Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Washington Post: Start Drilling


Ax

Recommended Posts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/29/AR2008042902394.html

Unsurprisingly, all three major presidential candidates tout "energy independence." This reflects either ignorance (unlikely) or pandering (probable). The United States imports about 60 percent of its oil, up from 42 percent in 1990. We'll import lots more for the foreseeable future. The world uses 86 million barrels of oil a day, up from 67 mbd in 1990. The basic cause of exploding prices is that advancing demand has virtually exhausted the world's surplus production capacity, says analyst Douglas MacIntyre of the Energy Information Administration. Combined with a stingy OPEC, the result is predictable: Any unexpected rise in demand or threat to supply triggers higher prices.
Perhaps oil prices will drop when some long-delayed projects begin production or if demand slackens. But the basic problem will remain. Though dependent on foreign oil, we might conceivably curb the power of foreign producers. But this is not a task of a month or a year. It is a task of decades; new production projects take that long. If we don't start now, our future dependence and its dangers will grow. Count on it.

Of course, being somewhat radical in my approach, I think a good way to get OPEC to cooperate would be to pick one the members, one of the smaller ones to start, and completely destroy their ability to sell there product.

Then ask, "Who's next?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they would have started to drill in Alaska in 2001-2002, some of the oil would be hitting the markets by now. Our economy will be in shambles but our woods will be beautiful!

This was not the only solution, but it would have been a big help. Alternative sources are the answer long term but I still get pissed off that Bush was rebuked so hard back then for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they would have started to drill in Alaska in 2001-2002, some of the oil would be hitting the markets by now. Our economy will be in shambles but our woods will be beautiful!

This was not the only solution, but it would have been a big help. Alternative sources are the answer long term but I still get pissed off that Bush was rebuked so hard back then for this.

Agreed. The bunny huggers are retarded when it comes to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/29/AR2008042902394.html

Of course, being somewhat radical in my approach, I think a good way to get OPEC to cooperate would be to pick one the members, one of the smaller ones to start, and completely destroy their ability to sell there product.

Then ask, "Who's next?"

The only way to do so would be a military strike(which I don't think you mean) since it is a global market.

They have what the world wants,so you better find your own supply or a alternative

...Of course being one of the major producers of food hit them with our own cartel....don't think that would go over well though ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they would have started to drill in Alaska in 2001-2002, some of the oil would be hitting the markets by now. Our economy will be in shambles but our woods will be beautiful!

This was not the only solution, but it would have been a big help. Alternative sources are the answer long term but I still get pissed off that Bush was rebuked so hard back then for this.

Bush was rebuked for not acknowledging the need to take an aggressive approach to finding alternative forms of energy. Drilling in Alaska was not his short term solution, it was his only solution. Frankly, I'd rather be eight years closer to being less dependent on oil, and when I think back on Bush's simplistic approach I still get pissed that we're not.

And by the way, why are you pissed at Bush's rebukers? Bush has been President for eight years, the first six of which he had full support of Congress. Why isn't Alaskan oil hitting the market by now? If you should be pissed at anyone, be pissed at Bush himself for not delivering on this campaign promise. The man couldn't even put this band-aid on the gaping wound.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way to do so would be a military strike(which I don't think you mean) since it is a global market.

They have what the world wants,so you better find your own supply or a alternative

...Of course being one of the major producers of food hit them with our own cartel....don't think that would go over well though ;)

On the contrary. To quote brother Malcolm, "...by any means necessary!"

Including a military strike.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush was rebuked for not acknowledging the need to take an aggressive approach to finding alternative forms of energy. Drilling in Alaska was not his short term solution, it was his only solution. Frankly, I'd rather be eight years closer to being less dependent on oil, and when I think back on Bush's simplistic approach I still get pissed that we're not.

For the forseeable future, a capable alternative to fossil fuel based energy, on the scale needed to be effective, is still more "pie in the sky" than anything. While the pursuit of it is smart, I think the private sector is better suited to discover it. We need to concentrate more on making better use of the current sources, which includes us drilling more in our own back yard.

