i'll gladly start this wildfire

[Viva Las Espuelas]

President Bush will lift executive ban on offshore drilling, the White House says. -CNN

[boutons_]

oilcos have already drillable leases on 38M acres, on and off shore.

But they have been sitting on them, claiming they are just now starting to explore and drill, but "it takes time".

Lifting the OCS ban hands more acres to the oilcos by the lamest-duck president. nothing but another give-away to enrich the oilcos.

Will have NO effect on gas prices for at least 10 years, and then only a tiny effect.

[ChumpDumper]

This will fix everything!

[2centsworth]

This will fix everything!


deregulating is not fixing, it's getting out of the way.

[boutons_]

Congress still has to act:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/14/AR2008071400763_pf.html

and there's tons of diverse opposition:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/13/AR2008071302052.html

Old Sick Senile 95%Same McFlopPanderKeating says OCS drilling will have immediate effect on gas prices.

[ChumpDumper]

deregulating is not fixing, it's getting out of the way.Who is in their way now of all the existing leases they have but aren't drilling?

Please explain.

[Sec24Row7]

Who is in their way now of all the existing leases they have but aren't drilling?

Please explain.

Economics and technology?

Near offshore California and Florida would be one hell of a lot easier to drill than deep water Gulf Of Mexico...

But hey... it's still a band aid, and the oil isn't going to be to the pump for years and years to come.

[2centsworth]

Who is in their way now of all the existing leases they have but aren't drilling?

Please explain.

who's they?

[JoeChalupa]

I'm curious to see Scott's take on this.
I'm no oil or economic guru but I don't see this happening any time soon. Good political move on Bush's part though.

[xrayzebra]

deregulating is not fixing, it's getting out of the way.

You are absolutely right on this point.


Economics and technology?

Near offshore California and Florida would be one hell of a lot easier to drill than deep water Gulf Of Mexico...

But hey... it's still a band aid, and the oil isn't going to be to the pump for years and years to come.

Yep it is going to take a few years. But so are any alternatives or cafe cars that will make a dent. We need to do all of these things. And build some more coal fired and nuclear energy electric plants. Those new electric cars are going to do much good if you haven't got the power to recharge them. Or the oil for the energy cells.

[George Gervin's Afro]

deregulating is not fixing, it's getting out of the way.

Like the govt guaranteeing the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

[DarrinS]

There is no quick fix for our energy problems, so until someone installs a flux capacitor or Mr. Fusion in my Honda Accord, I still need gasoline (as do the other millions of vehicles on the road).

[2centsworth]

Like the govt guaranteeing the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
what does that have to do with me clarifying the definition of deregulation?

[cherylsteele]

Oil will always be a part of our economic needs.
What really needs to be done is to have a make all passenger cars on the road some sort of readily available fuel source that is abundant. Drilling for oil in presently untapped areas only delays the current problem so that next generations will have to deal with the same thing as we are now.

Like xray and other have said we need/have needed to build more nuclear power plants to alleviate the oil dependency even more.

Coal is not really the answer, even though we have lots of it, it will run out in the future.
We need to have a viable back up energy plan now...should have been one years ago.

These oil companies are making billions a year and instead of developing new energies and sources they have this country under their thumb while making a hefty profit. I don't think it is all government's fault by any means, and both parties are to blame.
Maybe a presidential declaration like Kennedy's landing on the moon by the end of the 60's or something might help.

[johnsmith]

oilcos have already drillable leases on 38M acres, on and off shore.

But they have been sitting on them, claiming they are just now starting to explore and drill, but "it takes time".

Lifting the OCS ban hands more acres to the oilcos by the lamest-duck president. nothing but another give-away to enrich the oilcos.

Will have NO effect on gas prices for at least 10 years, and then only a tiny effect.

Boutons, other people watched Obama's speech today too. For God's sake, if you are going to steal from someone, at least wait a day or two before restating it as your own thoughts on a website.

Someone quote me on this so Captain dipshit will read it since he's too much of a puss to take me off ignore and argue with me.

[xrayzebra]

Like the govt guaranteeing the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

GGA, what I am saying is for government to get out of the way. Government has been the problem not the solution to our energy needs.
My God, they, government screw things up. Like Fannie Me and Freddie Mac. My opinion. Let them fail. And then prosecute the hell out of those that scammed the system. Remember Enron. Except Congress create these two entities and cant afford to let them fail. But they will lay blame on everything except themselves.

[2centsworth]

Boutons, other people watched Obama's speech today too. For God's sake, if you are going to steal from someone, at least wait a day or two before restating it as your own thoughts on a website.

Someone quote me on this so Captain dipshit will read it since he's too much of a puss to take me off ignore and argue with me.

:toast

[jochhejaam]

Drilling for oil in presently untapped areas only delays the current problem so that next generations will have to deal with the same thing as we are now.


Sounds like your suggesting that we leave the oil in the ground because we can't get it to the market tomorrow. Pumping more oil buys time ("delays the current problem") for the continued developement of viable, alternative fuel sources. That's a positive, not a negative.



Good political move on Bush's part though.
The demand for oil is expected to rise 50% over the next 10 years, I'd say it's a whole lot more than a political move jc. Long overdue.


Would you have considered it just a "poliitcal move" if it Obama had initiated the deregulation?

[boutons_]

JS, I'm not "stealing" from anyone.

go fuck your dickless self

[Wild Cobra]

deregulating is not fixing, it's getting out of the way.

Absolutely correct.

When will people realize government is the problem when they stand in our way?

[NASCARdad]

Absolutely correct.

When will people realize government is the problem when they stand in our way?

Damn right. I'd still have some slaves if it weren't for the damn government getting in the way. :tu I hear ya!!!

[ElNono]

Sounds like your suggesting that we leave the oil in the ground because we can't get it to the market tomorrow. Pumping more oil buys time ("delays the current problem") for the continued developement of viable, alternative fuel sources. That's a positive, not a negative.

Actually, no. It's not a positive, because it doesn't buy you any time.
Think about it, it takes 10 or so years from a land lease until you get gas at the pump. Now, you mention that in 10 years, gas demand will increase aprox. 50%.
If even in our wildest dreams, we were able to supply a 20% of that increased demand with our own oil, gas prices would still be substantially higher, we didn't decrease our oil dependency, and we wasted 10 years.
So, completely a political move by Bush. It actually works great for him, because now they'll make-believe the uninformed that the Dems in Congress are keeping gas prices high, while it makes the oilcos (big supporters of his presidency) be on a win win situation no matter what Congress ends up doing.

[boutons_]

Like the Saudis have told us, the oil is worth much more in the ground than sold.

That's very probably why the US oilcos are not ripping into their 38M acres. The oil get more valuable the longer it stays in the ground. With current prices and plenty of oil available, no oil company is missing out on the fun, and will try to put off expensive exploration and investment as late as possible.

[Sec24Row7]

Like the Saudis have told us, the oil is worth much more in the ground than sold.

That's very probably why the US oilcos are not ripping into their 38M acres. The oil get more valuable the longer it stays in the ground. With current prices and plenty of oil available, no oil company is missing out on the fun, and will try to put off expensive exploration and investment as late as possible.

You have no idea what you are talking about... everyone wants a piece of these current prices... Oil companies are scrambling to find new reserves to take advantage of them.

[boutons_]

"scrambling to find new reserves"

So why haven't the US oilcos been drilling in the approved 38M acres on and off shore? They need the stimulation of $140/barrel to drill?

[Sec24Row7]

"scrambling to find new reserves"

So why haven't the US oilcos been drilling in the approved 38M acres on and off shore? They need the stimulation of $140/barrel to drill?

lol.. this is how that works... and is typical of political double speak bullshit...

When they have a block sale... (the government) all the oil companies have to bid on them. These blocks are pre-defined areas of ocean made in a grid.

The oil company then goes and drills in locations on this lease they feel have the potential to be productive.

They can then "hold" a certain number of acres... or a certain area with that platform, but this does not secure the rest of the lease.

Oil is not in most cases under ever square inch of a lease. It is in structures and stratographic traps that are limited in area.

Your 38 million acres for the most part is Goat Pasture.

What a great political talking point you have... "Oil companies don't need any more area to drill on... they already aren't drilling on the 38 million acres where there isn't any oil or there isn't enough for them to make money at $140 a barrel."

Such brilliance... Such simplicity... Such bullshit...

[boutons_]

"Your 38 million acres for the most part is Goat Pasture."

and the few million acres that dubya has unbanned are what?

[ElNono]

lol.. this is how that works... and is typical of political double speak bullshit...

When they have a block sale... (the government) all the oil companies have to bid on them. These blocks are pre-defined areas of ocean made in a grid.

The oil company then goes and drills in locations on this lease they feel have the potential to be productive.

They can then "hold" a certain number of acres... or a certain area with that platform, but this does not secure the rest of the lease.

