Don't know if this has been discussed before......
What do you think?
In short.......there is enough oil reserves in the northern slopes of Alaska to fuel America for the next 200 years at the progressive rate of consumption.
In short.......if the Washington administration cleared all obstacles for the drilling, piping, and refining of these oil reserves immediately.....within a year the price of a gallon of gas at the pump would be $1.50 or less.
In short.......political powers are deceiving the American people and keeping us dependent on foreign oil reserves and thus, price gouging.
" Because of the executive status accorded to him as Chaplain, he was given access to the information that is documented in this book."
That's from an "About the Author" snippet in Williams book on the Energy Non-Crisis.
That alone is enough to blow the whole concept to pieces.
Anything Williams was told by oil company executives because Williams was serving as a chaplain for the Alaska pipeline project workers has all the credibility of a wet noodle.
He was NOT an executive in charge of any phase of the project. He was in a position to influence the workers. Any "data" or "information" about what the project was to mean to consumers in the USA would have been intended solely to keep the workers happy and productive.
I can't imagine he had any access to anything that would or could have cast the slightest doubt on the project.
This man was set up, IF his claim as to his role in the project and with the oil companies is even remotely true, to be a propaganda tool for and by Big Oil.
So, how should you view this book and any claims made by Lindsey Williams about Alaskan oil reserves?
Yeah, I dunno. I have a hard time paying attention to anybody anymore who has somehow stumbled upon hitherto unknown truths and is alone in his knowledge of things of earth-shattering importance - especially when he's someone that noone else in the field has ever heard of.
The word from more mainstream experts for years has been that we've already consumed about 1/2 of the oil reserves in the entire world, and with demand increasing on a geometric scale, the remaining oil will only last us another few decades. Add to that, that the remaining oil is going to be MUCH harder to extract, and the net results aren't too hard to comprehend.
Here's a paper from a few years back that gives a pretty good accounting of what's up with oil supplies:
Sure the oil companies are making extreme profits currently and probably own as many politicians as they do oil leases, but to pretend that we can continue to burn up a commodity - that took eons to produce - in a matter of a few generations, and think that we can go on like that forever is just mindless...
The truth is that 1) we sell around half or more of the oil we have in the U.S. to Asia, 2) there is a lot of oil left in the world, but to get it will become increasingly difficult and expensive, 3) the whole "offshore drilling ban" thing is a political smokescreen because the oil companies already had permits to drill in many places offshore, of which about 60% are not being taken advantage of, and the Department of Energy says that drilling in Alaska will maybe take $0.75 off of a barrel of oil in a few decades. Oh, and the crisis we are going through right now is primarily due to speculators having free reign on the market without the same level of regulation the stock market has and the fact that China and India are increasing in their oil demand, and our oil companies sell U.S. oil to them for a higher price than we pay for OPEC oil, even with the increases we've seen lately.
Yeah, and add to the "drilling" issue that there are NO rigs available to drill with anyway. The currently operational rigs are all booked for the next five years. If we really wanted to vastly increase our offshore drilling, the first thing we'd need to do is manufacture more drilling rigs - not a short term prospect in itself.
But to listen to the McCain camp, we could be increasing our production in a matter of a few MONTHS! Yeah, O.K...
The truth is that 1) we sell around half or more of the oil we have in the U.S. to Asia, 2) there is a lot of oil left in the world, but to get it will become increasingly difficult and expensive, 3) the whole "offshore drilling ban" thing is a political smokescreen because the oil companies already had permits to drill in many places offshore, of which about 60% are not being taken advantage of, and the Department of Energy says that drilling in Alaska will maybe take $0.75 off of a barrel of oil in a few decades. Oh, and the crisis we are going through right now is primarily due to speculators having free reign on the market without the same level of regulation the stock market has and the fact that China and India are increasing in their oil demand, and our oil companies sell U.S. oil to them for a higher price than we pay for OPEC oil, even with the increases we've seen lately.
As T Boone Pickens says, we need to do it all, definitely drill here as soon as possible ...
But I find some of your statements "extremely speculative". Oil might go back to $70, but that doesn't solve all the problems. Let's start on natural gas and nuke plans as well. T Boone likes the wind potential, which has come along faster than I had figured ... do it ALL. And we haven't even started to tap our coal, which is VAST.
I haven't read much on what is actually leased and not being drilled, but my understanding was those not being used are less economically feasible. Do you have some links? Rigs take time, but not forever ... release the hounds .... arf ...
There is just no reason to not open ANWR ... too many Dems WANT higher oil prices, to force us to conserve and transform ... but we are still competing with China and Russia that don't give a darn about carbon credits or polluting with coal, so we are being put at even more disadvantage on the world scene.
Rigs can move around pretty fast too ... I haven't kept up on that issue.
As T Boone Pickens says, we need to do it all, definitely drill here as soon as possible ...
Despite agreeing with some of the things he says, he's first and foremost in this to make money, whether it benefits the country or not.
But I find some of your statements "extremely speculative". Oil might go back to $70, but that doesn't solve all the problems. Let's start on natural gas and nuke plans as well. T Boone likes the wind potential, which has come along faster than I had figured ... do it ALL. And we haven't even started to tap our coal, which is VAST.
