Drilling for oil in the USA

[Who]

Drilling for oil off and in our borders is not a solution. It is a band aid to a long & festering problem. We have to free ourselves from this one energy dependency. We believe we our the most advanced, most powerful nation in the world but yet we Americans are addicted, and so, so, dependent on oil. No army, no military might can keep the oil producing nations from turning on us and cutting us off from our only energy source. We need to diversify our energy sources. It comes down to old school basic economics and our national security. Diversify, don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Should we drill for oil on our coast and protected lands. YES!.... but spread the risks. For every dollar spent on drilling we need to invest in a alternative energy source. If we can send a man to the moon in record time, on a mission to beat another country in a space race, why can't we find a alternative energy source.
Lastly don't forget the greed factor. We need a contract, an assurance, that the oil will be refined and allocated to the USA. Wouldn't it be a bitch if our USA oil was sold to the highest bidder and shipped out of the country. Do you believe our domestic based (global owned) oil companies would protect our interest as a nation and disregard a profit. NO!

 

[88YotaTurbo]

All I have to say to this matter or any other "oil crisis" discussions is The senate F'ed us.
Remember ANWR ? Yep the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge which has plentiful amount of oil for the WHOLE nation.
The Senate screwed us all. I give a big middle finger to all the Ignorant Democrats in the senate right now.

 

[Supracentral]

The problem with most "alternative energy" programs is that they are powered by magic beans and pixie dust.

We drill here, drill now to defeat the current energy crisis and allow the market to develop new tech.

It's government interference in the free market that is the problem.

 

[IJ.]

We (Australia) could be self sufficient but our imbecile Government sold the rights to Multinationals many years ago..... :nono:

 

[Who]

I agree drill now! Drill yesterday! But we must fix the problem for the long term. Our dependence on one energy source, oil, is a matter of national security.

 

[Adjuster]

Best info yet on hydrocarbons being from the planet, not some "fossil fuel"....

Diagrams.. (To keep it simple..)

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/kitchka/images/fig01.htm

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/kitchka/images/fig02.htm

Here is the article. (Warning, this will make you think, so get ready to read..)
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/kitchka/kitchka.htm

What does this mean?
In short, there is no "Peak Oil" theory, and oil is not from dead dinosarus and plants..

It means people, that the supply of oil might very well be around LONGER than the Humans on this planet... Seriously.

 

[p5150]

Drilling for oil will not significantly reduce its price.

 

[Supracentral]

Drilling for oil will not significantly reduce its price.

That's like saying eating won't significantly reduce hunger.

Can you please, in simple English terms, describe how increased supply does not reduce price?

Does oil exist in some "special" economic universe that the remainder of the free market doesn't have access to?

If you're going to continue to make statements like this, please back them with some sort of fact.

 

[Poodles]

"Peak Oil" doesn't just cover the overall supply of it on this planet, but our ability to get it out of the ground, refine it, and then get it to where it needs to used.

Our infrastructure is too small to handle it now, and the demande is far outstripping the supply.

We have plenty of oil, but crude is worthless as it comes out of the ground.

 

[MkIII_Jeff]

Drilling for oil off and in our borders is not a solution. It is a band aid to a long & festering problem. We have to free ourselves from this one energy dependency. We believe we our the most advanced, most powerful nation in the world but yet we Americans are addicted, and so, so, dependent on oil. No army, no military might can keep the oil producing nations from turning on us and cutting us off from our only energy source. We need to diversify our energy sources. It comes down to old school basic economics and our national security. Diversify, don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Should we drill for oil on our coast and protected lands. YES!.... but spread the risks. For every dollar spent on drilling we need to invest in a alternative energy source. If we can send a man to the moon in record time, on a mission to beat another country in a space race, why can't we find a alternative energy source.
Lastly don't forget the greed factor. We need a contract, an assurance, that the oil will be refined and allocated to the USA. Wouldn't it be a bitch if our USA oil was sold to the highest bidder and shipped out of the country. Do you believe our domestic based (global owned) oil companies would protect our interest as a nation and disregard a profit. NO!

I do agree that there is no guaranty, but I do have to ask. You do realize that oil becomes many more products than gasoline, right? We may find alternative energies for electricity and gasoline, but you have WAY too many other necessary products to get rid of it completely.

 

[p5150]

That's like saying eating won't significantly reduce hunger.

Can you please, in simple English terms, describe how increased supply does not reduce price?

Does oil exist in some "special" economic universe that the remainder of the free market doesn't have access to?

If you're going to continue to make statements like this, please back them with some sort of fact.

Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. Drilling for oil here in the United States will not significantly reduce the price of oil.

Even if we had another Saudi Arabia magically appear and start pumping oil it would only increase oil availability by 10%. At most, you would see a 15% reduction in price.