Oil is not in most cases under ever square inch of a lease. It is in structures and stratographic traps that are limited in area.

Your 38 million acres for the most part is Goat Pasture.

What a great political talking point you have... "Oil companies don't need any more area to drill on... they already aren't drilling on the 38 million acres where there isn't any oil or there isn't enough for them to make money at $140 a barrel."

Such brilliance... Such simplicity... Such bullshit...

Now explain to me why Oil Co's pay to keep these leased Goat Pastures.
You know they have to pay to keep the lease, right? You know they can return these leases to the government?

I'm more inclined to think this is a government sponsored land-grab. And what Bush just signed off on, is more of that.

[TeyshaBlue]

"Your 38 million acres for the most part is Goat Pasture."

and the few million acres that dubya has unbanned are what?

We wont know until it's drilled. :rolleyes

[TeyshaBlue]

Now explain to me why Oil Co's pay to keep these leased Goat Pastures.
You know they have to pay to keep the lease, right? You know they can return these leases to the government?

I'm more inclined to think this is a government sponsored land-grab. And what Bush just signed off on, is more of that.

Do they keep these leases? You sure about that?

[Sec24Row7]

"Your 38 million acres for the most part is Goat Pasture."

and the few million acres that dubya has unbanned are what?

Completely unexplored with gems of production that haven't been looked at in 30-40 years of technological advancement...

[boutons_]

Have the oilcos "looked at" the 38M acres on and off shore in their hands now, and decided it's all goat pasture? link?

And then there's always shale oil, coming around again for about the 8th time in 100 years. 1 ton of shale rock for 2 weeks of average car gasoline.

dubya says today his unban lease give-away wouldn't help prices at all, except for "psychology". Pretty hard to argue with such a infinitely weak, bullshit point.

does dubya even know how to pronounce "conservation"?

[Sec24Row7]

Have the oilcos "looked at" the 38M acres on and off shore in their hands now, and decided it's all goat pasture? link?

And then there's always shale oil, coming around again for about the 8th time in 100 years. 1 ton of shale rock for 2 weeks of average car gasoline.

dubya says today his unban lease give-away wouldn't help prices at all, except for "psychology". Pretty hard to argue with such a infinitely weak, bullshit point.

does dubya even know how to pronounce "conservation"?

Umm... no I don't have a link... I'll just have to trust that people on here believe me since I have personal experience dealing with Oil and Gas leases and the government...

Actually no... he said there wouldn't be an IMMEDIATE help which is true... but as demand increases anything we do now is going to help keep prices lower down the road. You wouldn't see a drop in prices probably from future production... but a slower increase.

As to the oil shale thing... Did you have a point about Kerogen or are you just throwing that out there in your rant as an aside?

[ChumpDumper]

Why lease a goat pasture?

[ElNono]

Do they keep these leases? You sure about that?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives on Thursday rejected legislation that would have required energy companies to develop oil and natural gas supplies on federal leases they have held for years or be denied future drilling access on government acres.

[jochhejaam]

Actually, no. It's not a positive, because it doesn't buy you any time.
Think about it, it takes 10 or so years from a land lease until you get gas at the pump. Now, you mention that in 10 years, gas demand will increase aprox. 50%.
If even in our wildest dreams, we were able to supply a 20% of that increased demand with our own oil, gas prices would still be substantially higher, we didn't decrease our oil dependency, and we wasted 10 years.
So, completely a political move by Bush. It actually works great for him, because now they'll make-believe the uninformed that the Dems in Congress are keeping gas prices high, while it makes the oilcos (big supporters of his presidency) be on a win win situation no matter what Congress ends up doing.

So...leave those vast oil reserves where they are?

[ElNono]

So...leave those vast oil reserves where they are?

What vast oil reserves?

[jochhejaam]

What vast oil reserves?



And estimated 1.9 to 4.3 billion barrels in ANWR alone. That's more than a drop in the bucket.

Considering our dependence on oil, and the lack of viable fuel alternatives, again I'll ask the question; Why should/would we leave it where it is?

[ElNono]

And estimated 1.9 to 4.3 billion barrels in ANWR alone. That's more than a drop in the bucket.

Considering our dependence on oil, and the lack of viable fuel alternatives, again I'll ask the question; Why should/would we leave it where it is?

Is it really? According to the United States Energy Information Administration, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case ($0.41 per barrel in 2026 for the low oil resource case and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case). The figures are in 2006 dollars.
Basically, it *IS* a drop in the bucket. Furthermore, OPEC can neutralize any potential price impact by reducing it's oil exports by an equal amount. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy#Projections_and _Estimates)

On the question of 'why we should we leave it where it is?', well, there's people living in the area. Mostly tribes that feed on herd of animals populating the area. We would be basically taking their land, and possibly killing off their food, for basically no gain whatsoever.
Remember that it's not the government that is going to drill there. All we taxpayers would be getting out of it are cents on the dollar from the land lease. We don't get any price break from the Oil Co's. They sell to the highest bidder. That's just how the global economy works.

What I'd really like to see is the Oil Co's researching/exploiting the lands they have been leasing for years. All that Goat Pasture referenced above. Why keep giving them land if they're not even working on what they already have?

[shelshor]

Why lease a goat pasture?

Wasn't Spindletop drilled in a cow pasture?

[jochhejaam]

Is it really? According to the United States Energy Information Administration, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case ($0.41 per barrel in 2026 for the low oil resource case and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case). The figures are in 2006 dollars.
Basically, it *IS* a drop in the bucket. Furthermore, OPEC can neutralize any potential price impact by reducing it's oil exports by an equal amount. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy#Projections_and _Estimates)

Okay, but we're not talking about lowering the price of oil, we're talking about getting more oil to market.
Here's a fact, offshore ANWR only; 2 billion barrels of Oil (very conservative estimate of ANWR reserves) would power 1,000,000 cars for 100
years, that is not a drop in the bucket.






On the question of 'why we should we leave it where it is?', well, there's people living in the area. Mostly tribes that feed on herd of animals populating the area. We would be basically taking their land, and possibly killing off their food, for basically no gain whatsoever.

Offshore drilling or drilling in general does not ignore those that live along the coastline, deregulation would not/does not give the oilco's carte blanche to run roughshod over those living off the land. The entire coastline is not heavily populated.
.






Remember that it's not the government that is going to drill there. All we taxpayers would be getting out of it are cents on the dollar from the land lease. We don't get any price break from the Oil Co's. They sell to the highest bidder. That's just how the global economy works.
Agreed, and I understand that, but again, we're not talking dollars and cents, we're talking about getting more oil into the Market.
Less supply, higher demand = yet higher prices.
More supply, higher demand = higher prices, but not as high.
We aren't going to get away from higher prices at the pump.

[Nbadan]

Okay, but we're not talking about lowering the price of oil, we're talking about getting more oil to market.
Here's a fact, offshore ANWR only; 2 billion barrels of Oil (very conservative estimate of ANWR reserves) would power 1,000,000 cars for 100
years, that is not a drop in the bucket.

You need to study up more...


Most predictions concerning the amount of oil to the effect it would have on the Alaskan economy have been far too optimistic. USGS estimated approximately 7.668 BBO of recoverable oil in the 1002 area of ANWR using P50 estimates (table 2, figure 3). If drilling were permitted in the ANWR, it would take 10 years for production to start and would only produce 876,000 barrels of oil a day during peak of production. The amount of oil in ANWR would only increase the amount of oil reserve in the world reserve by 0.3% and there is not enough oil to make a slight difference in the world oil price. ANWR would produce about 3.3% of daily consumption of oil in America and we would still be dependent on foreign oil.

Linky (http://www.people.carleton.edu/~cdavidso/Geo190/Case2Briefs/Tsang2.htm)

[Nbadan]

Less supply, higher demand = yet higher prices.

Less supply, higher demand -----> In a speculative regulated market = lower demand = lower prices

[jochhejaam]

You need to study up more...



Linky (http://www.people.carleton.edu/~cdavidso/Geo190/Case2Briefs/Tsang2.htm)

Okay, I've read that, exactly what part of my post did you refute?

[Nbadan]

Okay, I've read that, exactly what part of my post did you refute?

The part where drilling in ANWR will have any effect on domestic energy prices without adapting concurrent conservation methods to reduce or overall demand for oil...

[jochhejaam]

The part where drilling in ANWR will have any effect on domestic energy prices



Nope, I specifically stated that I was talking about getting more oil into the Market, nothing about having an effect on domestic energy prices.



I specifically stated this;
"Okay, but we're not talking about lowering the price of oil" you didn't refute that at all.


Care to try again?

[Nbadan]

Nope, I specifically stated that I was talking about getting more oil into the Market, nothing about having an effect on domestic energy prices.

Your typing in circular logic....if the overall goal isn't to reduce the price of energy, then why in the world would we need more oil in the market?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

maybe we can go back to this drawing board.


