Post by: Desertdog on August 06, 2008, 11:47:54 AM
Are they setting themselves up to be multi-billionairs, by investing in the form of energy companies that they are saying we should be using, Or trying to drive us to our knees so the Commies can take over with out firing a shot as one of their leaders said they would, about 40 years ago.
Or, even both of the above.
Post by: Monkeyleg on August 06, 2008, 12:43:06 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on August 06, 2008, 12:44:56 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on August 06, 2008, 03:35:07 PM
Post by: thebaldguy on August 06, 2008, 03:46:07 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 06, 2008, 04:41:37 PM
We need to be thinking about an alternative, but in the meantime definitely use whatever we have!
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 06, 2008, 04:51:12 PM
Are they setting themselves up to be multi-billionairs, by investing in the form of energy companies that they are saying we should be using,
As for Pelosi and the rest, I figure they're just pandering to the enviro-nuts that vote for them. Nothing like putting your own political ambitions above the needs of the country you're supposed to be leading. Sometimes I wonder if they aren't trying to drive the price of oil up higher in an attempt to make the alternatives more economical, but then I listen to them speak and I'm reminded that these people are just too dumb to come up with a scheme like that.
Post by: Balog on August 06, 2008, 05:17:36 PM
Post by: French G. on August 06, 2008, 05:52:23 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on August 06, 2008, 05:58:58 PM
The ultra-libs would like us to become more dependent upon mass transportation. They don't like our freedom of movement. Once you're riding the train or bus, you're told when you will depart, where, and when you will arrive. It's more control.
Post by: taurusowner on August 06, 2008, 07:06:11 PM
Monkeyleg has it right. It's not about the oil. It's about who is in control of how you live you life. Oil is one way you can exercise your free will, thus they are opposed to it.
Post by: quatin on August 08, 2008, 06:24:55 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on August 08, 2008, 06:43:38 PM
The area they're talking about drilling on would take up 2,000 acres. It would be about the size of Dulles airport in DC.
I hardly think that drilling in ANWAR will affect your fishing and hunting trips.
Post by: quatin on August 08, 2008, 07:11:39 PM
Post by: Gowen on August 08, 2008, 07:21:42 PM
We all know the saying, "gun control isn't about guns, it's about control."
The ultra-libs would like us to become more dependent upon mass transportation. They don't like our freedom of movement. Once you're riding the train or bus, you're told when you will depart, where, and when you will arrive. It's more control.
The ultra-libs would like us to become more dependent upon mass transportation. They don't like our freedom of movement. Once you're riding the train or bus, you're told when you will depart, where, and when you will arrive. It's more control.
You win the $64 prize. Key word "control!"
Post by: charby on August 08, 2008, 07:23:58 PM
Quatin, ANWAR is 19,000,000 acres. That's an area about the size of South Carolina.
The area they're talking about drilling on would take up 2,000 acres. It would be about the size of Dulles airport in DC.
I hardly think that drilling in ANWAR will affect your fishing and hunting trips.
The area they're talking about drilling on would take up 2,000 acres. It would be about the size of Dulles airport in DC.
I hardly think that drilling in ANWAR will affect your fishing and hunting trips.
The total is 2000 acres to drill but not in one area. Couple acres here and couple acres there, need road to those acres and pretty soon we have a spider web over 19M acres.
Post by: Monkeyleg on August 08, 2008, 07:59:48 PM
The total is 2000 acres to drill but not in one area. Couple acres here and couple acres there, need road to those acres and pretty soon we have a spider web over 19M acres.
The plan I read was to only run vehicles in the drilling areas when the tundra was frozen. Likewise, the drilling stations would not be operable in the warm months of the year.
We are now witnessing a catastrophe that has been thirty years in the making: the prohibition on further drilling as well as the construction of new nuclear reactors.
The result is that our economy is teetering on the edge of not just a recession, but possibly a depression if other factors come into play.
For those of you who oppose new drilling, I ask you this: what are we to do with our economic mess while we wait for energy miracles?
California recently took a nuclear reactor out of commission and replaced it with solar panels. The reactor generated 90 megawatts; the solar panels generate 5 megawatts. As for windmills, they still don't produce enough energy when measured by the area they consume.
When it comes to nuclear reactors, the European countries are far ahead of us. France gets roughly 80% of its electricity from nuclear. We're down around 5%.
The fastest way to reduce energy costs is to drill; the second fastest is to build nuclear power plants. While we're drilling and building new reactors, we can pursue alternative energy sources.
The US has the third-largest oil reserves of any country in the world, yet we've been sitting on them while the fuse on the powder keg was burning.
