Drilling for Oil in the Bakken formation

[Cruisingdad]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Here's a pretty good article on the matter at hand and how soon we can get things down to a more managable price. Hint: Part of it only took a 20 minute speech by the President.

Mark Hemingway on Oil & Offshore Drilling on National Review Online

I read it.

It is a plethora of opinions and speculation with basically NO facts. 1/2 million barrels of oil... forget that, quadruple it, will not fix the long term issues. Period. THe only thing he said that made a lick of sense was that we need to focus on other things besides oil to fix our long term dependence and he infers that oil is not a long term answer. Duh. Incidentally, good thing he was flown out by Shell (who also believes they should be investing alternative energy) and not Exxon (who vehemently refuses to believe we should do anything but use more oil and it is not an issue) or his party line would not have even included that one sensible statement.

I cannot believe you choose a totally one sided magazine (The National Review) whose writer admitedly was flown by the oil companies, to one specific location, and who selectively chooses an oppostie party's single statement, which suddenly somehow now proves that all the facts are wrong because one democratic senator said if the Saudis just pump another 1/2 million barrels a day, all of our high oil prices will be over. Whatever!!??? It is allways the Saudis fault, or Chavez, or China using too much oil. How about WE are the problem?? WE ARE THE PROBLEM. We have no energy plan because retards like this get flown out and wine'd and dine'd with the oil companies so he starts writing editorials whose sole purpose is to convince weak minded or uneducated people otherwise.

We burn between 7.6 and over 12 BILLION barrels/year. Exactly what is 500,000 barrels going to do again? Drop the price some. Yippi!

Oil is a bubble likely driven up by speculators. If your sole purpose is to reduce the price of it, and not fix the underlying issues, then by all means... drill, drill, drill. Pressure the Saudis. Threaten Venezuela. Invade Iran. Drill in everyones backyard. It will be awesome for about 2 years until we really are out.

But if somewhere in there you actually give a toot about this country's future, and not your personal pocket book, then get us off and quit making the matter worse.

For heavens sake, Sway, do some of your own research Man. Don't believe it just because the review said it was so. Go places that are not (hopefully) party affiliated or special interest affiliated and just do some basic math. Go somewhere the oil companies are NOT footing the bill. It does not add up.

Which part of 12,000,000,000-7,6000,000,000 (USA Annual Burn Rate) compared to 500,000 don't you understand?

- CD

PS What makes you think WE get the 500,000 from the Saudis?? Eh? That will just be what goes on the world market. 500,000 in the world market is really rediculous.

[camaraderie]

CD...ummm...the 500k barrels PER DAY equals 133 million barrels a year. Not a drop in the bucket nor an overwhelming amount. It is ALSO 17 BILLION dollars not being transferred to our "friends" in the mid east or Venezuela.

[Cruisingdad]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

CD...ummm...the 500k barrels PER DAY equals 133 million barrels a year. Not a drop in the bucket nor an overwhelming amount. It is ALSO 17 BILLION dollars not being transferred to our "friends" in the mid east or Venezuela.

133 million barrels.... to the WORLD MARKET... they do not earmark it out of the sands for the United States. It is a drop in the bucket. Even if they did earmark it, it is 133 million obarrels when we use many BILLIONS.

[sailaway21]

Dock Monitor,
We have an energy policy. We have a food and agriculture policy. We have even a transportation policy. They are all the same policy. That policy is capatalism. to the extent that government gets involved in any of those fields with it's own "policy" it tends to distort capatalism and we have things happen via the law of unintended consequences-like $4/gal. gasoline.

Within your diatribe it is notable that you have no refutation for the apparent fact that crude has dropped some $15 in price just based upon a speech. In fact, regardless of sources used, you have no refutation for the fact that as far as the eye can see, we're going to need oil. I've read all the chicken little stuff and I don't cite it here because it's the same hogwash that was published in the 1970's.

It matters far less to me than to you that the government do something. The market will do something even as it is doing so now. All I, and like-minded rational people, want is for the government to get out of the way so the market can solve this problem.

For the record, WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM! You are taking the prototypical socialist, enviromentalist, anti-growth line that the far left has always taken and has always been refuted by history. WE are the economic engine of the world. WE are what makes the world go round. WE have a state in California whose GDP is greater than all of China. WE are where nuclear power was invented. And WE are where the long term solutions will be found. And they will be found by capitalist forces, not government subsidy or mandate.

Your, sort of, espoused vision is what has given us ethanol. And believe me, we'll be pumping usable oil out of ANWR and off our coasts before switchgrass finds it's way into more than 1% of American gas tanks.

You, sir are the one with your head in the sand. You do not have one single energy idea that will provide measurable BTU's anywhere in the near future. Your apparent "plan" calls for the lights going off all over America and it'll work. It'll work because when the American economy grinds to a halt the rest of the world's economies are going to crash in a wat that will make the 1930's look like winning the lottery.

I don't know what you're thinking but I do have to ask how you'd get out to an oil rig? To whom would you go if you really wanted to learn something about the oil industry? Me, I'd probably find somebody who was in, or had been in, the oil industry. Apparently you are more inclined to believe Mother Jones than the American Petroleum Institute. That logic will have AMTRACK re-rigging your boat.

You were apparently too busy to read the USAToday article cited and unpersuaded by the following statement by Mr. Hemingway in NRO:

"It’s also worth noting that existing oil production in America is declining, particularly in the Gulf Coast. The long-term path to energy independence can’t focus exclusively on offshore drilling at the expense of other forms of energy and new technologies."