I don't know that I speculated on what price oil could go down to, although if you look at what it was prior to Bush taking office, we were paying $24.49 for the refiner acquisition cost in January of 2000. After 9/11, the price dropped, reaching a low in December of 15.95 per barrel. So it is really sad that $70 for a barrel of oil seems cheap in comparison to what it is now. This is why I'm not willing to speculate about what the price could become in the future. However, I am certain that it is a bubble right now.
As far as solving problems, I think you're right. Even if the price went down to Clinton-administration prices, it would be a mistake to go back to our former ways. I hope that these high prices have served as a wake up call to Americans on the importance of protecting ourselves from the downfalls of globalization. As far as coal is concerned, I think it pollutes way too much, and mining for it is extremely dangerous and destructive. Fossil fuels are the way of the past, and we have to move past it. Wind, nuclear, solar, geothermal, tidal, radiant energy, and many other things will come to play in the future. I'm hoping that our nation finds ways to cheaply generate electricity from those sources, and it becomes a boom market for us to export to the rest of the world.
I haven't read much on what is actually leased and not being drilled, but my understanding was those not being used are less economically feasible. Do you have some links? Rigs take time, but not forever ... release the hounds .... arf ...
You're right about them being less economically feasible, but that is a complex thing. Getting to a point where you can obtain oil and send it to a place where it can be sold is a fairly complex thing. I'm in the natural gas business and have worked for Chevron in the past so I have scratched the surface of the topic, but it's something that top engineers and geologists are paid handsome salaries to work on. However, at a high level, you have to first find the oil, which is extremely difficult. Locating oil is not an exact science, and while technology has improved greatly, mistakes are still fairly common. Once you spend lots of money on finding the oil, you have to come up with proposals to get it out of the ground, which is sometimes not possible with current technology. Even when you can, the quality of the oil varies greatly, so if it is not very pure, you'll have to add in the expenses of treating it, and disposing of/selling what you extract from it. There are trace elements and other things we can pull out of the oil and if we can sell it, great, if not, it is another expense. You also have to deal with transportation, which can be complicated and expensive to deal with. For example, my current employer is working on a project to expand our natural gas pipeline, and you are talking about huge amounts of money (think bigger than millions) and decades worth of work, just to increase our capacity of pipe that we already have (we have the right of way already, we're just putting a bigger pipe in near where our smaller pre-existing pipeline is.) The time involved in just obtaining pipe prefabricated can be in the decades, so we've set up our own shop and obtained the raw materials to make our own. We can't wait 15 years for someone to ship us the pipeline we need (which is not an exaggeration, actually.) Anyway, so I don't bore everyone to tears, I will just say that it's an extremely complex topic that my post doesn't do justice. It's extremely complicated.
To answer your question about some links to back up what I've said, I would first suggest reading what the Department of Energy says offshore drilling would gain us, which is to say not much. As to how the oil companies are basically sitting on their permits and refusing to drill, I suggest reading this report from the House Resource Committee, which basically suggests that if they harvested the oil and natural gas from where permits already exist, they could double the output that they have now. I think it's a bit speculative to provide that number, given how much voodoo is involved in actually obtaining oil and gas, but it is worth taking a look at.
There is just no reason to not open ANWR ... too many Dems WANT higher oil prices, to force us to conserve and transform ... but we are still competing with China and Russia that don't give a darn about carbon credits or polluting with coal, so we are being put at even more disadvantage on the world scene.
I think ANWR should be a last resort, because we haven't started drilling in places where the permits have already been issued that are estimated to provide a lot more oil than ANWR can. The truth is that ANWR drilling and offshore drilling is a scam by the Republican party to trick the American people into thinking they have a simple solution to this mess, when reality is much more complicated. As far as Democrats wanting higher oil prices, they too are elected by the people, and I doubt their constituents or them want higher prices. There's no reason why we can't conserve and transform our economy no matter what oil prices are. The Republican party is the one made up of oil men and people in the energy business, as the Bush administration has proven. Bush and Cheneys' close personal ties with Enron executives, the Saudis, and the bin Laden family have proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The past eight years have been the oil barrons' last hurrah, before they have to switch over to wind and other cleaner energies, as they have secretly started to do with their stock portfolios.
Rigs can move around pretty fast too ... I haven't kept up on that issue.
Yeah but if they're already in place being used, why would we move them to another location? It takes time for them to do their jobs, and it takes time to set up all the prerequisites to placing them on site. Again, it's a very, very complex issue.
As multi national companies, these oil giants may be happy to drill where it is easiest, regardless of where it is. But as to protecting from globalization, that seems a good reason to get the drilling going locally.
We can't drill our way out of the problem, but neither can we conserve our way out, or solar panel our way out. Democrats claim it is a Republican smoke screen, but certainly opening drilling stimulates the economy ... as well as decreasing the trade imbalance. Building rigs and refineries would also help.
We have maybe 300 years worth of coal ... that can be pretty clean and help us along, though I think 2000 nuke plants is a better answer. How many nuke plants are being built right now?
I think ALL politicians are the problem ... the all are deferring to their own special interest handlers, so it is all a big smoke screen.