Post by: quatin on August 08, 2008, 09:01:19 PM
I thought we needed oil just to drive our cars. I don't believe oil power plants produce much energy for the country, we are more reliant on natural gas and coal. This is not a "the world is coming to an end problem". I don't see why our first impluse is to sacrifice the last wildlife refuge. I can't imagine that Alaska is our last resort, it is just the easiest solution.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 08, 2008, 09:05:39 PM
I thought we needed oil just to drive our cars. I don't believe oil power plants produce much energy for the country, we are more reliant on natural gas and coal. This is not a "the world is coming to an end problem". I don't see why our first impluse is to sacrifice the last wildlife refuge. I can't imagine that Alaska is our last resort, it is just the easiest solution. There are alot of things that depend on oil to produce besides gas and diesel. Plastics being one of the major consumers of petroleum.
Post by: taurusowner on August 09, 2008, 01:04:37 AM
Post by: charby on August 09, 2008, 02:52:07 AM
For those of you who oppose new drilling, I ask you this: what are we to do with our economic mess while we wait for energy miracles?
I don't oppose drilling in ANWR at all, I'd just rather see it as the last place we go. Supposedly we have lots of oil in the Dakotas and off shore. We even have a potential for a lot of oil along the mid continent riff which runs from Lake Superior to to the middle of Kansas. Drill those places first.
-C
Post by: roo_ster on August 09, 2008, 03:13:03 AM
Post by: El Tejon on August 09, 2008, 04:04:02 AM
Quote
On the north shore of ANWR there are no salmon. There are no trees, either.
ANWR is the dark side of the moon. Selfish sandal-clad Leftists who have never left San Fransico are dictating policy--it is pure lunacy. All these people know of Nature is what they have seen in Disney cartoons and what they angry lesbian at the organic grocery store tells them.
Quote
I thought we needed oil just to drive our cars. I don't believe oil power plants produce much energy for the country, we are more reliant on natural gas and coal.
Ummm, no, was the person that taught you that wearing sandals? In typing on your computer you are touching oil. Plastic is all around us and plastic comes from: A) the good intentions of Leftist trust fund kids, B) the farts of unicorns which are used to power windmills and smell like peppermint, C) Oil.
Every been to the Northeast (it's O.K. the Lefty trust fund kids in San Fransico haven't either) on an airplane that uses oil? They heat with oil out there, thus the term "Home Heating Oil".
I would put a drill through a caribou's head to get it started. In 2002 we had a chance to get this started but the Left stopped it. We should not let them stop us again.
If you don't like oil, then go write a big fat check to Tesla Motors to invest in their prototype. Let us big a boatload of nukes and then go get your PhD (no, not in Folklore or interpretative dance like the trust fund kids, but in a hard science) and get to work on Tesla's idea for geothermic engery. BTW, even if we do this, we will still need oil, just not as much.
Post by: charby on August 09, 2008, 04:31:44 AM
Quote
Let us big a boatload of nukes and then go get your PhD
Quote
and what they angry lesbian at the organic grocery store tells them.
Post by: Monkeyleg on August 09, 2008, 04:45:28 AM
Milwaukee's hometown airline, Midwest Express, has had to ground its fleet of MD-80 airliners because they consume the most fuel. They're also the airliners that were used for direct flights from Milwaukee to cities on the east and west coasts, so those direct flights have been eliminated. So have many jobs that went with the flights, such as the mechanics (like my neighbor) who worked on the planes.
The stock market has been having a terrible year because the price of oil has driven up the cost of just about every product, resulting in higher costs and either lower profits and/or reduced sales. That doesn't just affect the companies, it affects the employees as well as those who have stock in those companies directly or through mutual funds. What's been the net loss to those with IRA's, 401(k)'s and other stock-related savings plans this year? We're not talking about just "the rich" here, we're talking about a huge slice of the middle class who have lost money.
The demand isn't going to go away, as China and India increase their already accelerated consumption. We're not likely to see oil below $100 a barrel again. That means that we're going to be suffering this economic pain until we can increase our own production.
From what I've read, we could be pumping oil five years from the time the government gives the green light. Because of bureaucratic red tape, a new nuclear reactor will take ten years. How long will it take to make various alternative fuels mainstream to reduce oil consumption? It won't be in five years, that's for sure.
Aside from economic issues, our strategic interests are affected by the increased demand and our diminished supply. (We've gone from 9 million barrels a day of domestic production thirty years ago to five million today, while demand has tripled). As we remain dependent upon foreign oil, we become hamstrung in the ways that we can deal with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and even the new Iraqi government. Ironically, the "no war for oil" crowd (which has among its ranks many opponents of domestic drilling) doesn't realize that dependence on foreign oil makes war more likely, not less.
