Reply With Quote
And your point is?
And your point is?
How can you make that projection at all? It's not that kind of business... it could be a lot more or even less than that projection...
That's the nature of "exploration".
The numbers are low. US consumes about 20-21 Mb/day. But the ratio of POTENTIAL new-found US offshore oil will be a miniscule fraction, many years away, of US oil consumption and will have essentially no effect on US gasolne prices.
The point is that the inane, childish Repub chant "drill, baby, drill" (do adults really do such things?) is really a facade to hide giving the oilcos more leases before dubya and head leave office.
US cannot drill its way out of high oil prices. It has only 2-3% of the world's proven reserves, 20%+ of the world consumption, and if the US oilcos could have proven more reserves, they would have done it by now. They get 10s of $Bs in subsidies and tax cuts, and just pocket them, with nothing to show the US taxpayer.
They have millions of acres on and offshore now that they are not exploring and drilling.
Exploration is a huge, expensive bet where the house nearly always wins. Much more sure is to accelerate transport efficiency, accelerate/increase CAFE, alternative fuels and plug-in cars. The savings in oil consumed for transport, pushing down demand, are vastly greater and more sure than tiny increase in oil, if any at all, from offshore drilling.
btw, a priority now is drilling for natural gas, which takes millions of gallons of fresh water PER HOLE, water that is poisoned with chemicals and forced down the hole to free up the gas from the fractured shale. There is serious risk of polluting groud water of aquifers, as well as producing lakes of this toxic water. "environmental impact statement"? GMAFB
But, they are oilco filthy, septic s, so the Repugs "Lie, Baby, Lie". It's in their genes. Maybe Big Pharma can sell them some pills to pop so they get the out of the way of a national energy policy that prioritizes conservation and alternative fuels rather than ONLY offshore drilling gambles.
Last edited by boutons_; 09-21-2008 at 09:20 AM.
God you are so full of your eyes are brown.
The point is you don't know about the oil business (or anything else, for that matter).
That cute little chart you have assumes no drilling in new areas where they know there's a ton of oil.
The bottom line is anyone on the left who is against oil, but sits there and es about oil prices, oil profits, our need for energy independence, etc. is a ing idiot.
I'll bet that chart only includes the offshore drilling the democrats are willing to let be drilled, and not a representation of what we can drill that is out there.
It's based on what oil companies currently have access to. In short, it completely ignores all the volume that is in areas that are off limits to drilling and about as dumb a graph to use as a person could come up with.
Of the foreign oil, how much of it is from Canada? Those terrorists.
If we need to open up some land to push through resources for alternatives, go for it. Do what you can to limit the environmental impact and move on from there. I don't think it will have all that much of an economic impact, but concessions need to be made if we're going to get anywhere.
"they know there's a ton of oil."
Since Aggie is such an expert on oil, a few simple questions:
Really, where is this "known", proven oil? How much is there?
What is its percentage of world's known reserves (I keep reading it's 3%).
How many years of "known" US oil is there to be sucked up with the US consuming about 250 M barrels/year?
If the oilcos explored it and proven it's down there, why aren't they drilling?
Nobody knows if or how much unexplored offshore is to be discovered, if any, so the Repugs squealing "drill baby drill" as if the US can drill its way out of high oil prices is 100% lie.
Why are you against drilling in ANWR, boutons?
"against drilling in ANWR"
Because the proven ANWR reserves are less than 1 year of US gasoline consumption. Do you have a different number?
What kind of "solution" is ANWR vs. taking the huge tax breaks and subsidies the oilcos will receive for ANWR and everywhere else and applies those funds to REDUCE oil consumption, (year after year vs 1 yr ANWR), not increase or maintain it?
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/06/h...limits-to.html
The above references a report prepared for Congress by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management.
"The total onshore resource is 31 billion barrels," said BLM's lead scientist Richard Watson, who authored the report. "Of that, 19 billion barrels are currently inaccessible or 62 percent. A little over 2 billion barrels, or 8 percent, is accessible under what we call standard lease terms."Really, where is this "known", proven oil? How much is there?
