Hoarding is exactly what the government is doing right now by filling the SPR, and frankly it's the best thing that could happen. It drives prices up. High prices encourage demand destruction. They also finance new well development. The hoarded oil gives us a buffer to fall back on once shortages become more prevalent. High prices are what we need in order to adapt to what's coming, and the sooner they happen, the better.
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: Re: Drilling in currently off-limits areas of the US
Plantagenet wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
Conclusion: ANWR would power the US for 43 minutes/day
Assuming all the assumptions you make are correct, 43 minutes a day is about 3% of all US oil consumption.
If the US can meet 3% of our oil needs by developing just one new oil field, and at the same time create good high paying jobs for Americans and generate billions of dollars for the federal treasury through lease sales and subsequent taxes, then why not do it?
It's not just one new oil field, it's the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Why not log all the forests?
Kill all the tigers?
Save nothing for the future?
Add more to global climate change?
Rather a short-sighted, short-term selfish notion, you think? _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Jul 17, 2004 Posts: 480 Location: Amerika (most of the time)
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:45 am Post subject: Re: Drilling in currently off-limits areas of the US
Folks,
I work for Big Oil and there are a couple of unpublicized finds (especially off the coast of California and Florida) that are worth going after. Oil hasn't even really been seriously explored off the coast so I'm probably thinking there are alot more potential plays that I don't know about.
Don't forget that even if Congress lifted all bans today, it would take about a DECADE to get any of that oil to market in this environment. The oil equipment (rigs, workers, etc, etc) are all balls to the walls these days. There is no spare capacity anywhere in the system. _________________ Simon's Law: Everything put together falls apart sooner or later.
I don't think of all the misery, but of all the beauty that still remains.--Anne Frank
Joined: Apr 09, 2007 Posts: 4860 Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject: Re: Drilling in currently off-limits areas of the US
MonteQuest wrote:
Why not log all the forests?
Kill all the tigers?
Save nothing for the future?
Add more to global climate change?
Rather a short-sighted, short-term selfish notion, you think?
No one has suggested any those things except you.
There are no forests in ANWR.
There are no tigers.
The biome in which ANWR sits extends for thousands of kilometers east and west along the Arctic Ocean. It will not be "lost".
Its a simple fact that the footprint of any potential oil development in ANWR would be far far smaller and have a lesser environmental impact then the massively selfish and short-sighted construction of innumerable cookie-cutter housing developments and cheap strip malls and air-conditioned shopping malls and such going on in Sedona and elsewhere around Arizona where you live----
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:22 am Post subject: Re: Drilling in currently off-limits areas of the US
I think as a nation we should drill ANWR, CA, and FL with the understanding that these are to be used as a bridge to a sustainable economy, not to extend business as usual. We are not mentally to that point yet.
Joined: Apr 09, 2007 Posts: 4860 Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: Re: Drilling in currently off-limits areas of the US
gollum wrote:
I think as a nation we should drill ANWR, CA, and FL with the understanding that these are to be used as a bridge to a sustainable economy, not to extend business as usual. We are not mentally to that point yet.
ANWR is next to the Prudhoe Bay oilfield and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). It would be very easy to start up exploration and development in ANWR, put the oil into the TAPS, ship it to the lower 48, and increase the supply of oil available to the US.
However, it isn't going to happen as long as environmentalists scare people with the claims that "forests" and "tigers" would be destroyed by ANWR development.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 3865 Location: Graceland
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:56 pm Post subject: Re: Drilling in currently off-limits areas of the US
gollum wrote:
I think as a nation we should drill ANWR, CA, and FL with the understanding that these are to be used as a bridge to a sustainable economy, not to extend business as usual. We are not mentally to that point yet.
Sort of like we are paying into Social Security with the understanding that the money is being set aside to pay future benefits?
There is no bridge to a sustainable economy that can be built with more oil exploration.
A bridge like you are talking about will be more like one of those rope and plank jobs hastily erected and will be about as well thought out as a riot.
I wish that politicians and the energy industry were enlightened enough to only explore certain regions with the understanding that the resulting discoveries would only be used to transition out of oil, but think about that for a second....you know it's not going to happen. _________________
Joined: May 18, 2006 Posts: 3455 Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: Re: Drilling in currently off-limits areas of the US
Plantagenet wrote:
gollum wrote:
I think as a nation we should drill ANWR, CA, and FL with the understanding that these are to be used as a bridge to a sustainable economy, not to extend business as usual. We are not mentally to that point yet.
ANWR is next to the Prudhoe Bay oilfield and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). It would be very easy to start up exploration and development in ANWR, put the oil into the TAPS, ship it to the lower 48, and increase the supply of oil available to the US.
However, it isn't going to happen as long as environmentalists scare people with the claims that "forests" and "tigers" would be destroyed by ANWR development.