The hypocrisy of those who oppose drilling for environmental reasons would be laughable if it weren't so serious. They don't want us drilling on US land for environmental reasons, but seem to have no problem with paying other countries to do the dirty work on their land. (Assuming that there's any environmental affect, which I don't believe).
We should be drilling in North and South Dakota, off the coast of California, off the Florida coast, in the Great Lakes, and anywhere else where there's oil. Opponents of shale oil production say the cost is too great, but the Canadians seem to have found a way to get shale oil at a reasonable price, so let's put that on the table, too.
What I do no understand is why ANWAR is such a big issue. We're talking about a huge area that few people see or ever will see, and a small part of that area to be used for drilling. Can someone please explain why ANWAR is such a hot-button issue?
Post by: El Tejon on August 09, 2008, 06:17:21 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 09, 2008, 06:46:15 AM
Quote
Plastics being one of the major consumers of petroleum.
I thought plastic was the product of petroleum byproducts? The same oil we use to make gasoline is used to make plastic - no?
Post by: quatin on August 09, 2008, 09:12:47 AM
Post by: Monkeyleg on August 09, 2008, 12:44:32 PM
By the way, the projected production form ANWR is 780,000 to 850,000 barrels per day. That's roughly 15% of our current domestic production, and all from one area.
Post by: taurusowner on August 09, 2008, 12:48:43 PM
Post by: quatin on August 09, 2008, 02:47:06 PM
Post by: taurusowner on August 09, 2008, 03:24:15 PM
Post by: RocketMan on August 09, 2008, 05:14:26 PM
Post by: Desertdog on August 09, 2008, 05:38:49 PM
Quote
I thought we needed oil just to drive our cars. I don't believe oil power plants produce much energy for the country, we are more reliant on natural gas and coal.
Have you ever seen a jet fighter or bomber run on anything that didn't come from oil? Or any other piece of military such as tanks, trucks, jeeps, rardar, guided missles, Navy ships, and on and on and on. How does the radar and guided missles use oil? Petroleum is used in the insulation of the wiring, in building the radomes, running the generators in remote areas.What about your cell phones, IPods, calculators? They are all made with oil products.
You stop the oil and you will be back in the stone age in no time. Can you imagine trying to build a house without any oil products. Just look back into history as to how things were before we became a nation with oil and internal combustion engine.
Post by: quatin on August 10, 2008, 05:05:20 PM
Post by: RocketMan on August 10, 2008, 05:17:40 PM
You can make non-petroleum based plastics, there are non-petroleum based jet fuel, there are even non-petroleum based vehicle fuels. Don't tell me we are so dependent on petroleum that when the world supply runs out we're suddenly back into the stone age.
But we cannot make them economically in sufficient quantities at this time. Should we just do without until we can, ten or twelve years down the road?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 10, 2008, 06:00:41 PM
You can make non-petroleum based plastics, there are non-petroleum based jet fuel, there are even non-petroleum based vehicle fuels. Don't tell me we are so dependent on petroleum that when the world supply runs out we're suddenly back into the stone age.
Sure, we could probably get by without natural crude oil. It would be darned difficult, stupidly expensive, send everyone's cost of living way up, it would take a ridiculous amount of time and effort to switch all of the infrastructure over, and it would generally suck for all and sundry. But yes, we could do it.The real question is why on earth would we want to? We have plenty of natural crude in the ground that we would be easier to use, cost much less, and work far better. The only reason we don't use it is that we choose not to. Or rather, some of us force the rest of us not to.
So, why on earth shouldn't we use the oil in ANWR?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 10, 2008, 06:01:56 PM
quatin, do you have a non-emotional reason not to drill in Alaska?
I, too, would like to hear your response to this question.
Post by: RocketMan on August 10, 2008, 06:03:33 PM
quatin, do you have a non-emotional reason not to drill in Alaska?
I, too, would like to hear your response to this question.Me, three.
Post by: quatin on August 10, 2008, 06:10:07 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 10, 2008, 06:12:03 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on August 10, 2008, 06:19:19 PM
He also said that, if the green light were given for drilling in ANWR, oil prices would drop $30 to $35 a barrel almost immediately.
But maybe the guy was just being emotional.
Post by: roo_ster on August 10, 2008, 06:27:17 PM
I expect similar timelines and a little more once the coasts are freed up to drilling.
The pretty part of ANWR is nowhere near the drilling sites. The drilling sites are pestilential mud flats in the summer and frozen hell mud flats in the winter. Even if they went insane and sprayed crude oil at random, they'd be despoiling...mud flats.