NEWS Contact: Laurie Cramer ([email protected])
Phone: (202) 326-9316
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, May 29, 2002
http://www.ngsa.org
Destin Dome Announcement by White House
Major Hit to Natural Gas Supply
Washington, D.C. … “The natural gas fields taken off the table today represent enough natural gas to supply a million U.S. families for over 30 years,” said R. Skip Horvath, President of the Natural Gas Supply Association. “The Destin Dome was one of the largest fields in the Gulf of Mexico. We cannot continue to chisel away at America’s own resources and expect to continue to be self sufficient in filling future demand. National energy supply has certainly been handed a setback today.”
Eighty-five percent of natural gas is produced in the U.S., 15 percent is imported from Canada and the remainder is imported as Liquified Natural Gas. The White House announced today the Department of Interior and Justice and private energy companies had reached an agreement for the government to buy back leases sold over ten years ago for offshore drilling off the coast of Florida. The Destin Dome field is located off the shores of Pensacola, Florida and is believed to hold 2.6 Trillion Cubic Feet (Tcf) of natural gas, according to the Department of Energy. The nation consumes almost 22 Tcf of natural gas annually.
Horvath continued, “The natural gas is there; what isn’t there are the Federal policies to support access to this clean burning energy source, the demand for which is increasing faster than any other fossil fuel today.”
NGSA represents integrated and independent companies that produce and market natural gas in the United States. NGSA is actively involved in pursuing regulatory and legislative issues that affect the association’s members. Established in 1965, NGSA encourages expanded use of natural gas and supports regulatory and legislative actions that foster competitive markets.
NGSA - 02 - 03

http://www.ngsa.org/docs/pressrelease/2002/DestinDomeAnnouncement5_29_02.pdf

[Nbadan]

He....he...Dubya = jochhejaam


onjFvOwOoWU

[jochhejaam]

Your typing in circular logic....if the overall goal isn't to reduce the price of energy, then why in the world would we need more oil in the market?

So, you admit that your "alledged" refutation was bogus. Thanks, that's what I needed to hear.




And as far as "why we need more oil in the market"?

On a World-wide scale:
Say the World consumes 100,000,000 barrels of oil per day (I don't know what the figure is), if we end up putting 3 trillion barrels of oil into the Market in the future, it will last x number of years and then we run out.
If through technological advances in locating and retrieving the World's oil reserves we can put 6 trillion barrels in the Market ("more oil in the market"). we don't run out nearly as soon, and that gives us more time to develope alternative fuels.

[jochhejaam]

to make the oilcos more $

Collateral damage, can't get around it.

[Nbadan]

So, you admit that your "alledged" refutation was bogus. Thanks, that's what I needed to hear.

So you admit that you only read out of things what you want to read out of them....

...gottcha!

[Nbadan]

Say the World consumes 100,000,000 barrels of oil per day (I don't know what the figure is), if we end up putting 3 trillion barrels of oil into the Market in the future, it will last x number of years and then we run out.
If through technological advances in locating and retrieving the World's oil reserves we can put 6 trillion barrels in the Market ("more oil in the market"). we don't run out nearly as soon, and that gives us more time to develope alternative fuels.

..and if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle.....there are no trillion barrel reserves ...in fact, Mexico, the North Shore, and parts of the once abundant M.E. are running out of oil...

[jochhejaam]

..and if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle.....there are no trillion barrel reserves ...in fact, Mexico, the North Shore, and parts of the once abundant M.E. are running out of oil...

Based on a thorough investigation of the petroleum geology of each province, the assessment couples geologic analysis with a probabilistic methodology to estimate remaining potential. Including the assessment numbers for the United States from USGS and the Minerals management Service (MMS), the world's endowment of recoverable oil which consists of cumulative production, remaining reserves, reserve growth and undiscovered resources is estimated at about 3 trillion barrels of oil. Of this, about 24 percent has been produced and an additional 29 percent has been discovered and booked as reserves. The natural gas endowment is estimated at 15.4 quadrillion cubic feet (2.5 trillion barrels of oil equivalent), of which only about I I percent has been produced and an additional 31 percent has been discovered and booked
as reserves.

http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/pdfdoc/usgsoil.pdf

Ever do any research before you post, or do you enjoy looking stupid...

[jochhejaam]

.....there are no trillion barrel reserves ...in fact, Mexico, the North Shore, and parts of the once abundant M.E. are running out of oil...


By the end of 2006, 1 trillion barrels had been produced and it would be easy to conclude that one-third of the World’s oil has been produced. However, it is only correct to say that one-third of the USGS-assessed oil has been produced. There is a large volume over and above this amount, including small oil fields, oil in unexplored or under-explored frontier basins (in regions such as the Arctic, the Indian Ocean, and offshore Australasia), oil that may be recovered from reservoirs with the application of new technologies (reserve growth) after the year 2025, and oil that may be extracted from oil sands and oil shales. Most of this additional volume of oil was not assessed by the USGS because it cannot be produced economically using current technologies. History, however, shows that resources regarded as inaccessible or uneconomic can eventually be produced as technological advances reduce costs. The ultimate amount of oil produced could, therefore, far exceed 3 trillion barrels.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2007/07120dist_lect/abstracts/mccabe01.htm

[jochhejaam]

Abundant energy will power future growth
Financial Post ^ | July 12, 2008 | Lawrence Solomon

Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:08:25 PM by Delacon



Bottom line for the world: an incredible 36% increase in oil reserves during the two decades that saw the greatest globalization-spurred oil consumption in the history of mankind. And that doesn't include the 152 billion barrels in proven oil reserves obtainable from Canada's tar sands. Is there any reason to doubt that the next two decades won't build on the steady growth of the last two?

These oil reserves aren't the end of it. These figures -- for the year ending December 2006 -- represent oil that's not only known to be available, but also economic at 2006 prices using 2006 technology. Since prices have soared in the last year, and technology has improved too, BP's annual assessment for the 2007 year will show greater proven oil reserves still.

But this is still not the end of it. Unconventional oil reserves are now in play. In 2005, the Rand Corporation estimated that the oil shale in America's Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, contains 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, with as much as 1.1 trillion barrels of oil recoverable, an amount comparable to the reserves of four Saudi Arabias.

Oil shale becomes recoverable at $95 a barrel, it determined. With oil now trading at $140 a barrel, oil shale exploitation is now very much economic.

Then there's Canada's tar sands, with its even greater potential--estimates of the total reserves that may be available top two trillion barrels, or eight Saudi Arabias.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2045929/posts




Buying more time for alternative fuels.

In the mean time, conservation and fuel efficiency are at a premium.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Abundant energy will power future growth
Financial Post ^ | July 12, 2008 | Lawrence Solomon

Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:08:25 PM by Delacon



Bottom line for the world: an incredible 36% increase in oil reserves during the two decades that saw the greatest globalization-spurred oil consumption in the history of mankind. And that doesn't include the 152 billion barrels in proven oil reserves obtainable from Canada's tar sands. Is there any reason to doubt that the next two decades won't build on the steady growth of the last two?

These oil reserves aren't the end of it. These figures -- for the year ending December 2006 -- represent oil that's not only known to be available, but also economic at 2006 prices using 2006 technology. Since prices have soared in the last year, and technology has improved too, BP's annual assessment for the 2007 year will show greater proven oil reserves still.

But this is still not the end of it. Unconventional oil reserves are now in play. In 2005, the Rand Corporation estimated that the oil shale in America's Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, contains 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, with as much as 1.1 trillion barrels of oil recoverable, an amount comparable to the reserves of four Saudi Arabias.

Oil shale becomes recoverable at $95 a barrel, it determined. With oil now trading at $140 a barrel, oil shale exploitation is now very much economic.

Then there's Canada's tar sands, with its even greater potential--estimates of the total reserves that may be available top two trillion barrels, or eight Saudi Arabias.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2045929/posts




Buying more time for alternative fuels.

In the mean time, conservation and fuel efficiency are at a premium.

On the surface, that actually looks like it would be the shit. Like it would actually help americans....gosh wouldn't that be something. But even if those numbers are true, even if the oil is recoverable in an efficient way, rest assured, one way or another, this will not benefit the common resident of the U.S.A.
Because nothing ever does, and no matter what happens, good or bad in this world, we are going to keep getting fucked.

[ElNono]

Okay, but we're not talking about lowering the price of oil, we're talking about getting more oil to market.
Here's a fact, offshore ANWR only; 2 billion barrels of Oil (very conservative estimate of ANWR reserves) would power 1,000,000 cars for 100
years, that is not a drop in the bucket.

