Drilling for Oil in the Bakken formation

[danjarch]

The reason we don't produce enough energy for our own needs where as brazil does can be better seen by the aditudes of the working classes. One of the waitresses I currently work with drives thirty miles to get to work ( Denton to Grapevine to be precise ). I asked her if she couldn't find a job closer to home, there by saving her money and time. She's pretty sure she could but started working at this store when she lived here and doesn't want to change.

We're not talking about a rocket surgeon. This is waiting tables. There isn't much difference between the different restuarants. Few of them offer any kind of benefits to speak of. The one we work at is no exception. So she keeps spending a fair sum of time and money not because there's no work back home but just for comfort.

I dought that goes on in brazil. They're energy demands are also much lower then ours per capita. So energy independence is easier for them to come by now. The interesting comparison will be in twenty years or so. If brazil continues to see increases in per capita income over and above inflation then they could out strip they're ability to provide energy at profitable levels.

This twisted aditude toward energy consumption is nothing new either. I worked with a fellow back in 2000 that drove for an hour and fifteen minutes one way, across Atlanta GA to come to a job that paid $8.50 an hour. When I asked him if he couldn't get a job with in ten minutes of home, his reply was that it would only pay $8 an hour.

Agian not rocket surgery. Stocking selves at a grocery store. After showing him that an extra three hours at the other job would have erased the gains that was costing him 12 to 15 extra hours a week in travel time, Not even including the money for gas. Nothing changed.

Thats why I belive it really boils down to Atitude. When gas price get up and stay up there will see a quick change in peoples preceptions. Right now they ignore the huge waste in time and energy because they don't have to open they're wllets and pay for it. It just slips by another fourty minutes at a time, or another 1.25 gallons of gas at a time. When that becomes $7 to $10 a day, maybe they'll start to think about it a bit more.

[retclt]

Originally Posted by Cruisingdad

Isn't Brazil self-sufficent and runs off of rice or something like that?

Dan made a good point, Most people in Brazil don't have a car. Energy independence is easy that way.

I'm curious about consumption lately. It has to have gone down here. I know I've cut way back. I paid 4.22 for diesel yesterday costing 140 bucks to fill up. Thank God I only live five minutes from work. I hope I don't lose this job any time soon.

Hey Dan, Welcome to Texas. Have you noticed the drilling rigs around your neighborhood? There is one on the airport just past the entrance gate. There's also a new one right in the middle of downtown Ft. Worth.
Sorry to hear you're boatless. Mine is on the hard . . . still working on it. Keel issues and a leaking knot meter this time. I'll get in touch when I'm seaworthy again (soon) and show you Lake Texhoma . . . if CD doesn't first. He has a much nicer boat!

[sailaway21]

However, that is not the case - now is it? We cannot produce enough to meet our needs, we are dependent on a foreign product for our survival (reason enough to get off - no matter the cost), and it IS an exhaustable resource. Drilling is only a stop-gap and not a long term solution.


What evidence do you have for the above statement? We don't even explore many of our most abundant areas for oil since we've banned drilling in them regardless of technology used.

That solar and wind are the future is just wishfull thinking at this point, as it was in the 1970's. Reality is much more likely to be some currently unknown development that offers economical and abundant energy. The fact that we have it already, should the electric car become a reality, in nuclear power goes relatively unremarked. Even the most optimistic thoughts on solar panel development would envision covering, say, the state of Arizona with them to supply Los Angeles alone. And while solar and wind are "renewable" the equipment used for their energy capture is not. Given the amount of equipment necessary to produce any significant amount of energy you're looking at not only a large amount of that equipment but a pretty large replacement cost and maintenance as well. All of which is a long way off, if ever reaching viability.

The allusion to the Iraq war effort is not only not relevant it is disingenuous. If all that was missing from having viable alternative energy was a few trillions of government investmest we'd have surely done so many years ago. In fact, we did so in synfuels research in the 1970's for virtually no return on investment and great cost to the taxpayer. Only one of the reasons Jimmy Carter ranks near the bottom of former presidents, with potential for further slippage. No doubt it must have been a conspiracy of oil companies that put all that research aside. No, it was just cheap oil. Oil that you'll need in any event to make those solar panels and wind turbines. And you'll see relatively cheap oil once again, just like you did throughout the eighties, nineties, and half a decade of the new century. Assuming we drill for it.

