by product in the US.

Mayor Snorkum said:
In other words, if you people hadn't worshipped mosquitoes more, ten years ago, when Bush first took office, the oil from Alaska would be now coming on line...

You know nothing about eco-systems do you. And I think its more to do with the Karabu.

Barbbtx said:
That was my first hit. It's really not worth argueing about. You want us to stop drilling. You say we are running out, I say we have plenty and we are finding more all the time. We are finding new technologies to get to it. I really don't care if we're at peak oil. Sounds like fear mongering to me. Much like global warming.
What did you think of the video? I still don't know what to make of it.

Peak oil has nothing to do with fear mongering. Its an economic devise to figure out how long cheap oil can exist before it starts becoming harder to find/process and becomes less profitable, unless demand is high in which case it becomes even more profitable, it just takes more capital.

You know why they are using tar oil now? Because most of the other stuff is gone. Do you realize how expensive it is? The only reason its profitable is because oil demand is skyrocketing.

Catawba · May 9, 2011

Barbbtx said:
That was my first hit. It's really not worth argueing about.

I see, it was worth making a claim you couldn't back up, and when confronted to prove your claim, you say its not really worth argueing about. Got it.

You want us to stop drilling.

Please quote where I have ever said that.

You say we are running out,

I have not said that either, I (and most of the world's experts, including the US military who uses more oil than any other entity in the world, have said we are getting close to the point where demand exceeds supply, the end of cheap oil.

I say we have plenty and we are finding more all the time. We are finding new technologies to get to it.

The problem with that is the new finds are smaller or such inferior quality as to make their usage prohibitively expensive. Neither are a low cost means of dealing with the world reaching the point where demand exceeds supply.

I really don't care if we're at peak oil. Sounds like fear mongering to me. Much like global warming.

Then stop whining about the gas prices and the weak economy, because peak oil is having a big effect on both! And every president from Nixon to Obama has warned us.

What did you think of the video? I still don't know what to make of it.

I think it is a very old video that was made to try to warn people they should take actions to avert the crisis that we face unprepared today.

Mayor Snorkum · May 9, 2011

xpiher said:
We were talking about once production started :doh

Prove that another BP won't happen.

Why?

The Mayor didn't really give a **** when it was happening that time.

Nor does the Mayor decline to take needed action because perhaps maybe someday some boob will make a mistake. Boo hoo hoo.

Guess what the Deepwater Horizon accident was?

it was the opportunity to learn how to prevent similar events in the future. Stupid people refuse to learn from their mistakes, enterprising people see the learning opportunities.

The environmental cost of getting natural gas is poisoned water supplies and ruined farm land.

Not when the drilling is off-shore....

The environmental cost of getting oil from tar sands is 1000s of gallons of tainted water plus 1 barrel of oil to produce 2-3 barrels, not to mention the massive amount of CO2 emissions.

Sounds like Canada's problem.

But, if you don't give a **** about the environment why not just look at the fact that it takes 1 barrle of oil to price 2-3 barrels.

Because it's Canada's problem, not America's.

Talk about a waste of energy, thus the profitability of the entire process.

Two independent methods of extracting oil from oil shale for roughly $30 per bbl have been developed. Oil is currenly over $100, granting a profit of some $70 per barrel.

Te US could cut its dependence on fossil fuel to virtually nothing in a 5 year period by littering the Midwest with wind farms.

That's just a stupid comment.

Windmill's don't work on cars.

But thats not profitable because wind is free.

And wind turbines are not. Just in case you missed it, someone has to build the things, someone has to maintain them.

Or I was being generous with the affect of the middle east turmoil on the price of gas? Drilling is unsustainable. It will only show short term drops in price, and not by much unless the government drills the oil in the US and only sell the by product in the US.[/quote

The US has a trillion barrels of reserves. That's a hell of a long short term.

You know nothing about eco-systems do you. And I think its more to do with the Karabu.

Click to expand...

Caribou like the warm pipes. And they're stupid deer, they'll **** in the middle of the road if that's where it happens.

Also, Caribou aren't endangered, anyway, so who cares?

Santa?

No, Santa uses reindeer.

Catawba · May 9, 2011

More U.S. Oil Drilling Won't Lower Gas Prices, Experts Say

"Republicans used the politically potent argument about the cost of gas Thursday to pass a bill expanding offshore oil and gas exploration. But analysts say there's a major flaw in their case: More drilling will barely budge prices.

The Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, which passed 266 to 144 with 33 Democrats buying into the scheme, orders the Department of the Interior to move quickly to offer three leases to drill in the Gulf of Mexico and one off the coast of Virginia. The bill demands that the leases be executed by next year.

But the legislation won't reduce the price at the pump, experts said. Nor would a vastly more ambitious effort have much impact.

"It's not going to change the price of oil overnight, and it's probably not going to have a huge impact on the price of oil ever," said Mike Lynch of Strategic Energy and Economic Research, Inc. referring not just to those four leases, but to expanding all U.S. drilling."

The Mark · May 9, 2011

obvious Child said:
Well, that would just encouraging investment in production to go elsewhere. If you can't sell your oil for the highest price because of export restrictions, then they'd go elsewhere where they don't have such restrictions. Furthermore that would actually drive prices up. I've never heard of an export restriction that didn't rack up prices. Sizable amounts of food commodities right now are high due to export restrictions from Egypt to Russia to Thailand. Rice and Wheat are artificially high as inventory is sitting around isolated from global commodity markets.

Hmmm...

Unless we in the US were paying more than anyone else in the world, which I do not believe is the case. And there are probably other factors that might counter that. But I'm not too clear on this area, so you are probably correct.

obvious Child said:
In the short run I suppose, but wouldn't that just cause less imports? After all, if refined products can't be exported, won't extractors send oil to non-restricted refineries? US refineries are exporting refined oil products: What Energy Problem? U.S. Oil Exports Are on the Rise - Yahoo! Finance

I was thinking of a total export block, on both crude and refined. Possibly a bad idea though...

obvious Child said:
I don't see how these help. Export/Import restrictions as I understand history don't reduce prices. Trade barriers rarely do anyways.

Honesty, the best way to reduce oil is to reduce demand. A 10% reduction in US demand would have pretty drastic reductions in price. A 50% would change how Russia behaves. a 70% would get rid of all of the oil backed dictators in the world.

The problem is, at least as I understand it, that so far it's cheaper to keep oil-based systems in place.

Until we have alternate fuel vehicles that are cheaper overall than oil-fueled vehicles, including the initial cost and the upkeep, we're going to have people/businesses sticking with oil as a power source unless they're making a political or ideological statement.

This same argument would seemingly apply to any other area that uses oil as a power source or base material.

Domestic Drilling

Additional domestic drilling will reduce oil prices

Yes

No

Maybe

Disappointed Evolutionist

Equal Opportunity Hater

Well-known member

Disappointed Evolutionist

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Disappointed Evolutionist

Well-known member

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Sporadic insanity normal.