And the concluding statement seems to particularly chap your butt,

"Saying offshore drilling won’t bring down gas prices is demonstrably wrong. The price of gas dropped significantly upon Bush’s word that more domestic offshore drilling was one small step closer to becoming a reality. How much more will it drop if we actually start drilling and producing oil?"

I can only conclude that you are quite probably a socialist and unwilling to either let, or trust, the market to do what is necessary. That that self-same market is what has provided you with an oil-based boat and the wherewithal to afford it apparently leaves you unmoved. Energy diversification is happening and there are going to be a lot of fits and starts. Many ideas and companies will fail for every one that succeeds. But the idea that we wouldn't eat the corn on the shelf because there's a limited supply and should, instead, drive 100 miles to buy expensive and unreliable beans is ludicrous.

We got into this pickle because of broad brush actions by our government with no clear eye for the future. And since I have been following the oil industry for years, and not just perusing the latest gadgets in Popular Science, I can tell you that the oil companies would not have been drilling offshore until recently anyway, even were it not banned by Congress. There wasn't any money to be made at it, sort of like the Solar industry for most of it's life to date.

The coffee's brewing, lean over and take a sniff!

[sailaway21]

In a calmer vein. Pour a cup of coffee, watch this, take two aspirin, and call me in the morning! Capital Reach - Windows Media Player

There is much in it that you will find agreeable, comporting with your general views. It's also a fairly objective look at our situation. It's worth every bit of time you spent on the link I gave you, so long ago, that said the sky was falling. (g)

[sailaway21]

Yet another article supporting drilling as a way to reduce the cost of oil. the relevant parts here:

First, the price of oil. Simply put, oil is so expensive because worldwide demand is rising faster than supply. The answer is to increase supply and, if possible, trim demand. Yet the Democratic leadership in Congress has proposed three methods for reducing the price of oil: 1) regulate speculators; 2) force oil companies to drill on land they already lease; 3) tax oil producers.

Not one of these ideas would increase supply or reduce demand. And the Democrats in Congress know this because experts testifying before their committees have told them. The chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission testified last week that there was no evidence speculators were significantly driving up the price of oil. They ignored him.

Economists have filled the pages of the Wall Street Journal and other financial publications with commentary explaining that drilling for more oil will reduce current oil prices even if not a drop is pumped for a decade. It's basic supply and demand. The value of a barrel of oil today will drop if investors think it will be worth less in the future. Democrats in Congress stare blankly and demand the heads of "Wall Street speculators."

As for the 68 million acres Democrats accuse oil companies of deliberately leaving undrilled so they can keep prices high, there isn't a single shred of evidence to support the theory. On the contrary, oil companies don't drill in those leases for three main reasons: 1) the oil underneath is already being tapped from a nearby lease; 2) the land was leased to protect a tapped well from competitors; 3) there's no oil there. Democrats literally would force oil companies to drill where there is no oil. And meanwhile they continue to forbid drilling in areas known to contain vast reserves

Just another issue in the cornucopia of Democrat meddling with citizens and capitalism. The American Spectator

[sailaway21]

Heard this one on the radio today, Dennis Miller's program, and about busted a gut. A caller, who happens to be a nuclear engineer, called in with an answer to those who say we need something like a Manhattan Project for our energy policy. He said, "we already have one, they called it the Manhattan Project".

[camaraderie]

OK SWAY....YOU OWE ME ONE!!!
I sat there for over an hour listening to that AEI tripe. 3/4 of the time they were saying how bad alternate stuff was for GLOBAL WARMING and CARBON REDUCTION. WHO CARES??? Global Warming by MAN is a farce and a put up job.
Where was the intense discussion of the nuclear alternative??? It only came up in Q&A. How much is T-Bone paying this guy for his natural gas bias??!!
They did manage to get the whole wind/solar/bio scam right. Batteries are the key and they don't exist. Nor do price competitive alternative energy sources.
Anyway...I am now calling in your debt and you are sentenced to watch THIS!

[camaraderie]

From Forbes: The Carbon Curtain - Forbes.com
"In developing countries the political survival of the people at the top depends on providing affordable fuel for kitchens, farms, fertilizer plants, steel mills, highways and power plants. Oil and coal are the only practical fuels at hand.
Not by coincidence, the carbon curtain tracks a schism between stagnation and growth. The lethargy side includes the American Northeast and upper Midwest, the European Union, Japan and eastern Canada. The high-growth states, provinces and nations are the ones embracing the development of domestic fuels, the construction of power plants and transmission lines, the import of fuels and technologies needed for enterprise and economic growth and the export of fuels and technologies to like-minded partners. They have nothing against energy efficiency and renewables; they just don't focus on them much.
Uranium is the only carbon-free fuel liked by fast-growing nations. Some 439 nuclear power plants are currently operating in 31 countries. China plans to build another 100 for itself in the next 20 years. By 2020 or so a new reactor will be starting up somewhere in the world every five to six days, compared with one every 17 days in the 1980s. China is building coal and nuclear plants in Pakistan, and Russia in Iran, Bulgaria and India."



******** I'm less concerned with the Carbon issue than many, and more concerned with the value of the dollar and our own economy, but why would we put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage vs. our chief global competition? ********

[sailaway21]

Here's what ANWR actually looks like in size and pictorial reality. You'll find no better illustration of the reality of the drilling proposed. Great photos and a damn good truth detector.
Porter County Politics: Pictures of ANWR - to make the case for drilling