I recall an hilarious stunt GWB's interior secretary pulled a while back. She had video & audio taken of the potential ANWR drilling locations taken during winter. Constant, gale-force winds blowing bits of snow about, you guessed it, frozen mud flats. In all directions. Not a single tree, caribou, or tree-hugger to be seen.
Of course, all the eco-weenies cried foul for the obnoxious injection of fact into the debate.
Post by: seeker_two on August 11, 2008, 01:22:51 AM
Quote
I thought we needed oil just to drive our cars. I don't believe oil power plants produce much energy for the country, we are more reliant on natural gas and coal.
Have you ever seen a jet fighter or bomber run on anything that didn't come from oil? Or any other piece of military such as tanks, trucks, jeeps, rardar, guided missles, Navy ships, and on and on and on. How does the radar and guided missles use oil? Petroleum is used in the insulation of the wiring, in building the radomes, running the generators in remote areas.What about your cell phones, IPods, calculators? They are all made with oil products.
You stop the oil and you will be back in the stone age in no time. Can you imagine trying to build a house without any oil products. Just look back into history as to how things were before we became a nation with oil and internal combustion engine.
Don't forget medical supplies....just walk around a doctor's clinic or hospital and note how much equipment is plastic-dependent.....
Post by: grampster on August 11, 2008, 06:42:19 AM
The bases of the oil platforms off S. California are some of the best living reefs, lousy with sea life. I suspect the base of oil rigs in ANWR would make good hunting blinds. That is, if anything lived there that was worth hunting.
Show pictures of ANWR to the leftists and they'll cover their eyes. They have invented mountains and pristine vales full of wild flowers. They do not want their myths shattered.
Post by: K Frame on August 11, 2008, 07:07:47 AM
Lots, actually. New forms of batteries, far more powerful, but smaller, electric motors, computerization that helps increase efficiency, among other things.
But the problems that faced electric cars 100 years ago STILL face automobiles today.
You can only store so much useful energy in a battery.
Fuel cell vehicles could very well be the electric vehicle wave of the future.
Post by: K Frame on August 11, 2008, 07:12:40 AM
No oil for fertilizers, no oil for pesticides, no oil for farm machinery, no oil for transportation.
Oddly enough, the least technologically advanced societies would fare the best in such a situation.
Post by: Jamisjockey on August 11, 2008, 07:17:31 AM
From all the rhetoric from the idiots in Washington about alterative energy and no drilling for oil, I began to think; Why?
Are they setting themselves up to be multi-billionairs, by investing in the form of energy companies that they are saying we should be using, Or trying to drive us to our knees so the Commies can take over with out firing a shot as one of their leaders said they would, about 40 years ago.
Or, even both of the above.
Are they setting themselves up to be multi-billionairs, by investing in the form of energy companies that they are saying we should be using, Or trying to drive us to our knees so the Commies can take over with out firing a shot as one of their leaders said they would, about 40 years ago.
Or, even both of the above.
Ethanol. Plus, its not popular to support big oil....as being "green" is the new religion.
Post by: quatin on August 11, 2008, 08:26:02 AM
Post by: charby on August 11, 2008, 09:15:50 AM
http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/gsbpubs/pdf/RIFS-2006-2.pdf
looks like a lot of deep drilling.
Post by: Mabs2 on August 11, 2008, 09:44:15 AM
Size of the site compared to the 19kk acres and the rest of Alaska.
Picture of the area in the winter.
During the summer.
And a picture from Prudhoe Bay in case you try to say the facility will destroy those few critters' lives.
DISCLAIMER: I do not know how factual these pictures or the information in the email is. Take it as it is: A post on an interweb board.
Post by: roo_ster on August 11, 2008, 10:25:30 AM
You didn't address what I said earlier. If you allow drilling in ANWAR, why not open up drilling in the NPRA? Hey, after all the NPRA was CREATED as our backup Alaska oil reserve.
Why not, indeed? Open it up and if it is economically viable, relative to other alternatives, let 'er rip.Also, our real reserve is not up in Alaska. It is in the oil shale in Colorado, which hte Dems & eco-weenies also are blocking the development of. It would likely become viable at ~$150/bbl oil. With more oil trapped in the shale than Saudi has under its sands.
If you think everything in the country will just stop working and people will start dying off without oil, let's open up the wild life refugees in Texas and Louisiana that has oil first. That will probably take less than 1-3 years to get it started.
Three days.
Until food riots, that is. Because that is what the average grocery stores have on their shelves before their on-hand supply is exhausted. Remove diesel fuel necessary to semi trucks from the equation and you have three days until people are killing each other in our major cities over food.
It goes downhill from there.
Yes, many people will die without oil. People will starve, the economy will go tango uniform, and you'll see massive die off of human populations, and the environment would be devastated as they sought substitutes to keep warm.