There's enough oil in drilled fields in the middle east and South America to power billions of cars for centuries. That's not the point. The whole point is to be able to produce locally to reduce dependency on foreign oil so we don't have to pay through the nose for gas. People are not mad that there's not enough gas, they're mad about how much they have to pay at the pump. The fallacy is that we can produce enough locally to make a difference. The few actual solutions to this problem are:
- Lower oil demand through conservation or Hybrid solutions
- Heavily invest in R&D for alternative energy sources
- Disallow speculative investment on oil futures

Doing the last one would probably slash the oil price at least by half, because the price would solely be based on supply and demand. Unfortunately, it's complicated to implement because it's hard to regulate futures markets ouside the US.



Offshore drilling or drilling in general does not ignore those that live along the coastline, deregulation would not/does not give the oilco's carte blanche to run roughshod over those living off the land. The entire coastline is not heavily populated.

Well, we were talking about ANWR. The problem with offshore drilling is that it lowers the property value of coastal houses. One thing is to have a view of the ocean, and another to have a view of an oil platform. Furthermore, the governent does not compensate home owners for this. The second problem is that if there's a spill, oil can ruin beaches on cities that depend on their coasts for tourist revenue (like Florida). And I'm not gonna cover the emviromental issues (I don't particularly care about those, but they do exist)



Agreed, and I understand that, but again, we're not talking dollars and cents, we're talking about getting more oil into the Market.
Less supply, higher demand = yet higher prices.
More supply, higher demand = higher prices, but not as high.
We aren't going to get away from higher prices at the pump.
I agree there's no short term solution. The question is what do we invest our time and money in for the long run. You example of Supply and demand does not really apply in the current oil market. If the price would be solely based on supply and demand, the price of the barrel shouldn't be over $70. The reality is that whenever there's some shit going on in Zambia, price goes up. Whenever Iran lights up a firecracker, price goes up. All that has nothing to do with supply or demand. Injecting 750,000 barrels a day is not going to change that. It's all speculation.

[Nbadan]

I agree there's no short term solution

Actually there are three short term solutions that would go much further than offshore or domestic drilling and even conservation.....

1. Slow down the pace of money growth, raise interest rates and end the war in Iraq to slash immediate and future spending obligations...

2. Regulate the oil speculation market nationally, there is tons of oil sitting in the Middle East, more oil than they can store in onshore storage facilities, but its not sweet crude its the harder more heavy oil that comes from shale only it came from the ground...but the speculators have no interest in seeing that oil make it to American consumers at any price, and it's cheap....

3. Quit the saber rattling before oil prices destroy our economy and negotiate a peace agreement with the Iranians where we help them build a low-level nuclear reactor and work with the IAEA to oversee the control of nuclear material...

[Sec24Row7]

That Trillions of Barrels number is Barrels of Oil in place not Barrels of Oil recoverable...

[boutons_]

"so we don't have to pay through the nose for gas"

:lol You have to be pretty stupid (aka ideological) to expect the US oilcos to lower their gas prices because the oil is coming, very expensively, from the bottom of the sea rather than from M/E (Canada is US's biggest oil supplier).

Even in 10 years, when offshore or ANWR oil could be available, the impact on gas prices will be under 1%.

Here's some news you must have missed: "The Era of Cheap Oil is Over"

Wanna save gas money? Buy less gas.

In a couple of months, world oil supply will exceed world oil demand by 3%, increasing from the 1-2% now.

Demand is not rising so fast as the price, and supply is keeping ahead of it (until dickhead bombs Iran). aka, the oil market fundamentals (demand/supply) are OK.

Capitalist speculators have created, and will exploit, the speculative oil bubble, now that their Internet and housing bubbles have popped.

"drill, drill, drll" is Repug bullshit to give the oilcos more resource control and profits.

[TeyshaBlue]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives on Thursday rejected legislation that would have required energy companies to develop oil and natural gas supplies on federal leases they have held for years or be denied future drilling access on government acres.

You are aware that Federal leases are generally written in terms of decades. They lapse at the end of the specified lease unless the company leasing them is actively drilling on them or the lease is producing. Additionally, there are many other extending clauses written into the leases.
(Warning! Opinion!)
It's possible somebody in the house of representatives was aware of this and shot down the legislation.

There's enough erroneous info floating around concerning oil production. Let's not add to it.

[DarrinS]

boutons and Nbadan are the biggest retards on this forum.


The US imports most of its oil from non-OPEC countries. The two countries we get the most oil from are Canada and Mexico.


Anyway, the US will need oil for many decades to come. The problem is not about some quick fix at the pump.


It's not an either-or proposition. We need to do more drilling and refining AND we need to invest in alternative energy.

[boutons_]

right-wingers can't even pronounce the word "conservation".

It's more oil and more oil alternatives, all the time, for ever. Is why USA 2% of the world's population consumes 25% of the oil.

[PEP]

boutons and Nbadan are the biggest retards on this forum.


The US imports most of its oil from non-OPEC countries. The two countries we get the most oil from are Canada and Mexico.


Anyway, the US will need oil for many decades to come. The problem is not about some quick fix at the pump.


It's not an either-or proposition. We need to do more drilling and refining AND we need to invest in alternative energy.

I thought I had read somewhere that the US only gets about 12% of its oil from OPEC.

Just friggin drill till all the oil is gone, by then there should be something thats been discovered that will replace oil.

[Condemned 2 HelLA]

I thought I had read somewhere that the US only gets about 12% of its oil from OPEC.

Just friggin drill till all the oil is gone, by then there should be something thats been discovered that will replace oil.

Shouldn't that have gotten started back in the late 70's when the U.S. had the last gas crisis and we had the "odd or even" rationing?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Shouldn't that have gotten started back in the late 70's when the U.S. had the last gas crisis and we had the "odd or even" rationing?
we're not in a gas crisis now. not like the 70's. i'm not seeing any lines at the pump. there's plenty of gas and a lot of asses in washington.

[ElNono]

You are aware that Federal leases are generally written in terms of decades. They lapse at the end of the specified lease unless the company leasing them is actively drilling on them or the lease is producing. Additionally, there are many other extending clauses written into the leases.

There's enough erroneous info floating around concerning oil production. Let's not add to it.

I'm glad you included yourself in that statement, since that's exactly what you're doing.

For competitive leases, the primary term is 5 years. (1/2 decade)
For non-competitive leases, the primary term is 10 years. (1 decade)

Here are all the clauses: LINK (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1480&page=90)

So, all the Goat Pastures can be returned in 5 years... but they're not. Requests for drilling permits have actually been going down for the last few years. Somehow there's interest in retaining the land, but no interest in actually exploring it.

[jochhejaam]

The problem with offshore drilling is that it lowers the property value of coastal houses. One thing is to have a view of the ocean, and another to have a view of an oil platform.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/09/oilplatform_wideweb__470x338,0.jpg

Imagine a chaise lounge, a couple of Coronas', picturesque, if I must say so myself.









On a more serious note, most oil platforms off U.S. coastlines are miles offshore and few and far between, so interrupting ocean views isn't a concern.

As far as drilling of the coasts of Fla., I believe I've read that they're talking 50-150 miles offshore.



Additionally, deregulation doesn't guarantee drilling, the first step calls for exploration to see what's out there.

[jochhejaam]

- Disallow speculative investment on oil futures

I don't know how much can be put on the speculators:

If speculators aren’t at fault, why have oil prices spiked so high? Fundamental reasons aren’t hard to find. Between 2000 and 2007, world demand for petroleum rose by nearly nine million barrels a day, but OPEC has been consistently unable, or unwilling, to significantly increase supply, and production by non-OPEC members has risen by just four million barrels a day. The prospect of military action against Iran, which would disrupt global supply, seems greater than it did a few years ago. And the plunging value of the dollar has meant that the cost of oil has jumped more in the U.S. in the past year than it has in countries with healthier currencies. ...
http://fakejohnmccain.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-yorker-speculators-not-causing-high.html


And fwiw, I believe Bernanke recently stated that speculators have played an insignificant part in the present price of oil.

[ElNono]

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/09/oilplatform_wideweb__470x338,0.jpg

Imagine a chaise lounge, a couple of Coronas', picturesque, if I must say so myself.

Hey, I would gladly buy you a beer in one of those.



On a more serious note, most oil platforms off U.S. coastlines are miles offshore and few and far between, so interrupting ocean views isn't a concern.

As far as drilling of the coasts of Fla., I believe I've read that they're talking 50-150 miles offshore.

Well, I believe that was part of the proposal, but it isn't written in stone yet, which is what makes me nervous. Still doesn't address the problems of a potential spill, or economic impact in areas where there's heavy fishing.
A lot needs to be studied about these leases before you hand them out (that is, to do it on a responsible manner)



Additionally, deregulation doesn't guarantee drilling, the first step calls for exploration to see what's out there.
You can actually do quite a bit of research without actually handing out the land. Geological surveys and what not. That's in part what was done on ANWR to get some idea of what's down there.