I just pulled $70 out of the air ... if there is a global recession, maybe $40 ... I don't know. But as producing countries start keeping more of their oil, it may become more important to have our own. The argument that it will take 10 or 15 years seems more of an argument for starting on those projects now.
Sure it is complicated, but it has always been complicated, that's why we are happy to have Exxon and Chevron doing such a great job of getting gas into our tanks.
When I was in graduate school (almost three decades ago, now :o ) Prof, Harry Gray from CalTech gave a seminar on advances in solar cells. Some "greenies" in the audience asked him if he thought the US should abandon oil and go to solar power. His reply was "It should be obvious by now that we need everything we can get."
As multi national companies, these oil giants may be happy to drill where it is easiest, regardless of where it is. But as to protecting from globalization, that seems a good reason to get the drilling going locally.
In this case, easiest = cheapest. Drilling offshore is harder, therefore more expensive.
We can't drill our way out of the problem, but neither can we conserve our way out, or solar panel our way out. Democrats claim it is a Republican smoke screen, but certainly opening drilling stimulates the economy ... as well as decreasing the trade imbalance. Building rigs and refineries would also help.
The problem is that drilling will not solve the problem at all. Maybe $0.75 off of a barrel in a few decades, which to me doesn't sound like enough to be worth the effort, considering that we're toast if we don't have a better solution by then.
We have maybe 300 years worth of coal ... that can be pretty clean and help us along, though I think 2000 nuke plants is a better answer. How many nuke plants are being built right now?
I think "clean coal" is nonsense for the most part. Sure, they can capture a lot of the pollution, but the environmental impact of mining for it, as well as the extreme risks and loss of lives, I don't think it's worth it. Would you be willing to die so you can provide coal to the U.S.? I know I wouldn't. As far as nuclear power plants, I don't know how many are in the works, but I know that too is a long process. Nuclear power is a good thing, and in the process of transitioning to other sources of energy, we should look at it closer.
I think ALL politicians are the problem ... the all are deferring to their own special interest handlers, so it is all a big smoke screen.
There is certainly a problem there, but at the same time, the energy industries have sided strongly with the Republicans to a point where the Republicans can't make sound judgment on energy policies. The Democrats are often in the energy industry's hands too, but a little less so. Now if we could harvest all the hot air coming out of Washington, then I think our crisis would easily be solved by wind power. :-) In reality, we need to have the politicians step aside and have the nation's top scientists get together and talk, maybe put it on TV so the rest of America can see, and have them work out some possible solutions. Politics will not solve the energy crisis, but politicians can make things happen once a course is set.
I just pulled $70 out of the air ... if there is a global recession, maybe $40 ... I don't know. But as producing countries start keeping more of their oil, it may become more important to have our own. The argument that it will take 10 or 15 years seems more of an argument for starting on those projects now.
We already sell a huge amount of our oil for exports. I heard it was around half. If that's true, you would think that we could keep more of that, and while the profits of big oil companies would drop, we would have more oil available here. You won't see it though, because that might mean the CEOs of BP and Shell can't buy a new yacht for each day of the year anymore.
Sure it is complicated, but it has always been complicated, that's why we are happy to have Exxon and Chevron doing such a great job of getting gas into our tanks.
Actually they are only part of the equation, and if those companies were out to provide the best quality service to Americans for a fair price, I would agree with you. The oil companies are in collusion, they business is extremely incestuous and politicians are in their pockets. They are out to do one thing and one thing only -- increase their stock price in order to make money for their shareholders. Supplying oil or gasoline is just a part of that. They are trying to take a commodity and turn it into a luxury good. It makes more sense for them to sell the oil to Asia for a higher price than to sell it here out of loyalty to America. If one of the oil companies did take a stand in defense of our nation, they would be slaughtered in the stock market and their top management would all be replaced by shareholders. The system is broken because the dollar comes before our nation and our people.
The problem is that drilling will not solve the problem at all. Maybe $0.75 off of a barrel in a few decades, which to me doesn't sound like enough to be worth the effort, considering that we're toast if we don't have a better solution by then.
That seems a pretty random number ... in the long term, we are globally using more oil, prices will go up. (regardless of whether the current price is a bubble or not) Producing more locally helps our economy and slows the rate of increase as well as secures our US supply.
It doesn't really matter where the US sells its production, since it is a global market. And there is probably no real way to embargo the US. I just heard even during the '73 (?) embargo, US supply actually increased. For now oil movement is a matter of what is most efficient ... revenues end up the same, and in crisis we could secure our own.
I think "clean coal" is nonsense for the most part. Sure, they can capture a lot of the pollution, but the environmental impact of mining for it, as well as the extreme risks and loss of lives, I don't think it's worth it. Would you be willing to die so you can provide coal to the U.S.? I know I wouldn't. As far as nuclear power plants, I don't know how many are in the works, but I know that too is a long process. Nuclear power is a good thing, and in the process of transitioning to other sources of energy, we should look at it closer.
Nuke plants could really help ... coal is OK, every industry loses lives ... people won't do without king crab, just because it is the most dangerous job and people die to put it on their plate. But unless they convert coal to liquid for transportation, I'm thinking nuke plants are better.