Deforestation, the killing of big game herds, untreated sewage dumped into the waterways, chemical spills unattended, and the like are just the beginning.
So, yeah, you'd have to be both a genocidal maniac AND desire the devastation of the environment to want to go petroleum-free. Or just ignorant, if one were to be charitable.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 11, 2008, 10:25:53 AM
You didn't address what I said earlier. If you allow drilling in ANWAR, why not open up drilling in the NPRA? Hey, after all the NPRA was CREATED as our backup Alaska oil reserve. If you think everything in the country will just stop working and people will start dying off without oil, let's open up the wild life refugees in Texas and Louisiana that has oil first. That will probably take less than 1-3 years to get it started.
What's so precious about ANWR that we absolutely must not drill there?Why not drill in ANWR and Louisiana and Texas and the coastal areas and everywhere else? Why should the enviro-wackos be allowed to control drilling in any of these areas?
Post by: Firethorn on August 11, 2008, 11:46:49 AM
Why not drill in ANWR and Louisiana and Texas and the coastal areas and everywhere else? Why should the enviro-wackos be allowed to control drilling in any of these areas?
Good question. Still, pressure against the enviromentalists has grown substantially, and is still growing. I don't see it lasting much longer.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 11, 2008, 11:56:20 AM
Post by: K Frame on August 11, 2008, 12:10:52 PM
Silly boy, didn't you know that:
1 grim warning from 1 environmentalist to 1 Democrat prevents the deaths of 1 billion baby seals?
Post by: K Frame on August 11, 2008, 12:14:29 PM
Cool.
I'm all for opening up Texas, Louisiana, AND Alaska.
Nice side slip on my statement, as well.
I said, very distinctly, if ALL oil were to go 'POOF' tomorrow, all across the world, the results would be quite catastrophic.
I did NOT say that there will be catastrophic results if we don't drill in Alasak.
Although I can see how in your indignation you missed that subtle, yet important, distinction...
Post by: Desertdog on August 11, 2008, 05:02:07 PM
Quote
1 grim warning from 1 environmentalist to 1 Democrat prevents the deaths of 1 billion baby seals?
No way did they prevent the death of 1 billion baby seals. But on the other hand maybe the baby seals grew up and either killed many billions of fish, they slowly starved to death, became polar bear food or so increased the seal herd population that they are all endagered from over population.Conclusion. killing 1 billion baby seals saves many billions of fish and keeps the remaining seal population healthy.
Quote
I'm all for opening up Texas, Louisiana, AND Alaska.
Having lived with a well in my back yard as a kid, I see nothing wrong with putting wells anyplace oil can be found.
Post by: K Frame on August 11, 2008, 05:18:02 PM
You're a BIIMBY...
Build it in my back yard...
Post by: seeker_two on August 11, 2008, 05:23:01 PM
You know what you are, Desertdog?
You're a BIIMBY...
Build it in my back yard...
You're a BIIMBY...
Build it in my back yard...
I'd love to have a nuclear reactor in my backyard.....maybe the plant would be friendly and sell me the depleted uranium to use in my bullet molds.....
Post by: crt360 on August 11, 2008, 09:07:20 PM
You know what you are, Desertdog?
You're a BIIMBY...
Build it in my back yard...
You're a BIIMBY...
Build it in my back yard...
I'd love to have a nuclear reactor in my backyard.....maybe the plant would be friendly and sell me the depleted uranium to use in my bullet molds.....
And the cooling reservoir would be stocked with fast-growing, feisty largemouth for you to catch.
Post by: charby on August 12, 2008, 03:40:21 AM
You know what you are, Desertdog?
You're a BIIMBY...
Build it in my back yard...
You're a BIIMBY...
Build it in my back yard...
I'd love to have a nuclear reactor in my backyard.....maybe the plant would be friendly and sell me the depleted uranium to use in my bullet molds.....
And the cooling reservoir would be stocked with fast-growing, feisty largemouth for you to catch.
They can build one across the street two doors down. I don't like that neighbor and I'd rather have a smelly coal plant there than his damn car stereo.
Post by: GigaBuist on August 12, 2008, 12:26:58 PM
Quote
If we drill 2000 acres now, when will it stop? The next time we have oil shortage why not take another measly 2000 acres and so forth?
If we took another 2,000 acres from ANWR every year to continue drilling expansion it'd take 9500 years to cover it.
Besides, it's not like oil is only available directly below where you put the rig. It sits in large pools, much like water does. You don't need to drop a well every 10 feet if you can just put one big in place.
It's like if you had a milkshake, and I had a milkshake, and my straw could reach across the room... aww forget it.
