At What Point Would You Support Drilling for Oil on American Soil?

[mcsluggo]

I am afraid to say that I'm not educated enough on this topic to know the extent of US based drilling (and probably should have refrained from posting). My impression is that there are possible other reserves located in the US that are untapped, but maybe I'm mistaken about that.

yeah... civil is best

(and i say this knowing full well what a kettle I am sometimes, but that won't stop me at screaming at the pots be more polite...!)

oil is actually pretty damn plentiful and widespread. getting the oil out economically is the issue. getting the oil out economically in a manner that doesn't pose undue environmental risks complicates it a bit more. Doing this in an poitical environment where people have fresh images of oil soaked heron and sea turtles dying on the louisiana coast makes it that much more difficult

Obama had JUST unrolled his committment to target an overhaul of environmental regualtion (and other factors that would ease US oil exploration and extraction) when BP exploded in the gulf... oops.

anyway.. all of that is a long way of saying there are lots of places you could get oil inthe US. However, most of them are not economically feasible..... AND even if we did go whole hog and fully tap most of those sources, my understanding is that US production would still be a relatively small player on the global markets and wouldnot move the needle very far. (and we would be the most expensive producers on earth.. which implies signigficant industry subsidies)

---------- Post added April-14th-2011 at 06:05 PM ----------

Well, we already drill here. If you buy oil, you support that drilling and to claim that you do not means that you ARE liar. However, since other prices are also increasing and the government has just created a large amount of counterfeit, this should tell you that most of this price increase is due to that government counterfeit.

huh??

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Anyway, we aren't talking about shale. Shale, to my knowledge, is not even "drilling" for oil.

What is it then?

So, instead of telling me why I'm an idiot or "slow," someone please explain to me why we need to open up new oil reserves when we already don't drill in the old oil reserves.

We don't drill in the old oil reserves because it is does not make economic sense to do so.

For some reason, people seem to forget basic economics when it comes to oil. If it costs the Saudis $x to produce a barrel and it costs the US $4x to produce the same barrel, why would you produce the US barrel instead of just buying the Saudi barrel?

And let's forget the Saudi barrel since the lion's share of our oil come from Canada.

The bottom line is that it is - generally speaking - cheaper to buy oil from Canada than it is to produce it here.

[twa]

The Texas oil industry collapsed in the mid 80s and has never recovered. If there was a state willing to drill' date=' baby, drill and find the Godless communists in Washington DC over that right, it's Texas. The fact that it hasn't shows all you need to know about domestic oil reserves.[/quote']

Creative fallacy that ignores the causes of the collapse.

as has been mentioned even Obama recognized the US potential before the blowout in the Gulf

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=04212e22-c1b3-41f2-b0ba-0da5eaead952

[Tulane Skins Fan]

What is it then?

We don't drill in the old oil reserves because it is does not make economic sense to do so.

For some reason' date=' people seem to forget basic economics when it comes to oil. If it costs the Saudis $x to produce a barrel and it costs the US $4x to produce the same barrel, why would you produce the US barrel instead of just buying the Saudi barrel?

And let's forget the Saudi barrel since the lion's share of our oil come from Canada.

The bottom line is that it is - generally speaking - cheaper to buy oil from Canada than it is to produce it here.[/quote']

I thought shale was extracting oil directly from rocks. No? I think the process is not efficient enough yet.

I'm not forgetting basic economics. I don't think you're answering my question though. And maybe it is too basic, but you still havent answered it. Essentially, we currently drill in the U.S. Where we drill is not "out of oil." Furthermore, you are telling me that where leases have been granted, we aren't drilling because its not economical. So, the question is, what about these "new areas" where people always want to drill will make it more economical? Especially considering we have wells that aren't even being pumped currently.

[twa]

I So, the question is, what about these "new areas" where people always want to drill will make it more economical? Especially considering we have wells that aren't even being pumped currently.

Flow rates and est recoverable reserves....larger reserves and faster flow rates in general (of course you must drill to establish those)

Bakken as has been mentioned only became profitable as price per bbl increased and fracking technology enabled increased flow rates....now it is becoming a major producer(and from my sources exceeding expectations on potential)

The reserve off Florida that Cuba is developing shows very good potential

Not allowing drilling w/o a compelling reason is foolishness, loose the restrictions and see who will pay for the right to drill here

[Predicto]

I thought shale was extracting oil directly from rocks. No? I think the process is not efficient enough yet.