They are trying to take a commodity and turn it into a luxury good. It makes more sense for them to sell the oil to Asia for a higher price than to sell it here out of loyalty to America. If one of the oil companies did take a stand in defense of our nation, they would be slaughtered in the stock market and their top management would all be replaced by shareholders. The system is broken because the dollar comes before our nation and our people.
Well, I don't see the oil companies having as much control over price as OPEC. They have to be efficient and make a profit. Of course they are going to make more now with oil so high, but what about all the time oil was around $17?
The price is set globally ... of course they will sell it at market price. I don't know the reasons for some going to Asia while other oil comes here. It seems more about logistics ...
anybody who says we have plenty of oil on our own is dreaming. We all wish we had it. If we had that type of access to oil, we wouldn't send one penny to the mid east. Our economy would be so dominate.
That seems a pretty random number ... in the long term, we are globally using more oil, prices will go up. (regardless of whether the current price is a bubble or not) Producing more locally helps our economy and slows the rate of increase as well as secures our US supply.
The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.
It doesn't really matter where the US sells its production, since it is a global market.
That's not entirely true. It is a global market, but there is no universal price of oil. The U.S. pays less than most other nations, which is part of the reason our prices have gone up. Oil from the U.S. sells for a higher price than oil from OPEC, which is why about half of our oil is sold to Asia instead of using it to help Americans. As more and more controls are taken off of the market, the price will go up.
And there is probably no real way to embargo the US. I just heard even during the '73 (?) embargo, US supply actually increased. For now oil movement is a matter of what is most efficient ... revenues end up the same, and in crisis we could secure our own.
Since the 70's a lot has changed, so it is even harder for OPEC to do something like that now. In our globalized economy, we have created a world where so many other nations have invested in the U.S., they would suffer if we suffer too much. That's why the Saudis and the Chinese, despite deep ideological differences, would never do anything to cause the U.S. economy to collapse despite the fact that they have the ability to easily cause it.
Nuke plants could really help ... coal is OK, every industry loses lives ... people won't do without king crab, just because it is the most dangerous job and people die to put it on their plate. But unless they convert coal to liquid for transportation, I'm thinking nuke plants are better.
I guess we have different standards, but I personally find coal to be unacceptable simply for the mining process. It's too environmentally destructive even if you are ok with the loss of lives.
Well, I don't see the oil companies having as much control over price as OPEC. They have to be efficient and make a profit. Of course they are going to make more now with oil so high, but what about all the time oil was around $17?
The problem is that the oil companies have wealthy middle easterners involved with OPEC as top investors. Americans also have invested heavily in middle eastern nations, particularly places like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc. You have this extremely incestuous relationship between the nations, between the corporations, and between various individuals involved. So much moves around in these industries that everyone knows each other and there is definitely a "good ol' boy" network involving Americans, Saudis, etc. that controls the prices of oil.
Also, you're missing the point I made earlier about them turning oil from a commodity to a luxury good. Basically, by doing less work, they produce less gasoline, which in turn makes the gasoline prices go up because it is more scarce. If you could get paid twice what you are now by doing half of the work, wouldn't you want to take advantage of that?
The price is set globally ... of course they will sell it at market price. I don't know the reasons for some going to Asia while other oil comes here. It seems more about logistics ...
It's a complex market with many different prices. For example in my business, we have ships that bring natural gas over from Africa to us. However, that shipment is fair game until it reaches the port. Often, shipments headed towards us gets turned around, even if it's already in the Gulf of Mexico. The reason is because France or some other nation makes an offer at a higher price, so the company shipping it decides to sell it to them instead of us. It's a simple matter of asking who pays the most.
as well as the extreme risks and loss of lives, I don't think it's worth it. Would you be willing to die so you can provide coal to the U.S.? I know I wouldn't.
It's not about being "willing to die" in order to provide coal for America silly, it's about doing a risky job to be able to provide for ones family. I have done it myself (worked a risky job) when out commercial fishing in the North Pacific or working aboard an ocean class car ferry when crossing the Gulf of Alaska during the winter time. Or, when flying all around western Alaska in small planes, going from Eskimo village to Eskimo village in order to built free housing for them. But I didn't leave home when off to work saying to my wife; "I am going forth and willing to die so that the Eskimos will have nice new homes. Bye bye honey!" But rather; "See ya soon honey, I'll be back with the bacon, and don't worry, God will take care of me"!
People have worked risky jobs since time immemorial. Have you ever watched Deadliest Catch or Ice Road Truckers? No one (at least in this country) makes people become loggers, iron workers, commercial fishermen, merchant mariners, miners, police officers, high rise window cleaners, etc. People simply choose to do those things because they want to make the money they will paid for having done the job. So, that is a silly argument.
You may not choose to work a risky job, and that is fine. But just remember that the oil and gas in your car was provided by some one doing a risky job. The wood in your home, the steel in your car, your barbecue grill, the precious and or semi precious metals in your computer, and possibly your teeth, were provided to you by someone who did a risky job. All of the things we take for granted every single day came to us by way of either a merchant ship, barge, by rail, or by over the road truckers. And so much of it came into being as a product by way of mining, oil drilling then refining, logging, etc. And all of those jobs at their root are dangerous jobs that are manned or "womaned" by people who are doing it to earn money. And they don't take those jobs because they have "an intense desire to provide for the American People", but rather to simply make a good living. To make money, and that's capitalism. We accept the risks because of the potential prize, so, the "danger thing" is a dum bass argument...