It's not the only solution, for sure. But, ignoring the need for it is, well, ignorant. IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anwar = At peak production, ANWR could have potentially added 780,000 barrels a day to U.S. crude oil output by 2020, according to the EIA

Chevrons Jack oilfield = an amount that would boost the known oil reserves in the US by about 50pc. found in 2004 (so its getting there)...

http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.sum.pdf

Shale = is unlikely to be profitable unless real crude oil

prices are at least $70 to $95 per barrel (2005 dollars).. = The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation,

which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil

resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion

barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale

resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower

bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy planning purposes, it is enough to

know that any amount in this range is very high. For example, the midpoint in our

estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi

Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per

day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, 800 billion barrels

of recoverable resources would last for more than 400 years.

Chevron said it had successfully tapped what could prove the largest deposit of crude oil ever discovered in the US.

The oil major broke half a dozen records during construction of the test well, which sits about 175 miles off the coast of Louisiana in the deep-water regions of the Gulf of Mexico. An oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico

Experts believe the ancient rocks that lie more than five miles below the sea bed could hold up to 15bn barrels of crude oil, an amount that would boost the known oil reserves in the US by about 50pc.

IF we did the American thing of TRYING: We could make refinaries 300% more efficient from 20 years ago.

Make cars 300% more efficient in gas at 60mpg easy..

Increase production so that India and China could have ALL of the M.E. oil.

12 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me we should sit on our oil as long as we possibly can as a matter of strategy. When the middle east runs dry and we have our reserves we will be glad we did. I know Republicans want to blow our load in every conceivable way right now (and in many ways they succeeded) but I'm too young to subscribe to that.

Maybe when I get older I will be more inclined to screw over future generations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think drilling for more oil here is a band aid on a broken leg. We need to find a technology that is not oil dependent. Plain and simple.

I was wondering about something else too, and maybe some economics people can help me... don't we as such big buyers have some market power in this? That is, can't we say we aren't paying more as a country? What if we passed a law making it illegal to sell gas at a certain price and forced the oil companies to tell OPEC that they can't pay more than something much more reasonable? Would that work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This shale oil deal in the green river valley is real. I have family in the oil business and the oil companies have known about these deposits since the 50's. It has simply been too expnesive to extract and simply would not have been profitable for anyone previously. One of the major oil companies has begun extraction efforts in Wyoming and Colorado.

From what I have been told (and is loosely referenced in the post above) there is more shale oil reserves sitting in this region than the amount of oil that has already been consumed world wide to date.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For the forseeable future, a capable alternative to fossil fuel based energy, on the scale needed to be effective, is still more "pie in the sky" than anything. While the pursuit of it is smart, I think the private sector is better suited to discover it. We need to concentrate more on making better use of the current sources, which includes us drilling more in our own back yard.

It's not the only solution, for sure. But, ignoring the need for it is, well, ignorant. IMO

The government could have been encouraging the private sector to get off it's posterior a lot sooner.

Congress took a small step last year by increasing fuel economy standards for new cars and light trucks from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

We should be WAY past this, for example. The fact that 'small steps' are only now being considered is pathetic.

For the record, I don't have a problem drilling. But that's just going to delay the inevitable. What I have a huge problem with is ignoring the inevitable, simply because it's inconvenient. We're up against it now. And in my opinion, failing to take stronger measures to decrease this country's dependence on oil could turn out to be the biggest failure of the Bush Administration. It's that big a deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand, one of the reasons why we rely on Middle East oil so much is production costs and the long term cost of exploration.

If I recall correctly, production costs for a barrel of oil in the Middle East are around $15/barrel. Costs for the other local sources, such as US offshore deepwater, are much higher. close to $70 per barrel. Estimated reserves if you are prepared to spend that kind of money are much greater than the Middle East supply.

The dilemma for an oil production company is how long priced will be at a certain level to justify the exploration and higher production costs.

Given that we have been north of $100 per barrel for some time now, I wonder if there's merit in the US government providing a contract for say 100 billion barrels of oil at $90 a barrel over the next X years so that the oil production companies could exploit these local resources knowing what their financial risk is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I understand, one of the reasons why we rely on Middle East oil so much is production costs and the long term cost of exploration.

If I recall correctly, production costs for a barrel of oil in the Middle East are around $15/barrel. Costs for the other local sources, such as US offshore deepwater, are much higher. close to $70 per barrel. Estimated reserves if you are prepared to spend that kind of money are much greater than the Middle East supply.