[ElNono]

I don't know how much can be put on the speculators:

If speculators aren’t at fault, why have oil prices spiked so high? Fundamental reasons aren’t hard to find. Between 2000 and 2007, world demand for petroleum rose by nearly nine million barrels a day, but OPEC has been consistently unable, or unwilling, to significantly increase supply, and production by non-OPEC members has risen by just four million barrels a day. The prospect of military action against Iran, which would disrupt global supply, seems greater than it did a few years ago. And the plunging value of the dollar has meant that the cost of oil has jumped more in the U.S. in the past year than it has in countries with healthier currencies. ...
http://fakejohnmccain.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-yorker-speculators-not-causing-high.html


And fwiw, I believe Bernanke recently stated that speculators have played an insignificant part in the present price of oil.

Wow, where to start... Ok, basic economics 101 here. If prices are solely based on supply and demand, then obviously there's no speculation: the price is directly dictated by the produced amount of crude vs the demand of that crude.
When you start basing prices on what might happen in the future, that's exactly what speculation is. Amazing how the article mention speculation having nothing to do with the prices and immediately bringing up that prices can vary by what might happen in Iran (textbook use of speculation). Further, later on in the same article he mentions that crude pricing is based on future pricing (and we can't predict the future yet, so we speculate).

The Saudis have been increasing their production at our request, but have been reluctant because they basically are saying there's no supply problems. They have an interest to keep prices high, but not THIS high, since it make alternative energy sources economically viable. To the point that they've repeatidly gone out in recent months telling speculators that there's no current supply problems and that they are on pace to increase their output capacity to match the global consuption increase for the next few yeas.
Now, I'm gonna be honest with you. There's basically zero we can do about this. If we close the Enron hole and regulate the resources futures market, then speculators will go to an unregulated market overseas and keep doing what they're doing. So, the only thing I would be happy about is if we could do an investigation into who are the companies tradng these futures contracts, and wether any of them are subsidiaries/controlled by Oil Cos. If none are, then Ill just be satisfied and move on. I just have this feeling that Oil Cos can be colluding and using the futures market to control the prices artificially. It's the perfect instrument if you wanted to do that. Then again, it's just a feeling, and it might not be what's going on ( see, I'm the one speculating now)

[jochhejaam]

I was originally under the impression that the rise in the price of oil was on the speculators, because that's where everyone was pointing the finger, but lately the edge has been taken off of that angle. It's like everyone that stands to make a profit is playing a big game with the (helpless) consumer.

Here's yesterdays quote from Bernanke:

Bernanke Defends Oil Speculators

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in testimony, yesterday, in his Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the U.S. Senate, defended oil speculators by saying:


Another concern that has been raised is that financial speculation has added markedly to upward pressures on oil prices. Certainly, investor interest in oil and other commodities has increased substantially of late. However, if financial speculation were pushing oil prices above the levels consistent with the fundamentals of supply and demand, we would expect inventories of crude oil and petroleum products to increase as supply rose and demand fell. But in fact, available data on oil inventories show notable declines over the past year. This is not to say that useful steps could not be taken to improve the transparency and functioning of futures markets, only that such steps are unlikely to substantially affect the prices of oil or other commodities in the longer term.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/07/bernanke-defends-oil-speculators.html

What's your take on that El?

[cherylsteele]

Sounds like your suggesting that we leave the oil in the ground because we can't get it to the market tomorrow. Pumping more oil buys time ("delays the current problem") for the continued developement of viable, alternative fuel sources. That's a positive, not a negative.

I am not saying leave the oil there, but instead of just pumping oil to pump it out to market IMO is a not what is needed. It may by us some time but at the moment it won't because there is no plan in place to lessen our dependency enough on oil. We need to develop other power sources in the meantime and I see little of that happening. Sure there are hybrids and such but we need to develop cars and other transportation means that rely on other fuel sources as well. Hydrogen fuel cells come to mind.

I saw on tv a couple of weeks ago someone had developed a car that ran on compressed air. Not saying that is a good answer but we need to do something besides just pumping more oil without a solid long term plan.

[boutons_]

http://redgreenandblue.org/files/2008/07/mjg-0194.jpg

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm glad you included yourself in that statement, since that's exactly what you're doing.

For competitive leases, the primary term is 5 years. (1/2 decade)
For non-competitive leases, the primary term is 10 years. (1 decade)

Here are all the clauses: LINK (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1480&page=90)

So, all the Goat Pastures can be returned in 5 years... but they're not. Requests for drilling permits have actually been going down for the last few years. Somehow there's interest in retaining the land, but no interest in actually exploring it.

In all the leases I brokered, and there were hundreds of them, I never saw a competitive lease granted. And judging by the fact that non-competitive leases out number competitive by a significant margin until recently, I would have to concede that my experience reflected only non competitive leases.

Experience is not always the best instructor as was illustrated in this case.

Thanks, amigo.:toast

[shelshor]

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/09/oilplatform_wideweb__470x338,0.jpg

Imagine a chaise lounge, a couple of Coronas', picturesque, if I must say so myself.

...
Looks like $$$$ to me

If the danger of spills is so high, why haven't there been any during any of the recent "killer" hurricanes? Surely a storm strong enough to wipe out large portions of a city wouldn't have a problem taking out a flimsy drilling platform

And where does this figure of 10 years to get gas to the pump come from?
Is there an actual study or documented facts to support that, or is it dogma from the anti-drilling folks?
The reason I ask is that from the first phone call from a lease hound wanting to lease some of my land to having a producing oil well & 3 natural gas wells was only 19 months.
And the biggest delay was getting the 37 people who either own or farm various plots of land to agree on routes for the pipelines to connnect everyone's wells to a central battery

Can we add Bushmills & La Gloria Cubana Serie R to the Coronas?

[boutons_]

"where does this figure of 10 years to get gas to the pump come from"

getting somebody to drill on your land is a lot easier than finding a available offshore drilling rig, and laying pipeline from the rig to the refinery.

even dubya's own energy agency, polluted and compromised with oil men and oil lobbyists, says 2030 before any significant oil would onshore, and its impact on gas price would be negligible.

[ElNono]

In all the leases I brokered, and there were hundreds of them, I never saw a competitive lease granted. And judging by the fact that non-competitive leases out number competitive by a significant margin until recently, I would have to concede that my experience reflected only non competitive leases.

Experience is not always the best instructor as was illustrated in this case.

Thanks, amigo.:toast

No problem, we're all trying to get educated here. Myself included.

[ElNono]

I was originally under the impression that the rise in the price of oil was on the speculators, because that's where everyone was pointing the finger, but lately the edge has been taken off of that angle. It's like everyone that stands to make a profit is playing a big game with the (helpless) consumer.

Here's yesterdays quote from Bernanke:

Bernanke Defends Oil Speculators

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in testimony, yesterday, in his Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the U.S. Senate, defended oil speculators by saying:

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/07/bernanke-defends-oil-speculators.html

What's your take on that El?

As the blog mentions, supply has risen sharply at the beginning of 2008. Which pretty much contradicts the price surge we've seen (I mean, besides of the value of the dollar decreasing substantially). He mentions that oil stocks are not growing, but in fact they are. Even in the US, the gasoline stock rose 900,000 barrels to 211.8 million barrels in the first week of July (LINK (http://www.cnbc.com/id/25593246))
I do agree with him that at the very least, the futures market need more transparency. I mean, if the speculators have nothing to do with the whole price surge, then why not take a look there and make sure that's the case?
Again, you can't do too much about that specific problem, but at the very least you could at least take a look at make sure what's going on is simple trading by uninterested parties.

[ElNono]

Looks like $$$$ to me

If the danger of spills is so high, why haven't there been any during any of the recent "killer" hurricanes? Surely a storm strong enough to wipe out large portions of a city wouldn't have a problem taking out a flimsy drilling platform

Remember the Exxon Valdez? That it hasn't happened doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't happen. As a matter of fact, we all experienced first hand the kind of damage a big oil spill can produce.



And where does this figure of 10 years to get gas to the pump come from?
Is there an actual study or documented facts to support that, or is it dogma from the anti-drilling folks?
The reason I ask is that from the first phone call from a lease hound wanting to lease some of my land to having a producing oil well & 3 natural gas wells was only 19 months.
And the biggest delay was getting the 37 people who either own or farm various plots of land to agree on routes for the pipelines to connnect everyone's wells to a central battery

Can we add Bushmills & La Gloria Cubana Serie R to the Coronas?

I'm going to quote from this (LINK (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1480&page=87)) book, that explains a bit what's involved:
1) Identification of an exploration target
2) Land Acquisition (lease)
3) Approval for an Application to Permit to Drill (APD)
4) Exploration Drilling
5) Well Completion (for production)
6) Additional APD approvals for development wells
7) Full field development and Production
8) Cessation of economic production, well plugging, and reclamation.

This entire process generally occurs over a 20- to 40-year period, depending on the size of the field.