I'm not sure why you got all worked up about a small part of my post, but it wasn't even that important of a thing. You've stated the obvious about why people seek employment, but completely missed the point of everything in my post. I don't really feel like restating what I've already said, so I'll leave it at that.
anybody who says we have plenty of oil on our own is dreaming. We all wish we had it. If we had that type of access to oil, we wouldn't send one penny to the mid east. Our economy would be so dominate.
Wonder where a guy like this gets his info
Well where do we get OUR info?
I don't know about that guy at all ... but a very smart guy I knew years ago, traded stocks, had an orange grove ... older guy ... he was very convinced there was a LOT of oil of the coast of FL, and other places.
Perhaps our vast reserves are actually our "strategic reserve"
P-Mosh .. I just meant it is hard to speculate that ANWR would only have that much impact in 20 years, or whatever. There are a lot of assumptions.
If those ships are turning around when they get a higher bid from France, doesn't that verify that it IS a global market? It goes to the high bidder around the globe. That is a market. Of course there are all kinds of grades and refinement capacities that come to play.
I'm not sure about the whole oil family being so united .. Chevron was not too happy with oil at $10. But there is a lot of money, so no doubt there is some collusion.
There were 23.5 deaths in mining for every 100,000 workers in 2002, the BLS said. That was just slightly ahead of agriculture, forestry and fishing, where there were 22.7 deaths for every 100,000 workers. But deaths in mining are still down 22% from the 2001 rate.
Your other points in the post were well made (although I don't necessarily agree with them), but it just seemed to me that the overly dramatic "danger factor" added into it was just a bit of the "usual emotionalism" that commonly accompanies arguments presented by the Anti Development Establishment. Sorry, but the community I am living in is in the heat of a major battle to open/stop a mine and build/not build a road out of this place, and the "emotionalism" accompanying their arguments is so tiring, and to me, dishonest. "Anything to achieve their objectives" ya know. I just think you can say what you want to say without adding that bleeding heart stuff to it, that's all...
Naturally you can bet that I want The Mine and The Road...
Recommended Posts
skyrider
In short.......there is enough oil reserves in the northern slopes of Alaska to fuel America for the next 200 years at the progressive rate of consumption.
In short.......if the Washington administration cleared all obstacles for the drilling, piping, and refining of these oil reserves immediately.....within a year the price of a gallon of gas at the pump would be $1.50 or less.
In short.......political powers are deceiving the American people and keeping us dependent on foreign oil reserves and thus, price gouging.
Is this for real.....???????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Who's Lindsey Williams?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
" Because of the executive status accorded to him as Chaplain, he was given access to the information that is documented in this book."
That's from an "About the Author" snippet in Williams book on the Energy Non-Crisis.
That alone is enough to blow the whole concept to pieces.
Anything Williams was told by oil company executives because Williams was serving as a chaplain for the Alaska pipeline project workers has all the credibility of a wet noodle.
He was NOT an executive in charge of any phase of the project. He was in a position to influence the workers. Any "data" or "information" about what the project was to mean to consumers in the USA would have been intended solely to keep the workers happy and productive.
I can't imagine he had any access to anything that would or could have cast the slightest doubt on the project.
This man was set up, IF his claim as to his role in the project and with the oil companies is even remotely true, to be a propaganda tool for and by Big Oil.
So, how should you view this book and any claims made by Lindsey Williams about Alaskan oil reserves?
You decide.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
.
Who are you?? What are your qualifications for questioning??
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
How sweet of you to notice.
I sooooooooo wonder what kind of sweet remark you initially posted then decided to remove.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Yeah, I dunno. I have a hard time paying attention to anybody anymore who has somehow stumbled upon hitherto unknown truths and is alone in his knowledge of things of earth-shattering importance - especially when he's someone that noone else in the field has ever heard of.
The word from more mainstream experts for years has been that we've already consumed about 1/2 of the oil reserves in the entire world, and with demand increasing on a geometric scale, the remaining oil will only last us another few decades. Add to that, that the remaining oil is going to be MUCH harder to extract, and the net results aren't too hard to comprehend.
Here's a paper from a few years back that gives a pretty good accounting of what's up with oil supplies:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watc...ducConsump.html
Sure the oil companies are making extreme profits currently and probably own as many politicians as they do oil leases, but to pretend that we can continue to burn up a commodity - that took eons to produce - in a matter of a few generations, and think that we can go on like that forever is just mindless...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
The truth is that 1) we sell around half or more of the oil we have in the U.S. to Asia, 2) there is a lot of oil left in the world, but to get it will become increasingly difficult and expensive, 3) the whole "offshore drilling ban" thing is a political smokescreen because the oil companies already had permits to drill in many places offshore, of which about 60% are not being taken advantage of, and the Department of Energy says that drilling in Alaska will maybe take $0.75 off of a barrel of oil in a few decades. Oh, and the crisis we are going through right now is primarily due to speculators having free reign on the market without the same level of regulation the stock market has and the fact that China and India are increasing in their oil demand, and our oil companies sell U.S. oil to them for a higher price than we pay for OPEC oil, even with the increases we've seen lately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Yeah, and add to the "drilling" issue that there are NO rigs available to drill with anyway. The currently operational rigs are all booked for the next five years. If we really wanted to vastly increase our offshore drilling, the first thing we'd need to do is manufacture more drilling rigs - not a short term prospect in itself.