The dilemma for an oil production company is how long priced will be at a certain level to justify the exploration and higher production costs.

Given that we have been north of $100 per barrel for some time now, I wonder if there's merit in the US government providing a contract for say 100 billion barrels of oil at $90 a barrel over the next X years so that the oil production companies could exploit these local resources knowing what their financial risk is.

Just asking, what is the downfall to capping the costs that oil companies can charge for gas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Republicans couldn't get this through Congress in the four years they were in control then I don't think it's ever going to happen.

As a political issue, it is a difficult one, because voting for ANWR pisses off the environmentalists without providing any kind of immediate price decrease at the pump ... the return date is longer than two years, and Congressmen don't generally need to look that far.

It should have been easy - we are in a period of time where which oil prices are rising dramatically and we were at war with Middle East oil-producing countries, but there's really no leadership ... what if, instead of invading Iraq, Bush had given a big speech saying, "Part of the War on Terror is our dependence on foreign oil, so we are going to raise CAFE standards, fund alternative energy research, and being drilling in ANWR." I think there was a time in 2002 when Bush had enough political capital to pull this off, especially if he offered compromises, but instead we went to Iraq ... and now nobody follows his lead on anything anymore.

...I think McCain could have pulled it off. Al Gore and a Republican Congress could also have compromised on this issue ... we are just stuck in a hate Bush = hate big oil kind of mindset, and it makes drilling much easier to oppose than to support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure how much of a difference drilling in Alaska would really make anyways. Gas prices are about to hit $4.00 a gallon and it is only May. So lets say we drilled tomorrow and it was an instant savings of 50 cents per gallon. Ok so now we are at $3.50 a gallon, which is still not a "low price" by any means, and it isn't even driving season yet.

Then you factor in that in a "global market" there is no way that all the oil from Alaska is going to be used for America. Global corporations have no loyalty to the United States, they will sell to any country willing to buy it, so with China, India and other countries increased need for oil, the cycle will just continue.

Any short term relief from drilling in Alaska would just be a facade to keep people quiet about finding real solutions to the energy crisis. Oil companies know that the writing is on the wall, all of them are investing in alternative fuels and energies, however they also know it is in their best interest to quelch people from getting their hands on new technology until every last drop of oil is inflated and bought and used. I am sure when Oil is gone, these same corporations will have copyrights on whatever new source of energy is being used, which also brings up other ethical questions that other countries have faced IE: can rainwater, energy from the sun be copyrighted?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure how much of a difference drilling in Alaska would really make anyways. Gas prices are about to hit $4.00 a gallon and it is only May. So lets say we drilled tomorrow and it was an instant savings of 50 cents per gallon. Ok so now we are at $3.50 a gallon, which is still not a "low price" by any means, and it isn't even driving season yet.

Then you factor in that in a "global market" there is no way that all the oil from Alaska is going to be used for America. Global corporations have no loyalty to the United States, they will sell to any country willing to buy it, so with China, India and other countries increased need for oil, the cycle will just continue.

Any short term relief from drilling in Alaska would just be a facade to keep people quiet about finding real solutions to the energy crisis. Oil companies know that the writing is on the wall, all of them are investing in alternative fuels and energies, however they also know it is in their best interest to quelch people from getting their hands on new technology until every last drop of oil is inflated and bought and used. I am sure when Oil is gone, these same corporations will have copyrights on whatever new source of energy is being used, which also brings up other ethical questions that other countries have faced IE: can rainwater, energy from the sun be copyrighted?

That aboot sums it up. I agree with every single point that you made. :applause:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems to me we should sit on our oil as long as we possibly can as a matter of strategy. When the middle east runs dry and we have our reserves we will be glad we did. I know Republicans want to blow our load in every conceivable way right now (and in many ways they succeeded) but I'm too young to subscribe to that.

Maybe when I get older I will be more inclined to screw over future generations.

We have been sitting on it. Time to start drilling. The idea is to survive now while developing alternative energy for the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We have been sitting on it. Time to start drilling. The idea is to survive now while developing alternative energy for the future.
If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was used to meet 100% of U.S. demand, it would last for 215 days under the low estimate, and 525 days or just 1.4 years if it contained 10.4 billion barrels (1,650,000,000 m³).