Simply increasing the mileage standard would be a much more economically stimulating alternative.

 

[gtsfirefighter]

Where do you get your numbers? 10% here and 15% there.

 

[Supracentral]

Simply increasing the mileage standard would be a much more economically stimulating alternative.

Are you talking about increasing the C.A.F.E. standards?

Just about every solution you come up with involves using government force to accomplish any goal.

Why is that?

 

[Who]

I'm not just talking about transportation energy and plastics (petroleum based good). We need alternative sources of energy. When I use the word "alternative" I don't mean Pixie dust, fairy tales and hemp shirts. We have other sources of energy now but the incentive is zero. I say the USA can do or make just about anything it wants when it wants too in record time. The technology is there but we need a reason, a kick in the ass to develop it further, faster and make it affordable. Unfortunately you need two key components to give a free market system the incentive to develop it, Demand and profit. Now it gets tricky. The demand is rising but the profit margin is zero. The profit side of the equation needs incentive. Swift incentives in this case will probably come with government intervention or should I say, a big mess, back room deals, and knee jerk reactions from our elected officials. On the flip side I am not comfortable with other governments elected officials and regions of the world holding all the cards when it comes to energy. If it comes down to government intervention, I pick the lesser of two evils, Obama, Maccain. Case in point. Take note of our overwhelming and expensive military presence in the middle east. Its not just about terrorism vs freedom, Iraq or President Bush is good or evil. We have our military protecting our fragile energy interest. Our military is in large part a Oil protection service. Our military protects our lifeline to oil and the global economy. A lot of expensive resources in money and lives go to that oil protection service.
(Oh crap I'd better stop, I seem to be leaning left, or maybe right?)

 

[Quin]

Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. Drilling for oil here in the United States will not significantly reduce the price of oil.

Even if we had another Saudi Arabia magically appear and start pumping oil it would only increase oil availability by 10%. At most, you would see a 15% reduction in price.

Simply increasing the mileage standard would be a much more economically stimulating alternative.

In addition to the questions posted by SC and GTS, what is your solution NOW? That wouldn't significantly affect anything for a few years, minimum. Not too many people could just run out and buy one of your magical 300MPG cars, assuming they were developed.

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

Here are two "alternatives" that would use cellulosic (e.g. grass, paper, ag waste, urban wood, etc) raw materials (= near carbon neutral for those of us silly enough to care), and would use our existing infrastructure...

www.ls9.com
www.virent.com

Until one of these becomes a scaled up reality (a looong way down the road), DRILL, DRILL, DRILL, build some refining capacity, and while we're at it, start constructing nuclear power plants. Da end.

 

[p5150]

Where do you get your numbers? 10% here and 15% there.

Saudi Arabia produces about 9.3 million barrels per day out of a total world production of roughly 87 million barrels per day. 9.3/87 = 10.1% of world production. If the output of SA was doubled it would increase the available world oil supply by 10%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_demand_curve

http://www.mees.com/Energy_Tables/crude-oil.htm

Drilling is not the answer. We already have the answer and it really isnt that difficult. Cheap oil is never coming back without:

1. Increasing the value of the dollar.
2. Decreasing demand.

Increasing supply to levels that will make a difference is a very very big task that will ultimately prove less effective than improving our efficiency.

Because we (the US) consume 25% of the world's oil supply, this is the easiest thing to fix. I wouldnt be saying this if we were all driving Geo Metros..... I still see people commuting to work in their 3-ton rig.... I feel no pity.

 

[HommerSimpson]

i just wish we would have drilled back then...

 

[p5150]

In addition to the questions posted by SC and GTS, what is your solution NOW? That wouldn't significantly affect anything for a few years, minimum. Not too many people could just run out and buy one of your magical 300MPG cars, assuming they were developed.

Make the mileage standard 35 mpg for a start. Its certainly possible.

I say 45mpg fleet standard by 2020.

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

P5150, seriously... increasing supply is just as effective as decreasing demand, and far more realistic in this case. How can you dismiss the single most basic principle of economics, just because it fits your personal politics, with a straight face? Is the brainwashing really that effective in CA?

As far as mandating mpg requirements, you can't regulate this system and expect any positive results. Auto manufacturers will produce what the public demands, no matter what the governement says. Attempts to force the matter cost everybody in the end. Look around you for proof...

 

[p5150]

P5150, seriously... increasing supply is just as effective as decreasing demand, and far more realistic in this case. How can you dismiss the single most basic principle of economics, just because it fits your personal politics, with a straight face? Is the brainwashing really that effective in CA?

As far as mandating mpg requirements, you can't regulate this system and expect any positive results. Auto manufacturers will produce what the public demands, no matter what the governement says. Attempts to force the matter cost everybody in the end. Look around you for proof...

But what YOU arent getting is that increasing oil flow by 10% is FAR more difficult than decreasing demand by 10%.