I'm not forgetting basic economics. I don't think you're answering my question though. And maybe it is too basic, but you still havent answered it. Essentially, we currently drill in the U.S. Where we drill is not "out of oil." Furthermore, you are telling me that where leases have been granted, we aren't drilling because its not economical. So, the question is, what about these "new areas" where people always want to drill will make it more economical? Especially considering we have wells that aren't even being pumped currently.

Oil wells have a limited life span. You can always squeeze a drop or two more out of them, but it gets harder an harder to do so. So where we drill is not "out of oil" but it currenlty produces less than half of the amount of oil it did before 1970. Again, we have drunk the milkshake.

Most of the areas where we don't allow drilling are environmentally or commercially sensitive. South Florida and Southern California, for example, rely heavily on tourism. It makes little economic sense to allow drilling in such areas unless there are absolutely no other alternatives. Allowing Exxon the ability to drill right off of Miami Beach for a relatively small amount of oil that they will turn around to sell to China anyway isn't very good overall public or economic policy.

Of course, now it is a political football, and facts go out the window. Some conservatives believe that we have a buttload of oil and only tree huggers keep us from getting it. Treehuggers believe that there is almost no oil and it is impossible to get any of it without completely destroying the envoronment. Neither is true.

twa probably knows more about this subject than anyone on the board, and he is heavily invested in the oilman side of the debate. Watch how carefully he parses his statements. He will mock those who oppose more drilling, but he will not factually assert that there is more oil out there in the USA than there really is.

He will discuss the value of more drilling on his local economy or our balance of payments (both of which are factors worth considering), but he will not dispute the fact that adding a relatively small amount of American production isn't going to drastically change the big picture on the world market, or provide a special source of supply that is reserved for "us" as opposed to the Chinese and everyone else in the world.

In short: He is happy with people spreading the "Drill Baby Drill and solve all our energy problems" myth, because he thinks we should drill more than we do, not because he thinks we can solve our energy problems that way.

[gbear]

What I want to know is the point where we will support building another refinery?

Oil is great and all, but our real choking point here seems to be the refineries or perhaps better stated as lack of refineries. When was the last one built? How hard were we hit by the storms a few years ago when refined oil for the east coast was hurt by Katrina?

[RVAbrendan]

DRAINAGE!!! DRAINAGE!!!

[Predicto]

What I want to know is the point where we will support building another refinery?

Oil is great and all, but our real choking point here seems to be the refineries or perhaps better stated as lack of refineries. When was the last one built? How hard were we hit by the storms a few years ago when refined oil for the east coast was hurt by Katrina?

Oh, NIMBYism knows no party. We have oil refinereries on San Francisco Bay. Everyone hates them, but no one wants to put them anywhere else either.

[twa]

What I want to know is the point where we will support building another refinery?

Oil is great and all, but our real choking point here seems to be the refineries or perhaps better stated as lack of refineries. When was the last one built? How hard were we hit by the storms a few years ago when refined oil for the east coast was hurt by Katrina?

We tend to simply expand capacity at existing locations,due to NIMBYs and the difficulty of gaining permits.

Refining capacity has already recovered and surpassed pre Katrina level...we do however face risk because of so much centralization of capacity(whether from storms or explosions),

as a example we are putting a pipeline in to bring large volumes of Canadian oil down to the Gulf

http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/02/14/why-is-gas-cheaper-in-midwest-thank-canada/

A Bottleneck

Despite protests from environmentalists, Canada's oil sands business is booming. Much of that crude heads into the U.S. through a network of pipelines. But pipeline construction hasn't kept up and a bottleneck has developed in Cushing, Okla.

"Because there are no pipes going south from Cushing to Houston, the oil backs up there and as inventories build, prices go down," says Philip Verleger, an oil market analyst and professor at the University of Calgary.

That means crude in the middle of the country is selling for about $15 a barrel less than it would on the world market. Verleger says you can see that reflected at gas pumps in the middle of the country.