[boutons_]

"WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday blocked a Democratic effort to pressure energy companies into drilling for oil on lands they already leased from the federal government, calling the legislation a sham."

but giving more OCS leases to oilcos isn't a sham?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/us/18cong.html?pagewanted=print

[jochhejaam]

Here's a good article on ANWR (read quickly, before the trolls find it and trash another thread).

Natives support Republican goal of drilling for oil
Estimates indicate that 10.6 billion barrels of oil lie beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, and as much as 750,000 barrels could be pumped from there daily.

When 10 Republican congressmen — 9 of them freshmen facing a crucial re-election in November — set boots on tundra today in Alaska, they’ll meet with native villagers who will likely agree with them on the need to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

But political opponents <democrats> and environmentalists
say the GOP journey to one of America’s northernmost outposts is a “junket” and a “public relations stunt.”

The Republicans, including Reps. Bob Latta of Bowling Green and Jim Jordan of Urbana, Ohio, say the trip is a fact-finding mission. But they also admit it’s an effort to generate public support for expanding America’s domestic supply of oil by drilling in the known reserves of ANWR.

Several residents of the small native village of Kaktovik who were contacted by The Blade Friday by telephone said the majority of the residents lean in favor of drilling for oil because of the economic benefit it would bring their community.

“More people support it here than don’t,” said Adam Linn, administrator for the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation.

“We don’t care for environmentalists. We’ve got our own criteria. As long as the animals are not harmed and we can still hunt them, that’s fine,” Mr. Linn said.

“A gallon of milk costs $9 here.
That’s how high the cost of living is. If they open ANWR, it’ll cut down on our prices.”

The trip, which began Friday in Washington and ends tomorrow night, takes the GOP House delegation to Colorado, Fairbanks, the oil town of Deadhorse at Prudhoe Bay, and the native village of Kaktovik.


The Gwich’in people, native to ANWR, oppose drilling for oil on the reserve and consider the coastal plain a sacred place where the caribou birth and nurse their young.

On Friday, the “American Energy Tour” visited the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., where the group viewed projects including plug-in electric, solar, and hydrogen-fueled vehicles and a “wind-to-hydrogen” project.

The trip is being funded and facilitated by the Bush Administration. President Bush hascalled for drilling in the coastal plain of the 19-million-acre wildlife refuge north of the Arctic Circle.

The best estimates of the volume of oil beneath ANWR are about 10.6 billion barrels — a lot of oil, but a fraction of the total known reserves in the world of 1.2 trillion barrels.

Some estimate that, if fully developed, ANWR could produce 750,000 barrels of oil daily — compared with current national daily consumption of 21 million barrels of oil.

‘It’s beautiful here,’ a resident says of ANWR. ‘We’ve got fields of flowers right now.’

“Everything helps, and 10 billion barrels is not an insignificant amount,” said Michael Steel, press secretary for Rep. John Boehner (R., Ohio), the House minority leader who organized the trip.

A political issue
Recent polls show that the American public supports drilling in ANWR, and Mr. Steel predicted most Democrats in Congress would vote for it as well.

“It is the <democratic> House leadership that is avoiding letting that happen,” he said.

Critics of the congressional trip abound.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi <she, of the 13% favorable "failed" Congress> (D., Calif.) issued a statement linking the House Republicans with the “failed policies” of President Bush. She said oil companies already have leases to drill on 68 million acres on land and off shore that they have not exploited.

“Opening new lands to drilling won’t save Americans one penny for at least a decade,” <that's good, because me and...well, everyone I know will still be driving> Mrs. Pelosi said, again calling on Republicans to support her call to release oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo) called the trip “a junket” and “a public relations stunt at taxpayers’ expense in an election year <paraphase; "I wasn't invited, and it was initiated by Republicans">.”

“The Boehner-led delegation wants to send pretty pictures back home when the picture isn’t pretty at all,” Miss Kaptur said in a prepared statement, adding that families are being “stretched to the limit” while oil companies revel in historic high profits.

“What’s next on their agenda for Big Oil, drilling in Lake Erie?” Miss Kaptur asked. <how troll-like of you Marcy:lol>

Mr. Steel said he’s heard no calls for sinking oil wells in the Great Lakes.

An up-close view
Residents of Kaktovik, the small village at the northern tip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, support drilling by 78 percent, according to a survey done several years ago.

Marie Kaveolook, a part-time school aide, said the community is united in opposing off-shore drilling from ANWR.

But she said the technology of accessing and transporting oil is improving.

“It would help a lot because the cost of living here is very, very, very, very expensive,” Ms. Kaveolook said, quoting the price of a round-trip to Fairbanks at more than $700.
There are no roads leading out of Kaktovik.

She said the village has seen numerous fact-finding delegations come and go.

“They come every year. They just ask the same old questions. It seems like to me it’s the same old thing every year,” Ms. Kaveolook said. “They should have done this 20 years ago.”

A town resident who opposes drilling is Merylin Traynor, who moved to Kaktovik 14 years ago and manages the Waldo Arms hotel.

“I would say [opinion is split] 50-50. I think some of our younger people want to keep it as it is, so they can go hunting and fishing as they’ve learned from childhood,” she said.

She admitted the development would be an economic benefit for the people in Kaktovik.

“The locals here could have jobs,” Ms. Traynor said. She said the perception that the coastal plain is a desolate wasteland might be understandable for people who are used to seeing trees.

“It’s beautiful here. We’ve got fields of flowers right now. The birds nest here. We’ve got polar bears,” she said.

A sacred place
The native Gwich’in people who live about 150 miles south, also in the refuge, are said to oppose drilling.

Emilie Surrusco, a communications coordinator for the Alaska Wilderness League, based in Washington, said the Gwich’in consider the Coastal Plain a sacred place where the caribou birth and nurse their young.

“The Gwich’in people have been depending on the porcupine caribou herd for thousands of years, and without the costal plain they wouldn’t survive. It’s a huge issue to them,” Ms. Surrusco said.

She said the 2,000 acres cited by proponents of drilling as the total size of the drilling installations don’t explain that it would be a total of 2,000 acres made up of widely separated drilling facilities connected by roads.

“They’d have to connect the various wells that are spread out across the coastal plain. There’s nothing there. It’s really the biological heart of the refuge. There’s a lot of wildlife that live on the coastal plain,” Ms. Surrusco said.

Nature and development
Mr. Linn said the Kaktovik village owns 90,000 acres in ANWR and expects to reap lease payments for the use of the land, as well as benefit economically.

He disputed Ms. Surrusco’s predictions about the porcupine caribou herd, saying the Prudhoe Bay drilling to the west has not harmed the caribou.

“They say the caribou die off. But those guys live hundreds of miles away. We’ve seen it in Prudhoe. There’s caribou right there in the oilfields,” Mr. Linn said.

A written position of the Kaktovik community that it says has been held for 20 years states: “We would support oil exploration and development of the coastal plain provided we are given the authority and the resources to ensure that it is done properly and safely. Without the necessary provisions to ensure this protection, we would not.”

Contact Tom Troy at:[email protected] 419-724-6058.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080720/NEWS09/413279489

[jochhejaam]

Drilling in ANWR would affect only 2,000 of the 19,000,000 acres.

[ElNono]

LOL... we're still waiting for your rebuttal(s) on this thread: LINK (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101477&page=3)

But hey, I called it: You were going to keep on posting articles from political hacks instead of actually bringing anything to the conversation.
Your act is getting old and predictable...

[jochhejaam]

LOL... we're still waiting for your rebuttal(s) on this thread: LINK (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101477&page=3)

But hey, I called it: You were going to keep on posting articles from political hacks instead of actually bringing anything to the conversation.
Your act is getting old and predictable...

There’s nothing there to rebut. There was quite a bit of info posted as to why gas prices have skyrocketed, and there wasn’t so much as one word of rebuttal from one poster, it amounted to nothing more than a hodge-podge of silliness and insults, something more expected and typical of grade school kids, than adults.

.
And to the surprise of absolutely no one, the same ol’, same ol’ from you here; an article about drilling on the ANWR was posted, information that could have elicited intelligent dialogue, but instead, it serves as the catalyst for your M.O. to kick in;

1. You trash the writer as a political hack, even though you don’t know diddly squat about him.
2. You have no comments about the article.
3. You engage in a little ad hominem.
4. You crouch in waiting for the next opportunity to do the same.


That shtick you brought to the forum is already heavily in use, and unless you aspire to being a parrot (I freely admit you’re good at it), you’re better off saving your breath

[ChumpDumper]

How much would unlimited drilling in the US lower the price of gas?

[ElNono]

There’s nothing there to rebut. There was quite a bit of info posted as to why gas prices have skyrocketed, and there wasn’t so much as one word of rebuttal from one poster, it amounted to nothing more than a hodge-podge of silliness and insults, something more expected and typical of grade school kids, than adults.