But to listen to the McCain camp, we could be increasing our production in a matter of a few MONTHS! Yeah, O.K...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
As T Boone Pickens says, we need to do it all, definitely drill here as soon as possible ...
But I find some of your statements "extremely speculative".
Oil might go back to $70, but that doesn't solve all the problems. Let's start on natural gas and nuke plans as well. T Boone likes the wind potential, which has come along faster than I had figured ... do it ALL. And we haven't even started to tap our coal, which is VAST.
I haven't read much on what is actually leased and not being drilled, but my understanding was those not being used are less economically feasible. Do you have some links? Rigs take time, but not forever ... release the hounds .... arf ...
There is just no reason to not open ANWR ... too many Dems WANT higher oil prices, to force us to conserve and transform ... but we are still competing with China and Russia that don't give a darn about carbon credits or polluting with coal, so we are being put at even more disadvantage on the world scene.
Rigs can move around pretty fast too ... I haven't kept up on that issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Despite agreeing with some of the things he says, he's first and foremost in this to make money, whether it benefits the country or not.
I don't know that I speculated on what price oil could go down to, although if you look at what it was prior to Bush taking office, we were paying $24.49 for the refiner acquisition cost in January of 2000. After 9/11, the price dropped, reaching a low in December of 15.95 per barrel. So it is really sad that $70 for a barrel of oil seems cheap in comparison to what it is now. This is why I'm not willing to speculate about what the price could become in the future. However, I am certain that it is a bubble right now.
As far as solving problems, I think you're right. Even if the price went down to Clinton-administration prices, it would be a mistake to go back to our former ways. I hope that these high prices have served as a wake up call to Americans on the importance of protecting ourselves from the downfalls of globalization. As far as coal is concerned, I think it pollutes way too much, and mining for it is extremely dangerous and destructive. Fossil fuels are the way of the past, and we have to move past it. Wind, nuclear, solar, geothermal, tidal, radiant energy, and many other things will come to play in the future. I'm hoping that our nation finds ways to cheaply generate electricity from those sources, and it becomes a boom market for us to export to the rest of the world.
You're right about them being less economically feasible, but that is a complex thing. Getting to a point where you can obtain oil and send it to a place where it can be sold is a fairly complex thing. I'm in the natural gas business and have worked for Chevron in the past so I have scratched the surface of the topic, but it's something that top engineers and geologists are paid handsome salaries to work on. However, at a high level, you have to first find the oil, which is extremely difficult. Locating oil is not an exact science, and while technology has improved greatly, mistakes are still fairly common. Once you spend lots of money on finding the oil, you have to come up with proposals to get it out of the ground, which is sometimes not possible with current technology. Even when you can, the quality of the oil varies greatly, so if it is not very pure, you'll have to add in the expenses of treating it, and disposing of/selling what you extract from it. There are trace elements and other things we can pull out of the oil and if we can sell it, great, if not, it is another expense. You also have to deal with transportation, which can be complicated and expensive to deal with. For example, my current employer is working on a project to expand our natural gas pipeline, and you are talking about huge amounts of money (think bigger than millions) and decades worth of work, just to increase our capacity of pipe that we already have (we have the right of way already, we're just putting a bigger pipe in near where our smaller pre-existing pipeline is.) The time involved in just obtaining pipe prefabricated can be in the decades, so we've set up our own shop and obtained the raw materials to make our own. We can't wait 15 years for someone to ship us the pipeline we need (which is not an exaggeration, actually.) Anyway, so I don't bore everyone to tears, I will just say that it's an extremely complex topic that my post doesn't do justice. It's extremely complicated.
To answer your question about some links to back up what I've said, I would first suggest reading what the Department of Energy says offshore drilling would gain us, which is to say not much. As to how the oil companies are basically sitting on their permits and refusing to drill, I suggest reading this report from the House Resource Committee, which basically suggests that if they harvested the oil and natural gas from where permits already exist, they could double the output that they have now. I think it's a bit speculative to provide that number, given how much voodoo is involved in actually obtaining oil and gas, but it is worth taking a look at.
I think ANWR should be a last resort, because we haven't started drilling in places where the permits have already been issued that are estimated to provide a lot more oil than ANWR can. The truth is that ANWR drilling and offshore drilling is a scam by the Republican party to trick the American people into thinking they have a simple solution to this mess, when reality is much more complicated. As far as Democrats wanting higher oil prices, they too are elected by the people, and I doubt their constituents or them want higher prices. There's no reason why we can't conserve and transform our economy no matter what oil prices are. The Republican party is the one made up of oil men and people in the energy business, as the Bush administration has proven. Bush and Cheneys' close personal ties with Enron executives, the Saudis, and the bin Laden family have proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The past eight years have been the oil barrons' last hurrah, before they have to switch over to wind and other cleaner energies, as they have secretly started to do with their stock portfolios.