I'm hardly against new technology but government mandated and subsidized technology is no substitute for inexpensive power delivered by market forces. If you read those two links I provided you'd see why even now electric is problematic. Start cranking out hundreds of thousands of electric F-150's tomorrow and you're immediately confronted with the fact that you have no way of recharging them. Do you think electruicity grows on trees? Calculate out what a doubling of electrical demand is going to do to our already strapped electrical grid and where the additional watts are going to come from.

In short, Brazil does not translate well to the rest of the world. The ethanol scam is shaping up to be just that. A couple of minor points have eluded the advocates of it. You'll have to cut down most of the forest in the US to plant corn, sugar cane, or switch grass to prioduce enough of it, it takes more energy to produce it than it contains (the electrical shortage again), and you need about twice the gallonage of water to make it as what you produce. And we've got better uses for water than ethanol production. Many states are already strapped for the amounts of fresh water they really desire.

In the meantime, drilling is the only real answer. I happen to think that electricity and battery technologies are the most likely foreseeable replacements and I've no doubt that $4/gallon gas is doing more than any government action to hasten their development. As Dan alludes to, these are all interrelated; Toyota doesn't make a dime on those Prius'es and they're probably loosing money on them. The real question is where did Toyota, a company not noted for making poor business decisions, get all the money to develop the Prius? They didn't get a lot of it by selling Corolla's I can tell you. They got it by selling larger, more value-added trucks and cars, the same way GM manages to do research on such as the Volt concept car.

We can pillory the American consumer all we like for driving big fuel inefficient SUV's but the consumer does so for a reason. We can start producing far more fuel efficient cars tommorow; all of which will get upwards of 50 mpg, if we eliminate vehicle safety standards and eliminate emissions standards. I sthat a trade-off the American consumer wants to make? More importantly, is that a trade-off the American government could sell as worthwhile?

Dan's argument about living in cities is ecologically sound as well as economically. How much are you willing to spend to not live within urban Dallas or Houston? Those will become more and more relevant questions as the cost of energy rises, all energy. (Gas taxes can be so high in Europe because they don't have to drive nearly as much or as far as we in the US do.)

The short answer to all of this is that we can only do what makes sense economically. Currently, that means drilling for oil. Excluding other energy sources would be foolish and uneconmical as well but why would we focus on solar and wind when we already have a safe, reliable, and abundant source of power we do not use, and one that would make your electric car a reality so much sooner? Ignoring nuclear is going to cost us far more than oil currently does. If you want to talk about the costs of the Middle East, don't you find it ironic that one of the largest oil producing country's in the world is proceeding full speed ahead on nuclear power? I'm hardly saying that they have an enlightened energy policy, since they important gasoline, only pointing out the irony.

[Cruisingdad]

[quote=sailaway21;310381]However, that is not the case - now is it? We cannot produce enough to meet our needs, we are dependent on a foreign product for our survival (reason enough to get off - no matter the cost), and it IS an exhaustable resource. Drilling is only a stop-gap and not a long term solution.


What evidence do you have for the above statement? We don't even explore many of our most abundant areas for oil since we've banned drilling in them regardless of technology used.

(refer to your previous stmt)

QUOTE]

Sway, no offense on this thread. It is simply a debate. Ok? I will not get offeneded, and you do not. Fair enough?

You are obviously much more educated on this than I am. I would ask where you received the education? From more than one source and one point of view, I would hope. I would hope that you have also reviewed, in depth and with an open mind, the oppositions point of view before making any final decisions?

Ok, then I will ask you or anyone that can answer the questions as I am, as I have already mentioned before my message, uneducated in the matter:

1) Can the US currently produce sufficient oil to sustain itself?

2) Does the US currently produce sufficient oil to sustain itself?

3) Are we currently dependent on foreign oil for our survival? I do not mean whether you eat or have a house (though that too could be debated) but our economic survival? Our energy survival? Our production survival?

4) Am I wrong to assume there is only so much oil? In essence, is it an exhaustable resource or will there always be oil no matter how much we use?