Post by: seeker_two on August 12, 2008, 12:51:17 PM
You know what you are, Desertdog?
You're a BIIMBY...
Build it in my back yard...
You're a BIIMBY...
Build it in my back yard...
I'd love to have a nuclear reactor in my backyard.....maybe the plant would be friendly and sell me the depleted uranium to use in my bullet molds.....
And the cooling reservoir would be stocked with fast-growing, feisty largemouth for you to catch.
Forget the fish......I want my own fire-breathing lizard that appreciates Japanese food as much as I do.....
Post by: macadore on August 12, 2008, 06:01:01 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on August 12, 2008, 06:06:56 PM
Why arent the oil companies drilling on the land they already have leased?
The leases are for land that the oil companies think may have oil beneath the surface. There may be oil, there may not be oil. There may be oil but it would require drilling though hundreds of feet of rock to get to it.
They're essentially making a bet, and the bookie is the US government.
Post by: Scout26 on August 12, 2008, 06:32:57 PM
Forget the fish......I want my own fire-breathing lizard that appreciates Japanese FOR food as much as I do.....
Fixed it for ya.
Three days.
Until food riots, that is. Because that is what the average grocery stores have on their shelves before their on-hand supply is exhausted. Remove diesel fuel necessary to semi trucks from the equation and you have three days until people are killing each other in our major cities over food.
It goes downhill from there.
Yes, many people will die without oil. People will starve, the economy will go tango uniform, and you'll see massive die off of human populations, and the environment would be devastated as they sought substitutes to keep warm.
Deforestation, the killing of big game herds, untreated sewage dumped into the waterways, chemical spills unattended, and the like are just the beginning.
So, yeah, you'd have to be both a genocidal maniac AND desire the devastation of the environment to want to go petroleum-free. Or just ignorant, if one were to be charitable.
[\quote]
Yep, Long Pork would be on a many a APS'ers menu........
Until food riots, that is. Because that is what the average grocery stores have on their shelves before their on-hand supply is exhausted. Remove diesel fuel necessary to semi trucks from the equation and you have three days until people are killing each other in our major cities over food.
It goes downhill from there.
Yes, many people will die without oil. People will starve, the economy will go tango uniform, and you'll see massive die off of human populations, and the environment would be devastated as they sought substitutes to keep warm.
Deforestation, the killing of big game herds, untreated sewage dumped into the waterways, chemical spills unattended, and the like are just the beginning.
So, yeah, you'd have to be both a genocidal maniac AND desire the devastation of the environment to want to go petroleum-free. Or just ignorant, if one were to be charitable.
[\quote]
Yep, Long Pork would be on a many a APS'ers menu........
Post by: macadore on August 12, 2008, 06:35:11 PM
Quote
The leases are for land that the oil companies think may have oil beneath the surface. There may be oil, there may not be oil. There may be oil but it would require drilling though hundreds of feet of rock to get to it.
How is that different from drilling anywhere else? They dont know any more about the oil under the new leases they want to purchase than they do about the ones they already have. In most places they have to drill through thousands of feet of rock to get to the oil sands. It is cheaper to drill on dry land than it is to drill offshore on in a mudflat. There has to be another reason why they are not drilling the leases they have..
Post by: Desertdog on August 12, 2008, 06:46:23 PM
Quote
There has to be another reason why they are not drilling the leases they have..
I would hazard the guess that they have not serveyed the areas they have, thus they have no idea what is there.
Post by: Gewehr98 on August 13, 2008, 08:38:06 AM
Wrong. From CNN Money, today:
Drill, baby, drill. Drill like there's no friggin' tomorrow.
To (mis)quote Kathie Lee Gifford: "Cody needs a new SUV!"
Post by: K Frame on August 13, 2008, 08:42:13 AM
I think the entire concept is to impact US oil supplies.
Drill and keep it domestic.
Post by: Gewehr98 on August 13, 2008, 08:59:13 AM
Adding ANWR to the domestic sources of crude is still but a drop in the bucket, and is not the manna from heaven many think it is, nor will it alleviate fuel prices in the near term - thanks to industry start-up timing and congressional blundering. We will still be importing prodigious amounts of crude from Jihadistan, for a long time. Same old story - swords rattle, crude prices climb, and so forth. As was mentioned earlier, the easy (and cheap) domestic sources are pretty much already tapped, which makes other venues like oil shale and tar sands an economically viable option again. Hell, even the Air Force is seriously looking at ways to make the coal seams around Minot AFB a usable source of jet fuel for the B-52H and KC-135 fleet.