Yeah but if they're already in place being used, why would we move them to another location? It takes time for them to do their jobs, and it takes time to set up all the prerequisites to placing them on site. Again, it's a very, very complex issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
As multi national companies, these oil giants may be happy to drill where it is easiest, regardless of where it is. But as to protecting from globalization, that seems a good reason to get the drilling going locally.
We can't drill our way out of the problem, but neither can we conserve our way out, or solar panel our way out. Democrats claim it is a Republican smoke screen, but certainly opening drilling stimulates the economy ... as well as decreasing the trade imbalance. Building rigs and refineries would also help.
We have maybe 300 years worth of coal ... that can be pretty clean and help us along, though I think 2000 nuke plants is a better answer. How many nuke plants are being built right now?
I think ALL politicians are the problem ... the all are deferring to their own special interest handlers, so it is all a big smoke screen.
I just pulled $70 out of the air ... if there is a global recession, maybe $40 ... I don't know. But as producing countries start keeping more of their oil, it may become more important to have our own. The argument that it will take 10 or 15 years seems more of an argument for starting on those projects now.
Sure it is complicated, but it has always been complicated, that's why we are happy to have Exxon and Chevron doing such a great job of getting gas into our tanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
When I was in graduate school (almost three decades ago, now :o ) Prof, Harry Gray from CalTech gave a seminar on advances in solar cells. Some "greenies" in the audience asked him if he thought the US should abandon oil and go to solar power. His reply was "It should be obvious by now that we need everything we can get."
Things haven't changed much.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
In this case, easiest = cheapest. Drilling offshore is harder, therefore more expensive.
The problem is that drilling will not solve the problem at all. Maybe $0.75 off of a barrel in a few decades, which to me doesn't sound like enough to be worth the effort, considering that we're toast if we don't have a better solution by then.
I think "clean coal" is nonsense for the most part. Sure, they can capture a lot of the pollution, but the environmental impact of mining for it, as well as the extreme risks and loss of lives, I don't think it's worth it. Would you be willing to die so you can provide coal to the U.S.? I know I wouldn't. As far as nuclear power plants, I don't know how many are in the works, but I know that too is a long process. Nuclear power is a good thing, and in the process of transitioning to other sources of energy, we should look at it closer.
There is certainly a problem there, but at the same time, the energy industries have sided strongly with the Republicans to a point where the Republicans can't make sound judgment on energy policies. The Democrats are often in the energy industry's hands too, but a little less so. Now if we could harvest all the hot air coming out of Washington, then I think our crisis would easily be solved by wind power. :-) In reality, we need to have the politicians step aside and have the nation's top scientists get together and talk, maybe put it on TV so the rest of America can see, and have them work out some possible solutions. Politics will not solve the energy crisis, but politicians can make things happen once a course is set.
We already sell a huge amount of our oil for exports. I heard it was around half. If that's true, you would think that we could keep more of that, and while the profits of big oil companies would drop, we would have more oil available here. You won't see it though, because that might mean the CEOs of BP and Shell can't buy a new yacht for each day of the year anymore.
Actually they are only part of the equation, and if those companies were out to provide the best quality service to Americans for a fair price, I would agree with you. The oil companies are in collusion, they business is extremely incestuous and politicians are in their pockets. They are out to do one thing and one thing only -- increase their stock price in order to make money for their shareholders. Supplying oil or gasoline is just a part of that. They are trying to take a commodity and turn it into a luxury good. It makes more sense for them to sell the oil to Asia for a higher price than to sell it here out of loyalty to America. If one of the oil companies did take a stand in defense of our nation, they would be slaughtered in the stock market and their top management would all be replaced by shareholders. The system is broken because the dollar comes before our nation and our people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
That seems a pretty random number ... in the long term, we are globally using more oil, prices will go up. (regardless of whether the current price is a bubble or not) Producing more locally helps our economy and slows the rate of increase as well as secures our US supply.
It doesn't really matter where the US sells its production, since it is a global market. And there is probably no real way to embargo the US. I just heard even during the '73 (?) embargo, US supply actually increased. For now oil movement is a matter of what is most efficient ... revenues end up the same, and in crisis we could secure our own.
Nuke plants could really help ... coal is OK, every industry loses lives ... people won't do without king crab, just because it is the most dangerous job and people die to put it on their plate. But unless they convert coal to liquid for transportation, I'm thinking nuke plants are better.Well, I don't see the oil companies having as much control over price as OPEC. They have to be efficient and make a profit. Of course they are going to make more now with oil so high, but what about all the time oil was around $17?
The price is set globally ... of course they will sell it at market price. I don't know the reasons for some going to Asia while other oil comes here. It seems more about logistics ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
oil is power.
it fuels countries and helps create super powers.
we are running out of it.
If we weren't we wouldn't be going to war for it.
anybody who says we have plenty of oil on our own is dreaming. We all wish we had it. If we had that type of access to oil, we wouldn't send one penny to the mid east. Our economy would be so dominate.