5) Can we, by putting a pumper in everyones backyard, even with the most unrealisticly high estimates, produce enough to permanently sustain our country? Permanent, not a few years. If so, is this an economically feasible solution?

6) Now, given your answers to the above questions, is drilling for more oil only a stop-gap and short term solution?


Now, to counter your points you have made:

Solar and Wind may just be wishful thinking now... but that may not always be the case. If we always, until the end of time, have a cheap, alternative, clean, relenishable energy source, then yes... why develop them??? It makes no sense. But the market will drive them to better technologies. There are no limit to examples in this statement, from carraiges to automobiles, from horses to tanks, from my old TRS-80 to the laptop I currently type on. The market force will make them better unless we get really cheap oil again.

Where did you come up with covering Arizona to supply LA? I can, on my property, convert to SOLAR ONLY for $35,000. It did not require covering 120 acres. This information and specifics are available at: Solar Electric Systems Ask for Ryan. That is who I have used. That is about all they do. Now, $35,000 is a lot. Is that because of the true cost, or because of supply and demand and economics. Imagine the supply and resources to outfit your home with solar if it was as commonplace as the air conditioning guy or plumber? Also, for non-off the grid applications, you can get by for about $16,000. What you effectively do is run off the city for the high loads (A/C) but put back into the grid with yours. The point of this is not to say that it is an economically great way to go right now. It is expensive. But market dynamics can change that over time. My point is that it CAN be done with todays technology. What will tomorrow yield?

Regarding Iraq I or II, the Korean War, WWII or the conquests of Rome, it is in the interest of every person(s) to stand back and ask the question: Ok, this is what we did. Was it worth it? Would we do it again? Could those resources have been put to better use? This is not an attack on our invasion of that country. I was for it then, and (gulp) still am (no Candian attacks, please). But that surely does not stop me from standing back and constantly questioning what we have done and if it was the right thing or could there have been better options. To not do so is blind arrogance that all of your decisions are right and all future decisions do not depend on past decisions. But this is a debate for another topic.

I do not understand your point about the Prius. I have heard that argument that they do not make any money on them. I guess I should accept a companies stance that they are solely in it for the charity and all green will to mankind. It's just that, something bothers me about that. I guess I should not question them. If they say they don't make money, they don't make money. They just do it for the love of green machines. God bless them. Or maybe, they do make money off of them but calculate it in such a way that it looks like they do not to discourage competition (or other reasons)? Or maybe it is because they see it is the future too and are trying to stay ahead of the curve and have already answered my questions above and came to a similar conclusion? Or maybe - nah, they just like losing money. Yep. They Japanese are like that.

Regarding the next two statements, I live in the country AND I drive a F150. But let me ask you: Can a city survive without the country? The country CAN survive without the city. Contrary to popular urban belief, Kroger and Tom THumb (etc) have not masterd the art of growing those exqusite tomatoes out of fresh air overnight to land at your local grocer. They come... from the country and not the city. You imply that we should leave the country and live in the city? I tell you the cities need the country more than likewise. These guys out here, they have had this land for generations (well before the turn of the 1900s). I have a house sitting right beside me that dates to the 1900s. The town I live in goes back to nearly the mid to early 1800's. They don't need you as bad as you need them. If this coutry dropped into the worst depression it has ever known, someone would have to break it to these guys out here cuz they wouldn't know. They fly an American Flag out front, help out their neighbors, go to church on Sundays and will give you the shirt off their back at a moments notice. I have lived in both and cannot imagine living anywhere else. The quality of life out here is vastly better and a vastly better place to raise a family. Cities suck worse than Sea Rays. That is a tall statement. I am not sure what else to make out of those paragraphs.

Regarding your final paragraph, on that we do disagree for the most part. You seem to feel that by drilling and oil getting cheap, all of our problems are over. I feel that by doing so, we simply put off the inevitable for our kids to solve. I would rather my generation suck it up and get it figured out then hand my kids a country in worse shape than it is. But that's just me... and I don't like Starbucks.

- CD

PS I have no issue with Nuclear.

[artbyjody]

I won't argue anyone else's points - because in all honesty, they are all accurate within some measurable degree.