Yes, increasing supply is just as effective - if you can increase the supply at a reasonable cost. That is simply not the case, especially when you consider the rising consumption rates of oil in the countries of China and India. Not only do you have to increase the production rates to match increasing consumption levels, you have to exceed that by a significant margin to drive down price.

Key word being significant

 

[p5150]

In addition to the questions posted by SC and GTS, what is your solution NOW? That wouldn't significantly affect anything for a few years, minimum. Not too many people could just run out and buy one of your magical 300MPG cars, assuming they were developed.

What I am proposing is not mythical - and do not mock my suggestion with your exaggeration.

Well, I know that NOW I have a car that gets 48 MPG highway and 42 City. I know that there is no excuse as to why vehicles cant get that good of mileage.

So, with that being said, my car, which happens to be a mid-sized 4 door sedan, is nothing special. Its not a hybrid; just a VW TDI. The technology is there and it is not difficult to use.

But, all things equal, I think that increasing the price of fuel is the best way to increase efficiency. Government intervention is not my preferred method of control, but I have a feeling that by the end of this price runup that many of you will wish that Uncle Sam had stepped in and mandated higher fuel efficiency standards much earlier. At least now you would be able to purchase a fuel efficient vehicle at a reasonable price.

 

[Quin]

You ignored my question, what does your solution do for us now? Next five years? In a decade that might be effective enough to make a difference. Drilling now would give us usable oil in a year or two, not ten.

 

[Poodles]

Not to mention that one of the main issues in our consumption is the milage the average American drives each year.

We are not closely packed together like Europe, so we will consume more gas each year than someone in Europe.

Don't give me crap on China as most of China is still in the dark ages.

 

[SupraMario]

Best info yet on hydrocarbons being from the planet, not some "fossil fuel"....

Diagrams.. (To keep it simple..)

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/kitchka/images/fig01.htm

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/kitchka/images/fig02.htm

Here is the article. (Warning, this will make you think, so get ready to read..)
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/kitchka/kitchka.htm

What does this mean?
In short, there is no "Peak Oil" theory, and oil is not from dead dinosarus and plants..

It means people, that the supply of oil might very well be around LONGER than the Humans on this planet... Seriously.

Good post, I've always brought this up to people...If we can create oil in a controlled lab from carbon in less than a few hours, with our artificial pressure, what makes you think that the earth takes millions of years to do the same?

 

[isnms]

You ignored my question, what does your solution do for us now? Next five years? In a decade that might be effective enough to make a difference. Drilling now would give us usable oil in a year or two, not ten.

I asked a similar question and he ignored it also.
That's because there is not another option that will make a [noparse]

[/noparse]

significant[noparse]

[/noparse] impact in the same time frame as drilling for our own natural resources.

And in case you didn't know:

...I have a car that gets 48 MPG...

no one cares

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

What's truly funny is that if we end up with a new energy source, then the left will complain that we have traded one "addiction" for another and still cry over consumption while ignoring what we produce in the meantime. They claim to be "progressive thinkers", but would put us back in the cave to keep from damaging mother earth... This whole thread demonstrates why I tend to dismiss the left as not worthy of discussion.

 

[NeatOman]

The Energy NON-Crisis

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8668319287834598272

I got my 88T to get what i would guess was 25+ city and 30+ highway with light mods... all i know is that i got 400+ miles for every full tank once it touched E mostly city driving with a couple of 0-90mph runs in between :evil2:

Ran Full synthetic, Replacement K&N air filter, shimmed waste gate, and got all the kinks out of the exhaust between the stock cat and stock muffler (no resonator)

 

[Brewster]

The Energy NON-Crisis

That sounds like a big conspiracy theory.

 

[Supracentral]

 

[NeatOman]

Come on... you don't don't even know what a theory is.

I know i got my tin hat on! Reptilian aliens an't gunna gets my brains.

 

[IJ.]

Not to mention that one of the main issues in our consumption is the milage the average American drives each year.

We are not closely packed together like Europe, so we will consume more gas each year than someone in Europe.

Don't give me crap on China as most of China is still in the dark ages.

I wouldn't be too quick to Dismiss China.

In the past 5 years they've bought ALL of the worlds scrap metals driving the price up and as a result new prices are at the highest I can remember.

You have an enormous population that are now making (for them) insane amounts of money and they'll be buying consumer goods and in time cars.

Imagine the impact on demand this is going to have on the Oil producing countries.

As for drilling in the USA it's NOT going to lower prices ever, the only way that will happen is if the Oil is nationalised and sold internally (yeah right.....)

 

[Brewster]

Come on... you don't don't even know what a theory is.

Oh, ok.

I'll just take whatever some random guy says as truth from now on.