How about "we" log out your pristine forest land - we could use all that old growth timber.
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:35 am Post subject: Re: Drilling in currently off-limits areas of the US
Plantagenet wrote:
however, it isn't going to happen as long as environmentalists scare people with the claims that "forests" and "tigers" would be destroyed by ANWR development.
Why is it that I cannot go backpacking without a guide in the ANWR? The ecosystem there is very fragile. Leave one sheet of tp behind and it will stay intact for how many years?
The more oil we burn the more we increase health and environmental problems. The use of oil has been idiotic.
Joined: Sep 29, 2004 Posts: 2220 Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: Re: Drilling in currently off-limits areas of the US
Regarding ANWAR, I think we are seeing one of the oftentimes discussed consequences of peak oil - it takes oil to produce oil. Bringing oil fields online with cheap oil is one thing, doing it with expensive oil is something else. As more oil gets diverted into the pursuit of new oil, it feeds into the pricing mechanism and drives oil prices even higher. The problem is one of production volume. It's not that there isn't enough oil, it's that it's scattered all over the place. Unlike big fields like Gahwar, these puny reservoirs just don't yield enough once the work is done. In other words, not only is the EROEI low, but the production rate/volume is low. From an economic standpoint, it's oftentimes just not worth it to pursue.
I've noticed that this is something that most people have a very hard time grasping and has to do with the fact that oil is literally the basis currency which all paper currencies are based on. Oils worth is based on it being plentiful. As it becomes less plentiful, at some point, it's value starts to go down because it can't do the job anymore. If you have a machine that requires 20 million barrels a day to run and you can't supply it cheaply at that rate, the machine starts to break down and thus the demand shrinks. Either the oil is cheap or it isn't worth running the machine on it anymore. That's where we are at right now. Our machine (economy) needs cheap oil or it isn't worth running the economy in the same manor. The machine does not exist to consume oil, it exists to provide a standard of living and create "wealth." We control the machine with our behavior. As the machine consumes more wealth than it produces, it becomes obsolete and will be restructured into something else. That probably means a lower standard of living and far less wealth production, but hey, we'll take whatever we can get. _________________ "That's the problem with mercy, kid... It just ain't professional" - Fast Eddie, The Color of Money
Joined: Jun 30, 2005 Posts: 551 Location: northern California
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject: Re: Drilling in currently off-limits areas of the US
Please correct me if this is wrong, but I understand that much of the oil from Prudhoe Bay ended up in Asia, not the U.S. The oil from ANWR probably would too then, as it's more cost-effective to ship it there. If so, the calculations about what percent of U.S consumption might be met is irrelevant---the real calculations need to be what percent of global consumption would be met by sacrificing the last of the environmentally pristine areas. ANWR would be profitable for oil companies, but would do virtually nothing to fuel America. The question of saving such oil for a transition to a sustainable economy was answered when Ronald Reagan took office. The answer was a resounding "NO!" This was re-emphasized by Dick Cheney's "The American way of life is non-negotiable". The "American way of life" has no room for such nonsense as sustainability. As one of my former co-workers responded one day when I asked him why he drove 1/4 mile to work: "It's my American right to use as much gas as I want"... _________________ "And the cost of a thing, it will be remembered, is the amount of life it requires to be exchanged for it, immediately, or in the long run." H.D. Thoreau
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 3865 Location: Graceland
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:57 pm Post subject: Re: Drilling in currently off-limits areas of the US
Plantagenet wrote:
BigTex wrote:
There is no bridge to a sustainable economy that can be built with more oil exploration.
Thats right.
All drilling ANWR does is give the US some more oil, some more high paying jobs, etc. for a few more decades at the most.
It sounds like we are in agreement, then, that it is not a solution, it merely puts off the day or reckoning a little longer.
Would you say it is analogous to a person who has been living beyond their means opening up a new credit card account in order to be able to keep paying their bills? _________________
Joined: Apr 28, 2005 Posts: 3277 Location: West shore Lake Eire, MI, USA
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: Re: Drilling in currently off-limits areas of the US
dunewalker wrote:
Please correct me if this is wrong, but I understand that much of the oil from Prudhoe Bay ended up in Asia, not the U.S. The oil from ANWR probably would too then, as it's more cost-effective to ship it there. If so, the calculations about what percent of U.S consumption might be met is irrelevant---the real calculations need to be what percent of global consumption would be met by sacrificing the last of the environmentally pristine areas. ANWR would be profitable for oil companies, but would do virtually nothing to fuel America. The question of saving such oil for a transition to a sustainable economy was answered when Ronald Reagan took office. The answer was a resounding "NO!" This was re-emphasized by Dick Cheney's "The American way of life is non-negotiable". The "American way of life" has no room for such nonsense as sustainability. As one of my former co-workers responded one day when I asked him why he drove 1/4 mile to work: "It's my American right to use as much gas as I want"...