That is why they are not drilling, it is a band aid approach to the problem, and at BEST it would mean a year and a half supply of oil from the US.

I ALSO want to add, that this oil would most likely not even go to the US, and would most likely be exported to Japan. It would be cheaper to put it on a ship and export it to Japan than it would be to ship it back to the US, so it would most likely be deemed for exportation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how people pick the one thing, and discuss how it won't work.

Yes, building a rocket launchpad NEVER would have gotten us to the MOON in the 1969. we also needed the ship and the lander.

Same goes with this: Anwar is not the solution is its 1/10th of the solution.

DEEP drilling as Chevron did is

Building NEW refinaries on shuttered Military bases (or 100 acres of Ft. Riley(17000) for example) is

Wind off New England or in the desert

Shale oil now that its worth it 3/10th :)

Giving that new car thats super fast an award (father and son made)..

Giving REAL incentives to US automakers (tax free year or 500million dollar example). if you come up with NO gas car that is safe, under 30k and over 80miles (that passes the common sense test).

You nitpik to the point of stagnation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/29/AR2008042902394.html

Of course, being somewhat radical in my approach, I think a good way to get OPEC to cooperate would be to pick one the members, one of the smaller ones to start, and completely destroy their ability to sell there product.

Then ask, "Who's next?"

Let me ask you this. If the world used 100 million barrels of oil a day, and you bomb an opec country and take 10-20 million barrels of oil a day off the market. How is that going to make anything better?

We have been sitting on it. Time to start drilling. The idea is to survive now while developing alternative energy for the future.

Mike, of coarse the big oil companies want us to open up Alaska and coastal drilling. The fact is they own the rights to those feilds and any solution which they can get which maintains the status quoe is a win win for them.

A decade ago we had 17 companies controling 80% of all oil pumps in this country. Today we have 4. and two of those don't even count. BP is mostly British north sea oil. Shell is mostly venezualin oil. Those four companies also control the rights to the oil in the ground, the refineries, the transportation, as well as the pumps to the consumer. Our "free market" has contracted both horizontally and vertically. Leaving two companies controlling the entire market from ground to consumer. And you wonder why they are making record profits, and the consumer is paying record prices.

The problem isn't a lack of oil. And openning up Alaska's nature persurves which would add less than a week of oil for the entire country in a year of production isn't the answer.

Big oil hasn't built a refinery in this country since 1970's. This despite record profits. Four years ago Bush gave them land on closed military bases, relaxed EPA standards, and even gave them tax breaks to completely pay for building new refineries in the US. Not a single company has broken ground on a new refinery. You want to understand what's going on with high oil prices. Try understanding why big oil won't build any new refineries in this country first. That is the root issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anwar is not the solution is its 1/10th of the solution.

Actually it's 1/1000th of the solution.

Building NEW refinaries on shuttered Military bases (or 100 acres of Ft. Riley(17000) for example) is

Yeah Bush gave big oil land, money, and relaxed EPA rules. How's that working out for him? Not a single refinery has been built in this country in almost 30 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is why they are not drilling, it is a band aid approach to the problem, and at BEST it would mean a year and a half supply of oil from the US.

at BEST is a pretty big statement too. I don't believe anybody is proposing to build the infrastructure to extract all that oil in a single year, or even a few years. All I've ever read says they would only yield an extra few days of oil for the nation in any given year for decades.

All drilling in Alaska's nature presurve will do is add to big oil's record profits and distract people from the real issues. Today the world (opec) has excess production capacity. Saudi Arabia alone is sitting on 20% excess capacity. Openning up Alaska's nature presurve will literally have no effect on oil availibility or cost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is BOTH. Jeez, it's like people think you have to have one OR the other.

While we're researching alternative sources, we need to be drilling in better areas to keep costs down. It's not like by July we're going to have some miracle energy source to replace gas all of a sudden...it's going to take awhile.

Such a huge problem with society these days...people want results and they want them NOW.

We should be drilling in Alaska and other places closer to home and we should be researching alternative sources. There's no good reason why we can't do both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...