If you add in the 85.9 billion barrels of oil that lie offshore, as determined by the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, there are 117 billion barrels of oil on lands owned or managed by the U.S. government.
Add another 8 billion if you open up ANWR.
Who gives a what percentage it is? I thought this was about us 1) being energy independent and 2) bringing the cost of gasoline down.What is its percentage of world's known reserves (I keep reading it's 3%).
First, your math is off. We consume about 8 billion barrels of oil per year. 125 billion barrels of oil, with no new discoveries, leads to about 15 years of an oil supply. Do the math.How many years of "known" US oil is there to be sucked up with the US consuming about 250 M barrels/year?
And you have apparently ignored what I've been saying on here for a while. We need a comprehensive energy solution, that will include new drilling, nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, tidal, etc.
You lib s seem to think that there is some magic bullet out there in the alternative energy sector, some magical yet to be discovered solution (well, right now you like us all paying more for all our food because of your ethanol fetish).
Drilling isn't a permanent solution for this country's energy needs. It's a stop gap until we can get all the other in place to become energy independent.
Because all leases have to be permitted, they can't just go out there and say 'hey look, oil, let's start drilling.' And the other thing that the tree huggers in D.C. do is only grant permits for a limited amount of time. So they say "yeah, Exxon, you can have a lease out there, but you only have six months to drill. Not enough time? Well, golly gee, that's too bad, nevermind..."If the oilcos explored it and proven it's down there, why aren't they drilling?
Actually, thanks to the Bureau of Land Management, we have a pretty ing good idea. And yeah, we can drill out of high oil prices, so you're 100% full of . As usual.Nobody knows if or how much unexplored offshore is to be discovered, if any, so the Repugs squealing "drill baby drill" as if the US can drill its way out of high oil prices is 100% lie.
From the above link, and the Bureau of Land Management study, we are sitting on more oil deposits than the sum of Iran, Iraq, Russia, Nigeria or Venezuela, respectively.
And yet we continue with this no drilling bull while being held hostage by the Middle East, and watch Venezuela and Russia running around throwing their oil money around.
You can't magically reduce oil consumption without making everyone in this country go broke paying $8 a gallon for gas. But then the government will just give us all our fuel anyway, right komrade boutons?
Drilling in the ANWR and off our coasts isn't a permanent solution, but it should be part of a comprehensive energy package.
"Drill, Baby, Drill" isn't just about oil either, it includes natural gas also. We are the middle east when it comes to natural gas reserves yet we have to import 20% of our natural gas. I'm sick of the democrats view that everyone should just suffer until a renewable solution is found.
The problem is that deficiency begets innovation. What is the incentive right now to research other technologies if people believe we can get a 10-15 year reprieve? The dial-down of fossil fuels NEEDS to begin now. We shouldn't be drilling MORE.
That reminds me. Anyone know how Pelosi's alternative energy stock is doing?..the one she threw a couple hundred thousand in.
Last edited by Anti.Hero; 09-21-2008 at 01:37 PM.
You think others think like you too. Until gas hits $5. Then your buddies will turn on you and want to club seals themselves.
Once it hits $7, they will be looking to club a lot more than seals though.
blow me
Yeah that might happen. Or you know what could happen? The rising gas prices would get people to support alternative energy options....dip .
They already do genius. They just dont want to pay $8 until Einstein in his garage figures out how to turn rainbows into fuel.
I can tell you're an educated man. If you weren't I would have to describe how alternative fuels like wind and solar energy are ALREADY functional, but they don't have enough support to make them widespread. I'm glad I'm speaking with an educated man. Hey I think I see a rainbow...
So how much will unlimited drilling lower the price of gasoline?
I don't think there's anyone against alternative energy options. It's just some of us are smart enough to realize we won't be able to go up and fill up our cars with it any time soon. Unlike libs.
The gas and oil companies are for alternative options?
Only when their current record setting profits run out and/or they control the alternatives. Get real.
Alternative forms have probably been available for years. Just squelched by pig oil. It's not a demoncrat or repug issue, both are lobbied by the oil pigs, both suck off the corporations.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