Instead, think about "Alternative Energy" and where it has been and where it is going, and why it is not a financially viable indulgence for most Americans in general.

From the 70's onward, we have been peppered with "green and freely renewable" energy sources such as solar, wind, and even water turbines. For the most part DIY adoption occurred by those whom lived off the grid to begin with and had no actual option. Solar in general, has been cost prohibitive from its inception.

It is now 2008, and we still are looking for viable solutions? No, its not that we need viable solutions - we need to make them more affordable, but no one addresses that aspect. Instead we lump it all into a major "Global Warming Solution" which means that purchasing is done under guilt and not necessarily under financial worthiness.

Take a look at all the wind farms that litter the CA, OR, and WA landscape. Did you know that such installations typically take well over 20 years to even pay back what the purchase cost originally was. It doesn't take in account either the maintenance aspects and associated costs. In one way - I look at this as a fleecing of America, because if it costs you more to generate electricity - than it produces? But it is the right thing to do because we associate solar and wind with "free energy" - but in reality no such thing.

Same goes with home owners. If it costs you 30K+ and you have to take a loan out for it. Considering if and only if that the average electric bill is $700 a month prior to install - it takes approximately 4 years to see any saving in that respect of the initial base investment - if and only if, the installed solution is able to produce the amount of energy required.

The good news is that solar is coming down in prices. But nearly enough to make it even remotely attractive even with higher oil / fuel costs. The reason being is that these alternate energy companies do not want the prices to go lower, they want the demand higher than number of units as a way of controlling the costs.

The issue really is not that we do not have the technology - we do. More of it would be available to the general public if companies that produce these products stopped working niche markets to guaranteed high profit margins or created such products under standards like NMEA where all can work together regardless of the manufacture.

Try a simple experiment. Look up solar, wind, and water turbines - then try and find price quotes for the products they sell. You can't get them because they do not want competitors to know what they charge and more importantly they want us the customer to think its an elusive emerging product.

[danjarch]

In for a penny in for a pound, oh well here goes

1) Can the US currently produce sufficient oil to sustain itself?
Yes

2) Does the US currently produce sufficient oil to sustain itself?
yes

3) Are we currently dependent on foreign oil for our survival? I do not mean whether you eat or have a house (though that too could be debated) but our economic survival? Our energy survival? Our production survival?
No

Questions 1. 2. and 3. are basically the same, so I'll answer them the same. We produce more then enough power now. In fact we blow off power all the time. Oil can't be looked at idependently of other energy production. A large amount of electricity is still produce from oil. Other uses could be easily converted to electricity if needed. Think of modern trains. They are the original hyprids so to speak. Because of the complexity of transmitting the force generated from they're deisel engines to they're wheels, they generate electricity that then powers motors on they're axles. So all the frieght trains in America could be easily converted to electric fairly quickly.

As to us not having enough electricity. We use way more then we need. If you look around you now you're likly to be sitting under a three to four bulb fixture that could be reduced by on or two bulbs and switched out to Halogen or floresent for a drasticly reduced power consumption. This is before you realise that the recessed lighting in your kitchen is basically blocking out 3/4 of the light its producing. If you went to the hardware store and got an extension so that the light bulb was protruding 3 to 4 inches below the ceiling hieght you could replace 4 bulbs with one for the same realized candle power.

All these bulbs burning also increase the temprature in your house. You then spend more energy trying to cool your house in the summer. How big a deal is this. know one knows how many houses, or offices have installed recessed fixture but if you start looking around you'll notice them every where. Think of your adverage office builing. All those lights mounted flush with the ceiling grid. It's a lot of power.

We still haven't gotten to upping the gauge of wiring which on a standard production house would pay for the costs within 1 to 2 years from the saving in electricity. Nor has it ever been proposed to switch over to 220 volt like europe which is more efficent and wouldn't be overly hard to do. And these types of simple largly cosmetic changes role through every faucet of our life. Requiring only white roofing materials, Lowering speedlimits in towns, Requiring TVs, DVDs, and other apliances to fully shut off. Limiting Pools, Spas, Kio Ponds, and other luxury items including power boats.