Wonder where a guy like this gets his info
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
The $0.75 wasn't random at all. It came from the Department of Energy:
That's not entirely true. It is a global market, but there is no universal price of oil. The U.S. pays less than most other nations, which is part of the reason our prices have gone up. Oil from the U.S. sells for a higher price than oil from OPEC, which is why about half of our oil is sold to Asia instead of using it to help Americans. As more and more controls are taken off of the market, the price will go up.
Since the 70's a lot has changed, so it is even harder for OPEC to do something like that now. In our globalized economy, we have created a world where so many other nations have invested in the U.S., they would suffer if we suffer too much. That's why the Saudis and the Chinese, despite deep ideological differences, would never do anything to cause the U.S. economy to collapse despite the fact that they have the ability to easily cause it.
I guess we have different standards, but I personally find coal to be unacceptable simply for the mining process. It's too environmentally destructive even if you are ok with the loss of lives.
The problem is that the oil companies have wealthy middle easterners involved with OPEC as top investors. Americans also have invested heavily in middle eastern nations, particularly places like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc. You have this extremely incestuous relationship between the nations, between the corporations, and between various individuals involved. So much moves around in these industries that everyone knows each other and there is definitely a "good ol' boy" network involving Americans, Saudis, etc. that controls the prices of oil.
Also, you're missing the point I made earlier about them turning oil from a commodity to a luxury good. Basically, by doing less work, they produce less gasoline, which in turn makes the gasoline prices go up because it is more scarce. If you could get paid twice what you are now by doing half of the work, wouldn't you want to take advantage of that?
It's a complex market with many different prices. For example in my business, we have ships that bring natural gas over from Africa to us. However, that shipment is fair game until it reaches the port. Often, shipments headed towards us gets turned around, even if it's already in the Gulf of Mexico. The reason is because France or some other nation makes an offer at a higher price, so the company shipping it decides to sell it to them instead of us. It's a simple matter of asking who pays the most.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
It's not about being "willing to die" in order to provide coal for America silly, it's about doing a risky job to be able to provide for ones family. I have done it myself (worked a risky job) when out commercial fishing in the North Pacific or working aboard an ocean class car ferry when crossing the Gulf of Alaska during the winter time. Or, when flying all around western Alaska in small planes, going from Eskimo village to Eskimo village in order to built free housing for them. But I didn't leave home when off to work saying to my wife; "I am going forth and willing to die so that the Eskimos will have nice new homes. Bye bye honey!" But rather; "See ya soon honey, I'll be back with the bacon, and don't worry, God will take care of me"!
People have worked risky jobs since time immemorial. Have you ever watched Deadliest Catch or Ice Road Truckers? No one (at least in this country) makes people become loggers, iron workers, commercial fishermen, merchant mariners, miners, police officers, high rise window cleaners, etc. People simply choose to do those things because they want to make the money they will paid for having done the job. So, that is a silly argument.
You may not choose to work a risky job, and that is fine. But just remember that the oil and gas in your car was provided by some one doing a risky job. The wood in your home, the steel in your car, your barbecue grill, the precious and or semi precious metals in your computer, and possibly your teeth, were provided to you by someone who did a risky job. All of the things we take for granted every single day came to us by way of either a merchant ship, barge, by rail, or by over the road truckers. And so much of it came into being as a product by way of mining, oil drilling then refining, logging, etc. And all of those jobs at their root are dangerous jobs that are manned or "womaned" by people who are doing it to earn money. And they don't take those jobs because they have "an intense desire to provide for the American People", but rather to simply make a good living. To make money, and that's capitalism. We accept the risks because of the potential prize, so, the "danger thing" is a dum bass argument...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Jonny,
I'm not sure why you got all worked up about a small part of my post, but it wasn't even that important of a thing. You've stated the obvious about why people seek employment, but completely missed the point of everything in my post. I don't really feel like restating what I've already said, so I'll leave it at that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Well where do we get OUR info?
I don't know about that guy at all ... but a very smart guy I knew years ago, traded stocks, had an orange grove ... older guy ... he was very convinced there was a LOT of oil of the coast of FL, and other places.
Perhaps our vast reserves are actually our "strategic reserve"
P-Mosh .. I just meant it is hard to speculate that ANWR would only have that much impact in 20 years, or whatever. There are a lot of assumptions.
If those ships are turning around when they get a higher bid from France, doesn't that verify that it IS a global market? It goes to the high bidder around the globe. That is a market. Of course there are all kinds of grades and refinement capacities that come to play.
I'm not sure about the whole oil family being so united .. Chevron was not too happy with oil at $10. But there is a lot of money, so no doubt there is some collusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Your other points in the post were well made (although I don't necessarily agree with them), but it just seemed to me that the overly dramatic "danger factor" added into it was just a bit of the "usual emotionalism" that commonly accompanies arguments presented by the Anti Development Establishment. Sorry, but the community I am living in is in the heat of a major battle to open/stop a mine and build/not build a road out of this place, and the "emotionalism" accompanying their arguments is so tiring, and to me, dishonest. "Anything to achieve their objectives" ya know. I just think you can say what you want to say without adding that bleeding heart stuff to it, that's all...
Naturally you can bet that I want The Mine and The Road...
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.