.
And to the surprise of absolutely no one, the same ol’, same ol’ from you here; an article about drilling on the ANWR was posted, information that could have elicited intelligent dialogue, but instead, it serves as the catalyst for your M.O. to kick in;

1. You trash the writer as a political hack, even though you don’t know diddly squat about him.
2. You have no comments about the article.
3. You engage in a little ad hominem.
4. You crouch in waiting for the next opportunity to do the same.


That shtick you brought to the forum is already heavily in use, and unless you aspire to being a parrot (I freely admit you’re good at it), you’re better off saving your breath



I'll give one more cause for rising oil prices that have nothing to do with Congress. Requests for drilling permits have gone down in the last few years. Oil Co's are still sitting on acres of land that are producing absolutely nothing. Some of them haven't even been explored yet.

What you make of that? What does Congress has to do with that?

You keep posting political propaganda but actually don't refute anything we counter with. I can just as easily go to some Dems blogs and start posting political garbage like you do.

Do you actually have anything to say, or you just going to keep on moving on to the next blog when your arguments are shown to be weak sauce?




I'll give you another cause, that the current Fed chairmain acknowledged in his last economic report, and we already discussed in another thread:
The depreciation of the dollar under this administration. Thanks to the billions we spend monthly in the stupid Iraq war. Interesting it didn't make your top 10 list, considering it has had more direct impact than all that global warming nonsense that made it on the list.




I meant if you read the thread. The original article that started the thread was just as stupid as yours, blaming Congress for the Oil prices. Now go back and read the responses.
In a nutshell:
1) Congress did nothing to increase the demand for oil worldwide
2) Oil Co's are not drilling in the acres they already leased. Congress have nothing to do with that.
3) This Congress has actually been trying to pass legislation preventing further land leases until Oil Co's explore the acres already leased. So it's not like the Dems are against drilling, they're just against land hoarding by Oil Co's. Interestingly enough, Republicans opposed this measure.

Again, go back and read the thread. The arguments from that political hack have been refuted already.

And BTW, correlation is not causation. You need to demonstrate the cause, otherwise you can blame anything on anybody.


These are all valid points, which you failed to argument against.
But wait, you're going to post another political blog entry parroting how the Dems control oil prices, because you're not here to argue. You have no points to make, other than you hate Democrats. We get it. Your shit is weak.
What's even funnier is that I'm not a Dem, I'm just pointing out the hollowness of your 'posts'.
I'm moving on until you bring an actual valid point.

[jochhejaam]

How much would unlimited drilling in the US lower the price of gas?

I don't know, and I've stated that the days of cheap gas are over, I'd be shocked if we ever see it under $3.00 a gallon again.

As far as why the oilco's aren't drilling on their current leases? You'd think that considering the questions surrounding it that the info would be readily available, but I don't find an official explanation from the oilcos or anyone else.
Without anything to go on, other than blogger conjecture, my guess would be that there's not enough oil in the leased areas to make it worth their while.

[jochhejaam]

I've e-mailed my Congressman, Bob Latta, as to why the OilCo's aren't drilling on the already leased land.

I'll fill you in with the response he gives.

[jochhejaam]

You have no points to make, other than you hate Democrats. We get it. Your shit is weak.
What's even funnier is that I'm not a Dem, I'm just pointing out the hollowness of your 'posts'.
I'm moving on until you bring an actual valid point.
More presumptive b.s. from you. Posting an article that says the Dems are responsible for high gas prices hardly equates to "hating the Dems", and I've never said you were a dem (so where does the funny part come it?), and I couldn't care less what your political affiliation is.

Jack Kelly writes for a liberal newspaper, one whose owner has endorsed Obama while acknowledging his disdain for Bush. Even though he probably disagrees with many of Kelly's articles, he nonetheless respects his opionions enough to faithfully post his editorials on a weekly basis.
Yet you, who know nothing of the man, label him a "tool" because he doesn't see things the way you do.

Tom Troy, even though you know nothing about him, is labeled a "political hack", why, solely because he publishes an article you don't agree with.

You are a genuine pompous-ass, and in light of that I consider your "moving on" a good thing. :toast

[ElNono]

More presumptive b.s. from you. Posting an article that says the Dems are responsible for high gas prices hardly equates to "hating the Dems", and I've never said you were a dem (so where does the funny part come it?), and I couldn't care less what your political affiliation is.


Ofcourse you hate them. That's why you actually take the time to add your own editorial comments taking pot shots at anything a democrat says in the articles you post, and don't do the same with the Republicans. If you truly wanted to show your view as unbiased, you would leave the articles alone. Then actually substantiate why you disagree with their accounts.
To be honest with you, I think Pelosi is a douche, and as I said many times this is a terrible congress. Now, from there to suggest they control the price of oil isnot just a stretch, but a flat out lie.



Jack Kelly writes for a liberal newspaper, one whose owner has endorsed Obama while acknowledging his disdain for Bush. Even though he probably disagrees with many of Kelly's articles, he nonetheless respects his opionions enough to faithfully post his editorials on a weekly basis.
Yet you, who know nothing of the man, label him a "tool" because he doesn't see things the way you do.

Writing for a liberal newspaper doesn't make him any less of a tool. Shit, I could even see why a liberal would want this guy to present the conservative opinion. To put an analogy, Stephen A Smith, works for arguably the largest sports network in the planet, and he's still a tool.



Tom Troy, even though you know nothing about him, is labeled a "political hack", why, solely because he publishes an article you don't agree with.

It's not a matter that I don't like it. It's an issue of flat out lies. Congress does not control the price of oil. I mean, if they did and now that's a democrat majority, you know full well the Oil Cos would not have 2 consecutive quarters with record profits, while we struggle at the pump.



You are a genuine pompous-ass, and in light of that I consider your "moving on" a good thing. :toast

I try to be as pompuos-ass as I can be. Thanks for the compliment. You actually brought some valid takes of your own that are worth discussing. I know you can do it, you've done it before.

[ElNono]

I've e-mailed my Congressman, Bob Latta, as to why the OilCo's aren't drilling on the already leased land.

I'll fill you in with the response he gives.

Thank you. I'm honestly curious to hear what he says. I would also have loved to hear his take on why they're not letting go of the leases (and the land) after the primary period even when they didn't even started exploring the area.

[jochhejaam]

Ofcourse you hate them. That's why you actually take the time to add your own editorial comments taking pot shots at anything a democrat says in the articles you post, and don't do the same with the Republicans. If you truly wanted to show your view as unbiased, you would leave the articles alone. Then actually substantiate why you disagree with their accounts.
To be honest with you, I think Pelosi is a douche, and as I said many times this is a terrible congress. Now, from there to suggest they control the price of oil isnot just a stretch, but a flat out lie.
I despise certain parts of the Dems platform, but that's a far cry from hating the Dems, heck, half of my relatives are Dems and I get along with them famously.
Do you hate people based on them having different beliefs than you?







Writing for a liberal newspaper doesn't make him any less of a tool. Shit, I could even see why a liberal would want this guy to present the conservative opinion. To put an analogy, Stephen A Smith, works for arguably the largest sports network in the planet, and he's still a tool. It's not a matter that I don't like it. It's an issue of flat out lies. Congress does not control the price of oil. I mean, if they did and now that's a democrat majority, you know full well the Oil Cos would not have 2 consecutive quarters with record profits, while we struggle at the pump.
People are looking for reasons as to why the gas prices have skyrocketed, he gave his, and for the most part his reasoning was sound. That's not to suggest that I agree with the contention that the Democratic Party is solely responsible for the oil prices, because I don't, not at all. I believe they've contributed to it, just one reason of many.
(I consider Smith to be an irritant...perhaps we have different definitions of what "tool" means).







I try to be as pompuos-ass as I can be. Thanks for the compliment.
Had I known you'd wear the label as if it were a badge of honor, I would never have said it. :lol





You actually brought some valid takes of your own that are worth discussing. I know you can do it, you've done it before.
I believe you've actually brought a couple yourself, so you've done it before and you can do it again! :toast






And I will get back with Latta's response, I'm expecting something along the lines of; "we're looking into it".

[clambake]

joch should have watched the oil execs when they were called to capitol hill.

[ElNono]

I despise certain parts of the Dems platform, but that's a far cry from hating the Dems, heck, half of my relatives are Dems and I get along with them famously.
Do you hate people based on them having different beliefs than you?


No I only hate stupid people.



People are looking for reasons as to why the gas prices have skyrocketed, he gave his, and for the most part his reasoning was sound. That's not to suggest that I agree with the contention that the Democratic Party is solely responsible for the oil prices, because I don't, not at all. I believe they've contributed to it, just one reason of many.
(I consider Smith to be an irritant...perhaps we have different definitions of what "tool" means).