4) Am I wrong to assume there is only so much oil? In essence, is it an exhaustable resource or will there always be oil no matter how much we use?

No your not wrong but yes you are. Long before we get to the end of oil. The price for oil will have become so high that we will have long since abandoned it

5) Can we, by putting a pumper in everyones backyard, even with the most unrealisticly high estimates, produce enough to permanently sustain our country? Permanent, not a few years. If so, is this an economically feasible solution?

No and why would we want to. Other people have oil thats easier to get and they want to sale it to us.

6) Now, given your answers to the above questions, is drilling for more oil only a stop-gap and short term solution?

Higher oil and gas prices are going to be around for awhile then the tecnology is going to shift. I would get excited till you see news that Coco Cola is in talks with freightliner to build a fleet of electric trucks, or something to that effect. Big business is far more suited to chaging quickly then the indivigual. A company like Coco Cola is always buying new trucks and could test out battery swapping or hydrogen refueling far more easlily then you or me, and they're going to realize for more gain by switching.

If the government want to help then it would raise the gas taxes and index them to inflation. It could also require it departments to buy so many alternative fueled vehicules. Wouldn't large groups that have mechanics on staff, who could be trained to handle different fuels be more able to bring these adaptations to the population at large.

Of coarse if it goes to far it will shut down the economy. Which takes us back to a more conservative aproach. Wait and see what the market does. If we find our selves in a crisis we can ration electricity or require people to paint they're roofs but things don't seem that bad in comparison. During the energy crisis in California a few years back, a couple of things turned up. Of coarse we all know now that there wasn't any real crisis and it was largly fabricated to raise power bills. Second, before the new energy bill had even been signed, the adverage consumer had cut his use so low that the fabricated crisis disappeared.

[sailaway21]

CD,
Dan has done much to answer the questions you've asked and so I'll deal only with those areas he did not address. Feel free to pillory me in any areas I miss.

Comparing the costs of war to other government uses of money is never a zero sum game. In this case it implies that had the US government started a "Manhattan project" (always the most popular term for a massive government program on a "crisis") on energy we would be a long way towards implementing alternative energy in the US. Wat is usually overlooked in such efforts is that government is thoroughly capable of spending massive amounts of money charging off in the wrong direction. I'd offer cancer research and AIDS research as examples of self-perpetuating government programs that have gotten us exactly nowhere in terms of curing either nor knowing what actually causes either one. Government funding is no substitute for market involvement. As you know in your own industry, there is no substitute for the profit potential in motivating companies to invest in either new technology or new research. And the market is also ruthless at curtailing those efforts when it looks like they lead up a blind alley. Private industry is quite likely to do research and find economically unfeasible results and patent what may be patentable and shut-down until the economic landscape has changed. Each company will make that decision independantly. When you have government involved you'll see featherbedding by companies based merely on government policy. the current ethanol scam is just such an area. Farmers and ADM and GE like it because it fits a need for their products that no one would otherwise buy. For example; the very manufacturers of incadescent light bulbs are in favor of the congressional mandate that will effectively outlaw them. Why? Not because of market forces, I can tell you. they're in favor of the ban because they know that they have an alternative mandated bulb that will cost you more and that the vast majority of consumers will break before it burns out. and it will take some time for the price to go down on those now that government has eliminated their cheaper competition. It'd be similar to Cadillac and M-B's elation should the government mandate that all vehicles must have a minimum 5000lb curb weight; bye bye Ford Focus. War is an amazingly unprofitable business and that's why we reserve it for those circumstances where no alternative exists. A war on energy might easily resemble the other "wars" we are otherwise conducting; the war on drugs, the war on illiteracy, the war on cancer, etc... those wars aren't going so well.

Toyota certainly has an interest in developing and selling the Prius even if they do not make money on them. Aside fom the valuable research knowledge and real world impl;ementation experience gained it does one other thing that is very, very valuable to a car company. It positions them, in the car buying public's eye, as the leader in the alternative fuel vehicle market. That is, not uncoincidently, how they got their start in America in the first place. Alot of Americans bought Corollas many many years ago, in the seventies, for their fuel economy. When fuel became cheaper they stayed with Toyota because they were happy with the quality of the product even though fuel economy was no longer their motivating force. I'm sure they'd like to make money but, in the current market, they cannot price a Prius at the same price-point they can a Lexus.