It's somewhat amusing that folks in my neck of the woods are breathing a sigh of relief that gasoline went down to $3.70/gallon, while forgetting that it was $2.90/gallon as of last December. Will it ever get that low again? I doubt it, but it sure was fun while it lasted.
Post by: K Frame on August 13, 2008, 09:39:50 AM
Just about everything I've seen makes it pretty clear to me that people realize that it's a hedge, a means buffer prices while other methods of energy production are brought on line.
Post by: roo_ster on August 13, 2008, 10:00:55 AM
So, lifting the moratorium on drilling in ANWR & offshore will increase domestic production 1.3 to 2.8million bbl/day from a current 5m bbl/day.
That is a 26%-56% increase in production.
In any other mature industry, increasing the output by that much in that span of time (~2 years, given current time required to go from zero to production) would be considered remarkable, outstanding, and any number of other superlatives.
But when it comes to the oil industry, it is "Ho-hum. Won't have any effect on yada, yada, yada..."
Given that part of the current price of oil is due to speculation on the oil futures market, were the moratoria lifted, I would expect to see the price on crude oil go down. Similar to the way the market reacted to GW's lifting of the executive ban on offshore drilling.
Post by: Scout26 on August 13, 2008, 10:09:53 AM
More supply = lower cost
Less supply = higher cost
Any questions ??
Post by: Racehorse on August 13, 2008, 10:51:50 AM
Why arent the oil companies drilling on the land they already have leased?
From what I understand, it's that the government granted them leases and they know there's oil there, but the government won't let them drill to extract it.
Post by: K Frame on August 13, 2008, 10:54:02 AM
The big question is...
Is it extractable in any feasible manner?
Post by: roo_ster on August 13, 2008, 11:16:39 AM
Quote from: Canard
Why arent the oil companies drilling on the land they already have leased?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102145.html?sub=AR
According to the MMS, there were 7,457 active leases as of June 8. Of those, only 1,877 were classified as "producing." As we pointed out in a previous editorial, the five leases that have made up the Shell Perdido project off Galveston since 1996 are not classified as producing. Only when it starts pumping the equivalent of an estimated 130,000 barrels of oil a day at the end of the decade will it be deemed "active." Since 1996, Shell has paid rent on the leases; filed and had approved numerous reports with the MMS, including an environmentally sensitive resource development plan and an oil spill recovery plan that is subject to unannounced practice runs by the MMS; drilled several wells to explore the area at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars; and started constructing the necessary infrastructure to bring the oil to market. The notion that oil companies are just sitting on oil leases is a myth. With oil prices still above $100 a barrel, that charge never made sense.
Post by: roo_ster on August 13, 2008, 11:22:30 AM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGYyNGYyNWY3NWNmYzRlMzE2ZWZhODNjZWQwNDgzNjc=
McCain Should Link Tsar Putin with Drill, Drill, Drill [Larry Kudlow]
Will John McCain turn Tsar Putins invasion of Georgia into a drill, drill, drill issue? He should. It will throw Democrats even more on the defensive especially Sen. Obama whose weak response to Putins neo-Soviet actions have already put him way behind the eight ball on Russia.
McCains responses have been superb. And President Bush today adopted many of them in particular the warnings on world trade, the G8 (G7?), and a Truman-like airlift of humanitarian assistance relief. Even sending Condi Rice over there and putting SecDef Bob Gates into play.
McCain has been appropriately tough all along. And this Putin ploy will resonate with voters much more than Beltway pundits believe.
But global strategist Thomas Barnett has the energy angle on Russias invasion of Georgia exactly right. He says, Now we all have clarity about the nasty nature of Putins Russia, and this gives us clarity on the need to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He asks: Why would the U.S. want to expose the American economy to the potential risk of being held hostage by a couple of oil pipelines that run through the old Soviet empire? He goes on to say, Its all-of-the-above time, gang domestic drilling, nukes, concentrated solar, deep geothermal, clean coal, and whatever else Silicon Valley and heroic capitalists everywhere can dream up as we conduct a market-driven transition to a post-hydrocarbon economy. (Hat tip to Jimmy Pethokoukis.)
Barnett is exactly right. I simply call it drill, drill, drill total deregulation and decontrol of the great American energy sector. Unleash all manner of energy for an America First energy policy that not only will fuel our economy but will create millions of high-paying jobs in the future.
This is where the Tsar Putin warning should take us this political season. Its another huge Republican opportunity, led by McCain, to merge Obamas naïveté and inexperience on national security with his nutty reliance on the enviromaniacs of the left who still control the Democrats.