Not it wasn't. None at all. It doesn't address the direct factors that contribute to increase in Oil prices. It only focuses on this theory that if we drill more, we will decrease the price of oil. Which is a complete fallacy.



Had I known you'd wear the label as if it were a badge of honor, I would never have said it. :lol

:lol We're just having fun here. Some people take all this stuff too seriously.
I mean, I do bitch when I have to pay $70 at the pump, but not at SpursTalk. I may argue at length with you, but it truly never is personal. It's a freaking Internet forum after all!

[jochhejaam]

I've e-mailed my Congressman, Bob Latta, as to why the OilCo's aren't drilling on the already leased land.

I'll fill you in with the response he gives.




Thank you. I'm honestly curious to hear what he says. I would also have loved to hear his take on why they're not letting go of the leases (and the land) after the primary period even when they didn't even started exploring the area.


Finally got a response <emailed him 24 days ago and again 17 days ago>, here it is;

Dear <this poster>,

Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns surrounding the rising costs of energy. Over the past several months, I have heard from my constituents in the Fifth Congressional District regarding the rising cost of gasoline and the need for the United States to reduce its dependence on foreign oil. I believe that the United States needs an energy policy, and steps must be taken towards energy independence to keep our energy affordable. I appreciate you taking the time to communicate your thoughts and concerns to me.

Currently, the United States consumes approximately 24% of the world’s energy. As more countries become industrialized, there will be an even greater demand for energy. By 2015, China and India together will exceed the United States’ energy consumption. By 2020, China alone will consume more than the United States. China is increasing offshore energy production to reduce its own dependence on foreign oil by growing its production capacity at an average of 15.3 percent per year, with plans to make offshore production their largest source of oil by doubling production by 2010. The Majority Democrat leadership opposes domestic offshore energy exploration and production, making America the only developed nation in the world to restrict access to offshore energy supplies. China will invest $24 billion in coal liquethetion technology, while the current Democrat leadership continues to exclude coal from our energy policy, even though the United States has 24% of the world’s coal reserves.

President Bush recently lifted the executive order ban on drilling for oil on our continental shelf We have approximately 86 billion barrels of oil offshore that can be recovered. We also have 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that can be recovered on and offshore. Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming have an estimated 2.1 trillion barrels of oil shale. Again, all the above resources are being blocked by the Democrat leadership in Congress. For our country to survive, we must have energy for manufacturing that createsjobs. We, as a country, don’t have the luxury of time. We must act now. According to the National Manufacturing Association, the Fifth Congressional District has the 9 largest number of manufacturing jobs out of four hundred thirty-five Congressional districts. Our district is also the number one agricultural district in Ohio. We need oil for farmers’ combines, fertilizers and chemicals. We must ensure that we are never held hostage with food the way we are with energy.

The U.S. must explore and drill for oil domestically, and it must be done in a safe manner to preserve the environment and keep emissions low. I recently visited the Alaskan Arctic coast with other members of Congress to see firsthand the different areas that contain large oil reserves. We currently import over 65% of our oil. We cannot rely on oil from the Middle East or from dictators for our thture. I support opening up Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil drilling. We are only talking about 3 square miles in the 19 million acre refuge. ANWR is the size of the state of South Carolina. There is an estimated 10.3 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, and it can be recovered with a very small foot print. A site of less than six acres can drill laterally eight miles away. Another important fact is that at its height, the Alaskan pipeline carried 2.1 million bands of oil a day. Today that number is 700,000 barrels a day. If oil in the Alaskan pipeline drops to 300,000 barrels a day, it will be out of operation. American would have to import more oil to make up for the loss.

Alternative energy is another way that will help lead the U.S. towards energy independence. Northwest Ohio is home to an ethanol plant, wind turbines, and solar panel manufacturing. We also have a process for coal gasification and for developing a hydrogen engine. We need to continue to develop these forms of energy as we decrease our dependence on oil. There are possibilities for more wind turbines in Northwest Ohio, along with more homes utilizing solar panels for energy. On our way to Alaska’s North coast, we also toured the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado where these alternative energy sources are being perfected.

On May 15, 2008 I introduced House Resolution 1206, a resolution that contains a 5-point plan for Congress to use in developing our energy policy. This plan is one example of how the United States can take serious action towards lowering energy and gas prices. The five points of H. Res. 1206 include:
• Promoting the expanded use of alternative and renewable energy resources;
• Increasing our domestic refining capacity;
• Promoting conservation and increased energy efticiency;
• Expanding research and development, including domestic exploration; and
• Enhancing consumer education.

Expanding commercial access to renewable energy solutions, building new nuclear facilities, developing clean coal technology, and increasing domestic exploration will help the United States become more self-sufficient and less dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. Please be assured that I will continue to work with my fellow members of Congress on this important issue. The future of our country depends on a proactive approach to creating viable solutions for individuals to care for their family’s energy needs.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future with any concerns or questions you may have related to federal issues. You can reach my Washington, D.C. office by phone at (202) 225-6405, or by email through our website at http://latta.house.gov. It is an honor to serve you.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Latta
Member of Congress



Regarding my original question about drilling on already leased land, he blew me off. I guess they didn't have a form letter that dealt directly with the question. I'm left to assume that they don't know why...

[Wild Cobra]

Regarding my original question about drilling on already leased land, he blew me off. I guess they didn't have a form letter that dealt directly with the question. I'm left to assume that they don't know why...

My understanding is that all that leased land is in one form of development or another. Test well, permits, etc.

Notice how the leftist pundits say we are not drilling it... they don't say the oil companies are not trying, right? They just imply it.

[ChumpDumper]

How much will opening up all of the ocean and ANWAR to drilling lower the price of gas at the pump?

[Wild Cobra]

How much will opening up all of the ocean and ANWAR to drilling lower the price of gas at the pump?

Hard to put a value on it, but it will be significant.

[ChumpDumper]

Why is it hard to put a value on it if it is significant?

[boutons_]

I've read where anwr would supply US gasoline for less than year.

the oilcos are drilling like hell for natural gas now, not for oil.

n/w Louisiana, natural gas. HUGE gold rush going on there.

upstate NY in the aquifer for NYC, natural gas

etc, etc

[J.T.]

Why is gas down 50 cents from this time last month?

[Wild Cobra]

I've read where anwr would supply US gasoline for less than year.

Yes, at the low end of the estimated oil there. However, at the rate it would be used, it would add oil for US production for likely 20 years or longer.

US oil production in 2005 was 5,178,380 barrels per day while our consumption was 20,802,160. These numbers are the most accurate available to my knowledge, and haven't changed much by estimates I have heard. ANWR has between a 5,700,000,000 and 16,000,000,000 barrel reserve. That is between a 9 month and 25 month supply. However, when you add the 11 year capacity we already have, that adds between 6.8% to 19.2% to our current supply capacity. This becomes significant in a supply and demand economy. Now add the oil we can get from the outer continental shelves, and we have driven prices down even farther. Now since we are only producing between 25% to 35% (numbers vary by source) of our own oil annually and buying 65% to 75% from other nations, that added supply by ANWR will even have a large effect on the world market. If the 25% estimate of world usage is correct, and we drop our purchases on the world market by 10%, there will be reductions in world prices.

Why is it the demonrats want us to release some of the strategic oil reserves (http://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html)? As of August 15, 2008, the current inventory was 707.2 million barrels. They said it would drop the price of gasoline at the pumps. If that's so, then ANWR and the Outer continental shelve should really drop prices, right? After all, that's a 34 day supply and ANWR is at least a 274 day supply, maybe as high as a 769 day supply!

Tell me. Is your hero Nancy Pelosi lying to us about the effect of opening the strategic oil reserves?

[Wild Cobra]

Why is gas down 50 cents from this time last month?
Considering oil started trading lower the next trading session after president Bush signed the executive order lifting the executive ban on outer continental shelf drilling, I credit him. This shows everyone we will be drilling there. Futures aren't so certain for high prices now. The congressional ban expired in September. Think they have the nerve to renew it before the November elections?

I see us drilling the outer continental shelves soon. Unless something unexpected elsewhere happens, or the demonrats renew the ban, I see oil prices coming down more after September. Of course, they will do their damndist to release some of the strategic reserves just before the expiration and credit themselves, and the liberal media will spout that lie.

Just a prediction on that... Just wait and see...

[ChumpDumper]

Why is gas down 50 cents from this time last month?We're using less gas.

[Ya Vez]

it's ok Russia is already laying claim to the north pole they will drill where we are prohibited .. thanks congress no wonder your approval rating is less than 10%

[Wild Cobra]

We're using less gas.
That's one train of thought, but by how much? My understanding is that it is less than 0.7% less. If that change between supply and demand has a 50 cent impact, how much would the minimum 6.8% US capacity added by ANWR (1.7% world capacity) decrease the prices? Now add the offshore drilling...

[ChumpDumper]

So you can give me an actual number then, right?

Let's see it.