You conveniently ignore the fact that the rest of the country does not resemble Texas, a mistake frequently made by Texans. (!) You don't have to just solar power your house you've got to solar power enough for my house and all those sailnetters in New England as well. Your back forty is about to get a bit crowded. Solar power has a very limited geographic range of usefulness. Were all the people cruising the Caribbean doing so in New England or the Great Lakes you'd see a radical decline in vessels outfitted with solar power in favor of other sources for battery charging. Wind power is similarly limited. Best case scenarios make them a marginally viable alternative for an adjunct to conventionally supplied electricity. Remember, we're talking about powering a nation here.

I'll not argue the desirability of living in the country and your resources argument carries weight as far as it goes. But we're talking about energy here and it makes little sense from an energy standpoint to have people drive thrity miles to work when they can live in a highrise mere minutes from work. the vast majority of suburbs and rural living is today predicated on cheap gasoline. Likewise the large house so popular of recent. From an energy use standpoint alone we'd all be best off living in climate controlled high rises with no parking facilities and only public transportation available. In point of fact, that's the way we used to live (remember row houses in cities?) leaving the countryonly for those rich enough to commute and the agricultural industries. Most Americans are willing to pay the price in energy to live in the suburbs or the country.

And it's not a question of letting our kids solve the problem. As stated, the high current cost to gasoline will have more than one entrepenuer working nights on something we know little about that will have unforeseen but dramatic effects on how we live tomorrow. The same market forces that make revisiting old unproductive oil fields with new technologies to extract oil previously unrecoverable will also make alternative energies more productive and efficient. I'll say again, blindly focusing on solar and wind while taking little advantage of nuclear power is not only foolish, it's amazingly foolish.

We have not only the oil resources to make ourselves largely independant we also have the electricity resources to make ourselves independant in that regard as well. The irony is that, were every car tomorrow powered by electricity, we do not have the juice to recharge them. If you really want a solution for your kids you might ask why there are so few nukes available for when the next generation, or the one after that, of battery technology arrives. In the meantime, I'll be working on my roof gutter water turbine so my wife can run her blow dryer when it's raining!!! It's going to be big in the PNW but you can have the American southwest territory for a nominal investment, say, that 30K you were talking about?

[sck5]

Actually, Brazil uses sugar cane to produce ethanol - a much better source of it than corn is. Many of their cars (maybe all? I cant remember) are designed to use ethanol and gas interchangably. And it isnt that they dont drive. Brazil is a big country and though they have a lot of poor people they also have a sizable middle class who like cars as much as anybody. They also have some of the most amazing wildlife on the beach in Rio that you ever saw.

[sailaway21]

Jody makes a good point as well. Here in the midwest heating with wood really took off during the last energy crisis. Almost nobody does it anymore because of cheaper oil and natural gas. Besides the fact you've got to go cut wood to make it economically viable. My father in law still heats exclusively with it but then he lives in a pole barn also! Can you do it? Yes you surely can but, for most people, the time spent cutting wood and maintaining a stove does not equal what they could otherwise make at their job and then spend on either home heating oil or natural gas/propane. And the odd house fire, which used to be much more common in houses heated with coal and wood, can happen. As it did to one of the plumbers I work with. He just switched back to natural gas as it was too much hassle for too little savings and a chimney fire at 3 am is a bit more of a scary adventure than he'd like to repeat. You'd laso be amazed at how much wood it takes to heat for a winter in the northern midwest. The latest technology has the wood stove outside, heating a hot water loop that cycles through a hot water storage tank in the basement and then a heat exchanger installed in the forced air heating system. The yard by the wood stove looks alot like the back lot of a modest sawmill.

[sailaway21]

The overwhelming majority of Brazilians live near the coast and a goodly percentage of them live in cities there. You cannot even compare the transportation needs of Brazil to one state, say California, with the US. They're also burning down forest as fast as they can to plant more of that sugar cane. I don't think the US is going to find much to emulate in Brazil that's transferable to the US on any significant scale.