Actually this is a common repeated statement that doesn't look at very much of the record. During Peak Production from Prudhoe bay the Transalaska pipeline delivered more oil to Valdeze than the West Coast refineries could handle. You have to rememebr there is very little land transfer across the Rockies and associated mountains, the west coast really is like a seperate country in a lot of ways. Rather than produce the fields at a lower rate to meet demand from the West Coast the lease holders produced as fast as they could and shipped the excess to Japan and Korea, who were the next nearest customers to the port of Valdeze.
In fact given that there was an export ban on Alaskan crude directly those products shipped to Japan and Korea were mostly California crude oil displaced by Alaskan oil during the few years when their was an excess supply. _________________ Oxygen: - An intensely habit-forming accumulative toxic substance. As little
as one breath is known to produce a life-long addiction to the gas, which addiction invariably ends in death.--Isaac Asimov
Joined: Apr 09, 2007 Posts: 4860 Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: Drilling in currently off-limits areas of the US
BigTex wrote:
Plantagenet wrote:
BigTex wrote:
There is no bridge to a sustainable economy that can be built with more oil exploration.
Thats right.
All drilling ANWR does is give the US some more oil, some more high paying jobs, etc. for a few more decades at the most.
It sounds like we are in agreement, then, that it is not a solution, it merely puts off the day or reckoning a little longer.
Would you say it is analogous to a person who has been living beyond their means opening up a new credit card account in order to be able to keep paying their bills?
Its a simple situation. There is no need for "analogies" to understand it.
Opening up ANWR would increase the supply of domestic petroleum shipped from Alaska to the west coast of the USA by 1-2 million barrels/day for several decades. Alaska currently supplies the majority of the oil used in Washington and Oregon, and about 20% of California's oil. These numbers would go up significantly if ANWR was opened up by Congress.
Its a historical fact that when Prudhoe Bay was opened it produced oil "gluts" on the west coast, resulting in lower gas prices in the west half of the US for many years.
If people in the western US are concerned about high gas prices, if they want more oil supplies, lower gas prices, high paying jobs, etc. then they should support opening ANWR.
If people in the western US are happy with the status quo, or they are unconcerned about paying higher prices for gas, or if they don't understand that increasing the supply of oil will likely lower prices then they will support the dems in Congress and their law that overrides the people of Alaska and keeps ANWR closed forever.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 3865 Location: Graceland
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:26 am Post subject: Re: Drilling in currently off-limits areas of the US
Plantagenet wrote:
BigTex wrote:
Plantagenet wrote:
BigTex wrote:
There is no bridge to a sustainable economy that can be built with more oil exploration.
Thats right.
All drilling ANWR does is give the US some more oil, some more high paying jobs, etc. for a few more decades at the most.
It sounds like we are in agreement, then, that it is not a solution, it merely puts off the day or reckoning a little longer.
Would you say it is analogous to a person who has been living beyond their means opening up a new credit card account in order to be able to keep paying their bills?
Its a simple situation. There is no need for "analogies" to understand it.
Opening up ANWR would increase the supply of domestic petroleum shipped from Alaska to the west coast of the USA by 1-2 million barrels/day for several decades. Alaska currently supplies the majority of the oil used in Washington and Oregon, and about 20% of California's oil. These numbers would go up significantly if ANWR was opened up by Congress.
Its a historical fact that when Prudhoe Bay was opened it produced oil "gluts" on the west coast, resulting in lower gas prices in the west half of the US for many years.
If people in the western US are concerned about high gas prices, if they want more oil supplies, lower gas prices, high paying jobs, etc. then they should support opening ANWR.
If people in the western US are happy with the status quo, or they are unconcerned about paying higher prices for gas, or if they don't understand that increasing the supply of oil will likely lower prices then they will support the dems in Congress and their law that overrides the people of Alaska and keeps ANWR closed forever.
The analogy was intended to help understand the larger context.
Do you think that our energy related problems are the result of not drilling enough, or a result of the early stages of peak oil?
If the problem is we are not drilling enough, then drilling in ANWR makes perfect sense.
If the problem is peak oil, then drilling in ANWR may cause us to waste precious years wallowing in a false sense of security that there isn't really a resource depletion problem at all. But once we run through the ANWR oil, much like the newest credit card in my analogy, we may find that we are not back where we started, but actually worse off, because we will be several years farther along the peak oil timeline and still will not have given it serious thought because we were too busy sucking on the ANWR tit.
However, if you live in Alaska I can understand why you might have a different perspective, since you would likely benefit personally, where I am looking at it from a state that pretty well cleared out all of its low hanging energy fruit long ago. _________________
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