"Consumers in Colorado, consumers in Illinois, consumers in Minnesota should all be sending thank you notes to the province of Alberta," says Verleger, who lives in Colorado. "We're benefiting from the increased supply in Alberta because it can't make its way to the Gulf Coast."

Predicto....If we do not expand domestic production we are gonna be in a world of hurt as others increase usage.....we play a dangerous game relying heavily on others and enriching despots

[DRSmith]

But Canada is a perfect example of having plenty of oil and having it drilled does not lower prices since OPEC since most speculators look at the middle east and that drives prices.

For example Lybia which exports sweet crude and mostly to Europe but when fighting flares up that is an excuse to drove up the price of brent crude

Now Japan is a disaster and that should droup their demand but we are not really seeing that reflected in the price.

Now in some respects I do not mid high fuel prices as it forces companies to rethink putting on their jobs over seas

[NavyDave]

What's going to happen down the toad when there actually is a shortage of fossil fuels? (granted we do) Gotta have reserves somewhere. Wouldn't change a thing, we still rely on the OPEC nations. The "slight" increase in our negotiations would be slight.

Shortages due to artificial means as we see now or actually running out which at the earliest with just the known sources domestically would be in the 23rd century?

---------- Post added April-14th-2011 at 05:39 PM ----------

But Canada is a perfect example of having plenty of oil and having it drilled does not lower prices since OPEC since most speculators look at the middle east and that drives prices.

For example Lybia which exports sweet crude and mostly to Europe but when fighting flares up that is an excuse to drove up the price of brent crude

Now Japan is a disaster and that should droup their demand but we are not really seeing that reflected in the price.

Now in some respects I do not mid high fuel prices as it forces companies to rethink putting on their jobs over seas

That and how much of the price in Canada is Taxes? I really have no problem with looking into regulation that addresses the Oil speculators and wall street possible collusion

[DRSmith]

Shortages due to artificial means as we see now or actually running out which at the earliest with just the known sources domestically would be in the 23rd century?

---------- Post added April-14th-2011 at 05:39 PM ----------

About 25-30 percent is taxes depending on where you live

That and how much of the price in Canada is Taxes? I really have no problem with looking into regulation that addresses the Oil speculators and wall street possible collusion

[twa]

Wiki says 1/3 or more is from taxes in Canada's socialist paradise;)

We do plenty of drilling here as well(,which benefits the rest of the country) and pay higher prices than some states

But we also bring in a lot of income from it.

[Predicto]

Shortages due to artificial means as we see now or actually running out which at the earliest with just the known sources domestically would be in the 23rd century?

Stop making stuff up. Seriously.

---------- Post added April-14th-2011 at 05:04 PM ----------

Predicto....If we do not expand domestic production we are gonna be in a world of hurt as others increase usage.....we play a dangerous game relying heavily on others and enriching despots

I'm not against domestic production, but I think there have to be some limits on where you do it. Other economic and environmental considerations come into play and have their own significance.

And I think both you and I agree that even if we expand the heck out of our domestic production, which it would be great for our short term balance of payments (and the Texas economy), the fact remains that we do not have centuries or even decades worth of easily accessable economically viable oil sitting around in the US. We need to bite the bullet and use American knowhow to get past oil as the fundamental core of our energy usage, even while we keep pumping the dimishing amount that we still have.

[Ron78]

Is someone trying to tell me that we don't drill for oil, period, in this country? If you're trying to say that, then I guess I am really confused. The premise of the OP seems to be that we need to drill in these "new" areas where oil is located. I'm just asking, if we don't already drill in the "old" areas where oil is located, why do we need more areas to drill in.

You are correct. That was the intent of the poll and most people have seemed to deduce that. There is significantly more oil domestically that we can tap into. It would decrease dependance on foreign oil, which is more in demand today.

Shale was not a suggested source.

[twa]

I'm not against domestic production, but I think there have to be some limits on where you do it. Other economic and environmental considerations come into play and have their own significance.

And I think both you and I agree that even if we expand the heck out of our domestic production, which it would be great for our short term balance of payments (and the Texas economy), the fact remains that we do not have centuries or even decades worth of easily accessable economically viable oil sitting around in the US. We need to bite the bullet and use American knowhow to get past oil as the fundamental core of our energy usage, even while we keep pumping the dimishing amount that we still have.