 

[Who]

The oil companies already have millions of acres of oil land leases. Why don't they drill there. Price fix that is why. Monopoly's are always bad for the consumers.

 

[7thousandpiecesMGTE]

You guys really think its that far fetched??? Alaska is a massive chunk of land.... it wouldn't surprise me one bit if a lot of what he says is true.

Oh wait, the Government would NEVER lie or manipulate the People to make sure their pockets remain fat. That would be so..... UN-politician like.

Congress has done one thing right which is cutting off sales to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which has been stockpiling (buying off the market, increasing demand) large amounts of oil (about 70,000 barrels a day of the good stuff that is easier to refine) until oil is below 75$ a barrel again. Good idea, but little impact.

But why do we build up reserves to not use them when times get tough? Are we waiting for a nuclear war so all the half mutants that are still alive can drive around with a fucked up, no tooth, one lipped smile on their boiled face???

Why are alternative energy sources such as cold fusion regarded as crackpot science (aka pixie dust)? Why has the DOE reviewed it twice with a negative out come but the US Navy is vigorously exploring it with documented success. Why is there 10 times more money spent on nuclear reactions that we already know works and how it works than the money granted to spend on a new way of producing massive amounts of energy?

Why was this guy poisoned? http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

Why is Waldo hard to find with his red and white candy cane stripped shirt , why did George Carlin have to exit early but the douche bag George W. got an extended stay in the nice house?

I don’t have the answers, but its difficult for me to comprehend why we have been dependant the same type of energy for about hundred years when computer technology has leaped ahead light years of what it had been just 30 years ago...

Rant over. Tin hat on.

Come and get me Captain Picard, your nose will be tasty…..

 

[Brewster]

The oil companies already have millions of acres of oil land leases. Why don't they drill there. Price fix that is why. Monopoly's are always bad for the consumers.

Where are these land leases? How much oil is suspected to be under this land? Is extracting that oil profitable? How do you know they're fixing the price of oil? Which company is a monopoly?

 

[greg88]

Got this in the email today. I thought it was pretty cool.

http://www.drillpelosi.com

Send Nancy Pelosi a drill bit and let her know you support offshore drilling.

I think that demand for oil will remain constant regardless of price. I know that if gas went to $7 tommorrow, plenty of people would still pay.

I have a car running on waste veggie oil. Grease collection companies (Big Grease:biglaugh have started paying restaraunts for used oil. Pretty awful...

 

[ms07s]

Got this in the email today. I thought it was pretty cool.

http://www.drillpelosi.com

Send Nancy Pelosi a drill bit and let her know you support offshore drilling.

I think that demand for oil will remain constant regardless of price. I know that if gas went to $7 tommorrow, plenty of people would still pay.

I have a car running on waste veggie oil. Grease collection companies (Big Grease:biglaugh have started paying restaraunts for used oil. Pretty awful...

I have several old drill bits. I will send her, and my local rep a few.:icon_bigg

 

[Who]

Where are these land leases? How much oil is suspected to be under this land? Is extracting that oil profitable? How do you know they're fixing the price of oil? Which company is a monopoly?

My own government told me so.
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=389&Itemid=1

There isn't one company that is a monopoly. The market makers are the monopolist.

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/beauty_oil_market_5503

:drink1:

 

[Brewster]

My own government told me so.
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=389&Itemid=1

There isn't one company that is a monopoly. The market makers are the monopolist.

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/beauty_oil_market_5503

:drink1:

None of those links answer any of my questions. In fact they bring up new ones.

Coal companies, which are issued leases for 20-year terms, are required, as a result of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 to show that they are diligently developing their leases during the initial lease term. The law was enacted in an effort to end rampant speculation on federal coal as a result of the energy crises of the 1970's.

First, I'd like to say that this law isn't doing any good at the moment considering coal prices have almost mirrored oil prices in how far they've increased.

On to the pdf file: It is full of secondary information and cites almost nothing.

How are these unused acres tallied? How are tracts of land sized and leased? Without knowing the answers to those questions, let's say an oil company leases a 1000 acre tract of land. It drills in one spot because it's the only area of the land that is thought to contain oil. That's probably about 10 acres of the 1000 acres being used. That leaves 990 acres of the lease not producing oil. See where I'm coming from?

How did Mr. Rahall come to the conclusion that the "inactive federal land could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day?"

Does Drilling More Lower Gas Prices? NO

Of course it doesn't. If the oil well doesn't produce any oil it doesn't increase supply. His graph shows the relationship between the number of wells drilled and gas prices. He mentions nothing about how many more barrels of oil these wells produce.

How Much Oil Is Currently Open to Leasing? 79%

This figure refers to "Offshore Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Reserves." I take that to mean that drilling for that oil is not profitable.

The market makers are the monopolist.

Mono refers to "one." Monopoly means that one company has control of the market. "makers are" means you are referring to more than one.