I notice the Intrade prediction market, which downgraded the end-the-drilling-ban contract to 40 percent yesterday, has popped up the probability of that contract to 50 percent today. I also notice this mornings Wall Street Journal story that says conservative Republicans in the Senate are not happy with the Gang of 10 drilling compromise. They shouldnt be happy with it. All thats necessary is 41 votes to stop a budget spending bill that is likely to contain another one-year extension of the drilling moratorium. That would mean the moratorium is dead on Oct. 1; it expires Sept. 30. This will be the closest thing to an up-or-down vote on drilling.
Do we really want OPEC, Hugo Chavez, and Tsar Putin to control our energy prices? Or will we be brave enough to seize energy independence?
McCain can really lead on this issue.
"Drill, baby, drill. Drill like there's no friggin' tomorrow." [<--That's about half right--jfruser]
Post by: 41magsnub on August 13, 2008, 11:24:46 AM
Post by: quatin on August 13, 2008, 11:44:29 AM
Quote
Cool.
I'm all for opening up Texas, Louisiana, AND Alaska.
Nice side slip on my statement, as well.
I said, very distinctly, if ALL oil were to go 'POOF' tomorrow, all across the world, the results would be quite catastrophic.
I did NOT say that there will be catastrophic results if we don't drill in Alasak.
Although I can see how in your indignation you missed that subtle, yet important, distinction... rolleyes
I'm all for opening up Texas, Louisiana, AND Alaska.
Nice side slip on my statement, as well.
I said, very distinctly, if ALL oil were to go 'POOF' tomorrow, all across the world, the results would be quite catastrophic.
I did NOT say that there will be catastrophic results if we don't drill in Alasak.
Although I can see how in your indignation you missed that subtle, yet important, distinction... rolleyes
Then what were you addressing with that statement? Were you just adding that to make your post more ominous so when you did talk about Alaska oil we should all be in chicken little mode? Go ahead, start proposing drilling in the wild life preserves first what do the sandle wearing hippies in Ducks Unlimited know.
Post by: K Frame on August 13, 2008, 12:08:59 PM
"You can make non-petroleum based plastics, there are non-petroleum based jet fuel, there are even non-petroleum based vehicle fuels. Don't tell me we are so dependent on petroleum that when the world supply runs out we're suddenly back into the stone age."
Yes, we ARE so dependent on petroleum that if it were to run out tomorrow there would be catastrophic consequences.
Would we revert to the stone age?
Of course not.
We'd revert, SLOWLY, to the coal age.
Whether you like it or not, and more importantly whether you can realize it or not, modern society is tightly woven into petroleum.
Post by: Gewehr98 on August 13, 2008, 09:22:27 PM
Which is why the piddly return from ANWR isn't THE solution - the easy oil in this hemisphere has already been pumped out, so exploration elsewhere is needed to keep us poor petroleum-thirsty bastards slaked until the oil shale, tar sand, coal liquefaction, geothermal, biofuel, wind, solar, tidal surge, nuclear and all the other emerging energy sources can be brought into play. $4.00/gallon is just a taste of things to come, IMHO.
Post by: anygunanywhere on August 14, 2008, 04:29:09 AM
Quote
The leases are for land that the oil companies think may have oil beneath the surface. There may be oil, there may not be oil. There may be oil but it would require drilling though hundreds of feet of rock to get to it.
How is that different from drilling anywhere else? They dont know any more about the oil under the new leases they want to purchase than they do about the ones they already have. In most places they have to drill through thousands of feet of rock to get to the oil sands. It is cheaper to drill on dry land than it is to drill offshore on in a mudflat. There has to be another reason why they are not drilling the leases they have..
Geological/seismic surveys. Oil is not everywhere and some leases do not have any recoverable hydrocarbons.
Oil companies do initial seismic surveys of leases before they buy them. They do not just randomly bid on leases. There are leases available that no company has purchased because there is no oil or natural gas there.
The oil and gas in the leases the oil companies already have might not be as readily accessible as the oil in the areas where drilling is forbidden. Seismic surveys are allowed in areas where drilling is not allowed. The technology is quite advanced but some deposits either just are not accessible with current technology or the platforms are busy not available for years. The deeper the water, the deeper the field, the more sophisticated the rigs must be to recover the oil.
You can bet that Nancy Pelosi is reviewing the seismic surveys of the areas currently under lease. She is probably pointing to the spot right now and telling Exxon where to drill to hit pay dirt.
Quote
There has to be another reason why they are not drilling the leases they have..
I would hazard the guess that they have not serveyed the areas they have, thus they have no idea what is there.Seismic crews are busy searching right now. $100+/bbl oil drives a lot of exploration.
FWIW, I was a doodlebugger after my Navy hitch and my brother works offshore for BP.
Anygunanywhere
Post by: charby on August 14, 2008, 05:02:16 AM