Of course there should be limits,but not the excessive ones now in effect.

Refusing to drill well offshore of Florida and ANWAR is foolish when it is already being exploited by Cuba,yet I agree restrictions are needed.

We have decades worth reasonably accessible(even more with Canada and Mexico utilization) and if you combine developing that with NG and aggressive alt energy research/development the country can climb out of the hole we have dug...and clean the environment.

You don't need to concern yourself with the effect on Texas economy ,we drill and supply all over the world ( Mexico is getting in dire need of expertise)

and run some dang good alt energy research programs

We need to expand drilling...it won't kill ya

http://gis.bakerhughesdirect.com/RigCounts/default2.aspx

[CrabR]

We need to get of OIL period. We should have started that process in 73. WE haved abundant Natural gas and Methane

[mardi gras skin]

And I think both you and I agree that even if we expand the heck out of our domestic production, which it would be great for our short term balance of payments (and the Texas economy), the fact remains that we do not have centuries or even decades worth of easily accessable economically viable oil sitting around in the US.

It depends on what you mean by economically viable, right? If $50 a barrel is considered economically viable, I think we do have enough oil for centuries.

[Predicto]

It depends on what you mean by economically viable, right? If $50 a barrel is considered economically viable, I think we do have enough oil for centuries.

What the? Centuries?

Where? Where is that enormous pot of oil? I just pointed you to figures showing that the entire Bakken shale field only has enough recoverable barrels to supply the US for a single year. We don't have hundreds of those places.

Even twa the oilman agrees that we are down to our last decades.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Stop making stuff up. Seriously.

If he stopped making stuff up, he could no longer post here.

[twa]

Even twa the oilman agrees that we are down to our last decades.

The US could have a 100yr supply at the present curve,200 is doubtful

centuries are possible if it is abiotic ,but even then gas finds are more feasible.

Unless we find cost effective substitutes,the demand (worldwide) will surpass supply eventually(though of course cushioned by rising costs making alternatives relatively cheaper).

btw from what I hear they are selling Bakken way short on capacity(as usual)

Can we please just drill and find out what we do have?

If the Sauds and others can undercut the price needed to fully develop the finds we at least have a better idea of reality.....and the US makes money either way.

add

I agree with you that @ $50 we are at a couple decades at most...now 100 opens a lot of possibilities

[Predicto]

I agree with you that @ $50 we are at a couple decades at most...now 100 opens a lot of possibilities

Well sure, if the price gets high enough oil becomes economically recoverable from places that no one would consider. Heck, we could tear up the asphalt roads and convert them back to oil if we spent enough money.

We are in agreement in general. The devil is in the details, as always.

[88Comrade2000]

Every so often when we talk about oil drilling I get the image of humans as mosquitos slowly stabbing and leeching the Earth's blood over and over again. This has nothing really to do with the conversation, but it's what this conversation confers to me. Right now, I'm of the mind that the pain at the pump is beneficial towards mobilizing the national will to give us that alternate energy Apollo Mission. Thing is, when oil is reasonably affordable and while it's still reasonably plentiful most of us are lazy, cheap ****s. I believe the answer includes using all the puzzle pieces from coal to oil to nuclear, hydro, solar, etc. but really we've been way too focused on being a mosquito.

You know that would be a good name for a car.

The Chevy Mosquito.

The only way pain at the pump is going to change behavior is that it would have to become permanent. That means gas will have to remain higher than $4 or $5/ gallon forever.

Republicans don't want to upset their business interests. Democrats don't want to upset their environmental interests. They are secretly loving this because their goal is to eliminate the use of all fossil fuels and live in a pure earth friendly society.

You use all means available to you. Short term you develop the fossil fuels but long term you develop the alternative sources. Why can't the hulk of a Chevy Suburban get 50-60 MPGs and run on say fuel made from garbage?

There is no will to really to anything different. Those who have interests remaining the same; will never allow things to change.

[twa]

We are in agreement in general. The devil is in the details, as always.

Yes....

dammit:stir: